Lords Sitting of 26 February 1986

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

Civil Defence: Local Authority Plans
Lord Renton: 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 to what extent local authorities in England and Wales, and in Scotland, are carrying out their responsibilities under the Civil Defence Regulations 1983.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we know that there is a wide variation in performance. An assessment is in hand of plans made under the 1983 regulations by local authorities in Great Britain.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him what is going to be done about those local authorities which have not yet submitted plans under the statutory obligation that they should have observed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, officials have now written to those authorities which have failed to submit plans as requested, making it clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State now requires copies of their plans and that if they are not forthcoming we will consider withholding civil defence grant.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, what sanctions does my noble friend's right honourable friend have in the event that people do not respond?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that I gave the answer to that just now to my noble friend when I said that my right honourable friend could require the withholding of civil defence grant. It is important that we have as full information as possible about the state of preparedness throughout the country. The Government are determined to ensure that all local authorities meet their obligations under the regulations and we shall take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the Government are so determined, is it not plain that some much more effective sanction than the mere withholding of the defence grant will be required? What more effective sanctions have the Government in mind?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that it is important to complete the assessment first. We will bear in mind the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does this apply to authorities that have declared themselves nuclear-free zones?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it applies to all authorities.

Sadler's Wells Theatre: Funding
2.40 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: 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 the latest developments are concerning the future of Sadler's Wells Theatre.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Arts Council are discussing with the theatre ways in which the Greater London Council's contribution to its funding can be replaced. The council has already agreed to increase its funding of the three main dance companies which use Sadler's Wells, in order that they can pay full economic rents to the theatre. My right honourable friend hopes and believes that this, together with the money that the theatre has raised, and is continuing to raise from other sources, will enable the theatre to remain open.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that encouraging reply and express appreciation of what is being done; but may I also be churlish enough to point out that this amount does not look like being enough? Would the Minister not agree that, for a theatre of such renown as Sadler's Wells, some more permanent, steady and stable funding is required than these comparatively makeshift manoeuvres?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether this was enough. This of course is a matter between the Arts Council and the theatre; but I think I ought to point out that the sum of £267,000, which I understand the theatre says that it is seeking for the next financial year, includes £50,000 for a new studio theatre which is not yet complete, and a further £53,000 which would be needed to replace the loss of a major sponsor. The GLC's grant to the theatre for this year is £150,000. So far as concerns the long-term future, this and ways in which the theatre can raise its finances is a matter for the Arts Council.
Lord Alport: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that, whatever may be the funds that are becoming available from the Arts Council and from private sources, and whatever the theatre is able to raise for itself, the Government undertake that the Sadler's Wells theatre, which is a most important element in the theatre and artistic life of London, will remain open and active during the period ahead?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I made absolutely clear on the last occasion when we discussed this matter that if anything of that kind were to befall Sadler's Wells no one would be more dismayed than the Government. If

1043
I may say so, I think that we have made a generous allocation available to the Arts Council for post-abolition funding. It is clear from my original Answer that the Arts Council are now moving in the direction of making more funding available to the theatre and I think that the negotiations therefore are hopeful.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, even with the amount that has been given by the Arts Council, is it not true that Sadler's Wells will only be secure until 12th July of this year? Does the noble Lord also appreciate that if Sadler's Wells has to close down, the theatre will be liable to repay the residuary body which is replacing the GLC the sum of £502,000 which has already been spent on building the new studio, and that if this comes about it will bring Sadler's Wells to irretrievable ruin?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that we should talk about irretrievable ruin. The original Answer that I have given points in precisely the opposite direction. Regarding repayments to the London residuary body, I must confess that I am not in any way aware that that could be the position if the hypothetical situation which the noble Baroness puts to me were to occur. But I repeat that I think the situation is hopeful.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Islington Borough Council, which is the successor authority, has refused all help to Sadler's Wells; and, if this is so, whether the Government foresaw this as one of the consequences of abolition of the GLC?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I understand it, Islington Borough Council, which will have a grant of £11 million more than it has for the present financial year in order to cope with its post-abolition responsibilities, is maintaining a policy of masterly inactivity.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Sadler's Wells will still be available for the Chinese Dance Company when they come over in the autumn in connection with the state visit to the Republic of China?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, arrangements for that visit are proceeding.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since the noble Lord has chosen to cast an aspersion on Islington local authority, will he not agree that one of the consequences of abolishing an all-London authority is to place upon borough authorities responsibilities which they are ill-fitted to assume? Is it not the case that if Islington were to fund to the extent which has been suggested it would probably be in trouble with the auditor, because it would be said that only a very small proportion of the audience at Sadler's Wells actually comes from Islington? So the Government hit it both ways: they are critical if it fails to fund and they shoot it down in flames if it does.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in addition to an additional £11 million which Islington Borough
1044
Council has in order to fulfil its post-abolition funding, it is of course relieved of precepts for arts matters in Greater London. Therefore Islington is benefiting in two ways financially from the abolition of the GLC. I can only repeat that so far as I can see the local authority is adopting a policy of masterly inactivity. As to whether that means it is fitted or ill-fitted to fulfil its responsibilities, I think the House had better judge.

Nuclear Weapons: Soviet Proposals
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 have completed their study of Mr. Gorbachev's proposals to free the world of nuclear weapons within the next 15 years, and, if so, whether they consider that they provide an opportunity to rid humanity of the fear of nuclear disaster.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords. Mr. Gorbachev's proposals are still under examination. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be replying to him shortly.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that it is somewhat urgent that the Prime Minister should now do so? Is the Minister aware that Mr. Gorbachev in his speech yesterday seemed to be deeply depressed by President Reagan's response in so far as there has been one, from his point of view? He said, as I understand from the press notices, that Western politicians will have to answer the question: are they prepared to part with nuclear weapons at all? Is it not the case that the suspicion is arising that so far as the West is concerned there are no circumstances in which they would be prepared to part with nuclear weapons? If that is the case, is it not understandable that Mr. Gorbachev is becoming a little depressed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was not able to listen to all Mr. Gorbachev's speech yesterday but I understand that the Russians have indicated they would prefer a substantive rather than a quick reply to their recent communication. Of course we have to consult thoroughly with our allies, and I expect that my right honourable friend will be in a position to reply soon.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely this is a most reckless proposal by Mr. Gorbachev. It is the non-nuclear powers which have been practically continuously at war. The nuclear powers have enjoyed an interval free from nuclear conflict for 40 years. That is unprecedented. Surely this is not the stage to so recklessly down-price the cost of war.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is of course the case that our nuclear deterrent has kept the peace, in Europe at least, since the Second World War. That is the situation which is sometimes lost on those opposite.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Minister agree that that is just not the case—neither what he has

1045
said nor what the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has said? Tens of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese were slain during the Vietnam War, and America had the hydrogen bomb. Also, during the time when we supported the United Nations, when we lost something like 20,000 soldiers, we possessed nuclear weapons. It is quite wrong to say this sort of thing. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that there are proposals made now by Mr. Gorbachev in which he has acknowledged that he can agree on many things with President Reagan and on many things with the West? Does not the noble Minister agree that we might be talking about the future of all mankind and that we ought not to dismiss with an absurd, so-called hilarious answer—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Molloy:—a speech made by the Leader of the Soviet Union? We should acknowledge that just as much as we would acknowledge a speech made by President Reagan.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we do acknowledge that there are some new elements in Mr. Gorbachev's proposals, but there are also some ambiguities and inconsistencies and some familiar difficulties. They will all need careful study.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is it not the case that it is not Mr. Gorbachev who should be depressed but the people of the Soviet Union? After a five-hour speech from Mr. Gorbachev, no hope has been offered to them for alleviating the burdens under which they suffer, including self-imposed isolation from the rest of the world.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that was a thought which had occurred to me, but I suspect that it strays a little far from the Question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, given the importance of the British and French independent deterrents in the nuclear disarmament debate, what has been the nature of the participation by the British Government in the discussions between the super powers? Are we invited to comment, and what do we say?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the United States consults very closely with its Western allies in connection with the various bilateral discussions it is having with the Soviet Union. In regard to Mr. Gorbachev's letter to my right honourable friend, the noble Lord may have noticed that the demand for British and French weapons to be counted in compensation has been dropped, though there are some equally unacceptable no-transfer and no-build-up conditions which we shall have to consider as well.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in fact the Soviet Union has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world and that if it wishes to talk about genuine disarmament all it has to do is to set the example? I think that if it were
1046
prepared to get rid of its atomic weapons completely and utterly, every other country in the world would be thrilled and delighted and would follow.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the British Government have always made it clear that we support the objective of general and complete disarmament, not just nuclear disarmament. But the noble Lord is quite right, particularly with regard to the balance of intermediate range weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord who has just spoken from this side of the House is entirely mistaken? Is he aware that the Soviet Union has imposed upon itself for several months a unilateral test ban which has not been followed in the West? Does he not agree that the best way of resolving this matter would be to ask the West to imitate the Soviet Union in this respect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that strays a little far, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, from the Question on the Order Paper. The noble Lord who has just spoken was referring to the numbers of nuclear weapons presently in place and I replied in the affirmative, particularly so far as intermediate range weapons are concerned.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, if the Government are serious in their desire to prevent a nuclear disaster and bring about peace, should they not seek the points of agreement when proposals of this kind are made and emphasise them, rather than seek the differences and difficulties which are involved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall continue to support balanced and verifiable proposals in respect of disarmament, but particularly where they contribute to rather than detract from our security.

HBMC: Financial Management
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Birk: 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 are satisfied with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission's management of public funds.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I am satisfied that an effective framework exists within which the commission manages public funds and that these procedures will, and apparently have, detected some early signs of weakness in financial control. I am of course concerned about such weaknesses. The commission have been asked for a full report or their financial procedures. An interim report by the commission's chief executive to the Permanent Secretary of my department will, I understand, arrive later today. They will discuss what further action needs to be taken.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which indicates that some action is being taken. But has he seen the very disturbing reports in a national newspaper this week indicating that financial control in the commission is very weak indeed, and that this has led to inadequate control both of budget and of expenditure on what would appear, unfortunately, to be a very serious scale? Since the commission were set up because it was felt that if they were hived off from the DoE they would be able to preserve the heritage far better and would also give better value to the public for its money, this is surely a matter for great concern. Not only the public but—and perhaps in this case, even more important—the heritage will suffer unless there is very tight and strict control. The matter is, I submit, one of great urgency.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at the time when the commission were set up to take this function out of central government there was great anxiety that they should be given flexibility and the noble Baroness made useful contributions in the debates on the National Heritage Bill to that effect. Nonetheless, when they were set up they inherited the same delegation of authority to incur expenditure as previously applied to this function within the department. The only modification of those control mechanisms was those minimum changes necessary to adapt them to a non-departmental public body. What I would emphasise to your Lordships is that we believe that this machinery has in fact exposed a weakness of proceedings about which I would not wish to comment until I have read the report which is being submitted.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when historical buildings and monuments were under the control of the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the old days it did a first-class job, nobody ever questioned what happened and the moneys were well and truly spent? We now have an outside commission, whoever they are, and all we read about is bungle and a complete mess-up. Would it not be better to hand them back to where they came from, to the Government, who did the job so much better?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has somewhat telescoped what would have been an interesting argument. I do not accept the conclusions of his argument, but not having heard it it is difficult to analyse at what point I would depart from his view. But I can tell the noble Lord that although I think the commission are doing a good job and they are getting more people involved in conservation and in the enjoyment of the monuments in their care, the Question relates to financial control. I repeat that the mechanisms set up are similar to those for central government. They have alerted us to what may be a weakness and that is being reported on.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that I am speaking as a trustee of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and that we work very closely with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, who have been very helpful in expert advice and constru-
1048
tion? We have also worked with them jointly in projects such as the Brighton West Pier and Caulke Abbey. We feel that they are a very estimable commission and they have been very helpful to us.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that helpful intervention. The commission are a relatively new body. In less than two years they have attracted 40,000 members and secured the first £95,000 in business sponsorship. I think your Lordships should have a little more confidence in them than the tone of general questions has given rise to.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not with any pleasure that I raise this Question? It is with great concern. Is it not the case that, however good the commission are in many of their activities, with which I heartily agree, the basic point about an independent body, or quango, is that its financial control must be very strict and it must even bend over backwards. I would differ from the Minister in comparing their position now with when they were in the department, where, as he knows very well, the controls are very strict indeed.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is perhaps not aware that the chief officer of the commission is an accounting officer, responsible on the same lines of answerability to the Houses of Parliament as is the Permanent Secretary of the Department of the Environment. So the controls are the same as those which existed before the commission were made independent; at the time, for instance, in 1976 when there was an inquiry into business at Audley End, which she will recall because she was standing at the Dispatch Box with my responsibilities at the time.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that common sense would seem to dictate that it would be better to wait for the report which he said is on its way rather than try to examine it in this piecemeal fashion?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that common sense is something which it is essential to preserve on occasions at Question Time.

Business
2.58 p.m.
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 situation in the Philippines.
Also with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name

1049
of the Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, that would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I know that the House would appreciate it if speakers were to keep to much the same time schedule, which would be in accordance with the spirit of these short debates.

Housing (Multiple Occupation) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to houses in multiple occupation by imposing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce certain standards; and to enable individuals to initiate proceedings in cases where the standards are not enforced. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill now be read a first time—(Baroness Vickers.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

London Underground (Goodge Street) Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Mid Glamorgan County Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Crime in London: Preventive Measures
3.1 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the increase of serious crime in London, particularly the trafficking of narcotics, and to the case for the provision of additional resources to support local crime prevention schemes and for a significant increase in the establishment of the metropolitan police; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It deals with the dangerous situation in relation to serious crime that now exists in London, and it relates to London for two principal reasons—first, because it is in the Metropolitan Police District that the crime situation in this country is at its most severe; and secondly, because the Home Secretary is the police authority for London and is therefore directly accountable to Parliament for the work of the metropolitan police.
Let me say this at the outset. I assume that all serious-minded people are equally concerned about the problem of law and order. There is, as we all know, deep public disquiet about what is happening in our streets. I can think of no issue on which routine party
1050
point scoring is less appropriate. I do not propose, nor do my colleagues, to become involved in the childish pretence that the arrival of a new Government or the departure of another will have any significant effect on the level of serious crime. Crime has risen during the lifetime of Conservative Governments as it has under Labour Governments. By all means let us criticise Governments for mistaken policies—indeed, some of us will do so this afternoon—but on this issue there is I believe an overwhelming case for endeavouring to match the gravity of the situation with some attempt to create a spirit of national consensus.
Serious crime in London has risen in the past decade by more than 70 per cent. During the lifetime of this Government—until the end of 1984—it rose from 557,000 offences to rather more than 716,000. And it is not just the number but the character of offences that has increased in seriousness. The number of robberies has doubled in that period—up from 6,200 to 13,600. The number of street robberies of personal property doubled as well, with young hooligans often attacking elderly women waiting in bus queues. But the situation now confronting us is even more disturbing than this. For, as the House is aware, the country is now experiencing a most alarming increase in drug abuse.
Heroin has been pouring into the United Kingdom. Seizures by the Customs and Excise have increased from 43 kilograms in 1979 to 312 kilograms in 1984—an increase of more than 700 per cent. But even if we are as successful as the United States customs, we must assume that we are probably intercepting only somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. of the heroin that is entering the country. That means that in 1984 alone, and dealing with heroin alone, heroin with a street value of more than £350 million was introduced into this country. The effects of this are two-fold. First, we are experiencing the consequences of the success of these criminal entrepreneurs. In many parts of London, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, substantial numbers of young people have become hooked on heroin. Many, though not all, live in declining inner city areas. Again, many, though not all, are unemployed. And if they are not unemployed when they begin, they certainly are by the end, for heroin addiction makes any pattern of regular work quite out of the question.
However, to feed their addiction they probably need somewhere in the region of £150 a week. They can obtain that in only one way—that is, by criminal conduct, often by violent street crime. It is because of this relationship between addicts and criminal conduct that I think there is a real risk of an escalation in the number of robberies in our streets. In the United States, where the problem is a great deal more severe, a very high proportion of the entire prison population is there for drug-related offences. I remember going to a prison outside Boston, in Massachusetts, where the warden told me that in the prison probably more than 70 per cent. of the inmates were there for drug-related offences. In this country at the moment the proportion is a great deal smaller, but it is growing. In one Crown Court in London, where 10 years ago I doubt very much whether more than perhaps 1 per cent. of offenders coming before the court would have been

1051
there for drug-related offences, the presiding judge told me quite recently that the proportion is now 17 per cent., and that number is growing remorselessly.
I turn now to the second consequence of the operation of the drug entrepreneurs: that is, the development of a number of sophisticated criminal syndicates in this city, where, because of the very substantial sums of money now at their disposal, high quality criminals are now moving easily from one type of serious crime to another. Those involved in drugs move in and out of other forms of criminal activity such as armed robbery. We have to bear in mind that 75 per cent. of the armed robberies in the United Kingdom take place in the Metropolitan Police District. They move into sophisticated fraud; they move into counterfeit currency operations. Thus, it is quite impossible to discuss the problem of drugs in isolation. It is now essential to the functioning of the serious crime industry—and industry it is—in London.
Faced with this dangerous situation, we have to examine the resources that are available to deal with the threat posed by the escalation in serious crime. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he comes to reply at the end of this debate, will tell us that the strength of the metropolitan police has risen by more than 4,000 men and women during the lifetime of the present Government. That is indeed entirely true. It is also true that the overall strength of the British police service rose by more than 12,000 men and women during the period of the previous Labour Government. Nevertheless, there are now—I give this point entirely to the Government—these additional resources available in London. Without them the situation would, I believe, be desperate. But, unhappily, the net increase in the strength available to the metropolitan police is not even remotely approaching that figure of 4,000. Let me set out the stark figures so that the House is well aware of what we are debating this afternoon.
As a result of the overtime restrictions introduced by the Government as an economy measure, many police duties, such as giving evidence in court, now have to be included in the regular pattern of day to day police duties. No longer are they treated as overtime. As a result of that policy introduced by the Government there has been a sharp cut in the patrol strength available to police commanders.
I take just one example—the loss of the last worked rest-day was equivalent in itself to the loss of 1,200 police officers in London. That means that there are fewer policemen on the beat; fewer policemen to do extremely important work on crime prevention; and even 5 per cent. fewer policemen on the Fraud Squad compared with when the Government came into office. That is despite the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, on the general fraud situation in this country, which is becoming a matter of increasing seriousness. It is because of an overall shortage of resources that many specialist units are having to be stripped so far as their numbers are concerned.
There has also been, for very understandable reasons, a need to supplement the strength of other units in the metropolitan police. There has been the
1052
creation of district support units introduced—rightly, in my view—after the disturbances in 1981 as an essential instant response measure. Those units take up 750 men on a permanent basis. The establishment of the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Department—a most important unit, given the ever-present risk of terrorist offences in London—took another 700 men and women off normal patrol duties.
One has only to run through some of the figures to show that the supposed increase in the strength of the metropolitan police to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be referring at the end of this debate is cancelled to a very substantial degree by cuts in the effective strength caused by overtime reductions and by other steps that have been taken in the same direction, and which by themselves total 3,250 officers net on the strength of the Metropolitan Police Force.
I will demonstrate the gravity of the problem by giving these figures. Fifty years ago there was on average one reported crime per police officer per year in London. Twenty years ago that figure was 11 crimes per officer. Ten years ago it was 17 crimes per officer, and last year it was 28 crimes per officer. The thin blue line is getting dangerously thinner.
I would not for a moment suggest that the police service should have unlimited resources. No part of the public service can possibly be immune from the need to accept cost limitations imposed by government. What I do argue is that there is now an urgent requirement for public expenditure priority to be given to a substantial increase in police manpower in London. I believe that I have a powerful ally, because at the Conservative Party Conference last year the Prime Minister said (and I quote her directly):
"If they need more men,"—
and she was referring to the police service overall—
"more equipment, different equipment, they shall have them. We don't economise on protecting life and property".
The House will appreciate that that pledge was entirely unqualified. It was unconditional. I hope that as a result of it we will hear from the Government tonight that the Home Secretary proposes to live up to the spirit of the Prime Minister's speech and announce, following the review that is now taking place, that he will agree forthwith to a substantial increase in police manpower in London. I believe, as I have indicated, that the case for that increase is now overwhelming.
However, policing in London is about a great deal else besides simply numbers. It requires a climate of co-operation between police and public. The police are not an alien force imposed by government. They are members of the community in uniform. That climate of co-operation is essential if we are to maintain civil tranquility. It is vital if we are to meet the challenge posed by violent, dangerous men who prey on the weak and powerless.
Such collaboration requires two things. First, it requires professional conduct by the police themselves. They have an immensely difficult task. They are still, in the main, unarmed. They are doing, as we are all well aware, an increasingly dangerous job on behalf of the entire community. They deserve our full and unqualified support. However, their job is made a great deal harder by widely-publicised

1053
episodes such as that which took place in Holloway. A deplorable incident of that kind does immense damage to the many decent, honourable men and women who make up the metropolitan police.
Secondly, that climate of collaboration requires responsible conduct by public authorities in London. I do not propose to rehearse again this afternoon the evidence that we all know exists of the disgraceful campaign that has been waged against the police by the so-called police monitoring groups that have been established in many parts of London (all at public expense of course), by the production of that nasty anti-police video by Mr. Paul Boateng and his colleagues, and by the campaign in more than 20 schools in inner London that has led to the police being barred from speaking to children in schools on such vital issues as crime prevention and even road safety. All responsible people will deplore that campaign to harass the police.
There is surely one supreme national interest: to foster a sensible, rational and trusting relationship between police and public; and to ensure that at a time when there is increasing fear of crime in our streets, the police are given adequate resources to do their difficult and dangerous job. I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this theme this afternoon and for giving the House so much information, which it is important to have and which we must consider. The noble Lord and I have worked at different times on different themes associated with the police. This afternoon, I do not want to go over the same ground but I shall try as far as I can to refer to other sides of what is such a vital question.
Most of us have probably not given as much attention to this subject as we might have done. We ought all to be grateful today that we have had this Motion on the Order Paper. It is very widely drawn but I shall devote most of my few minutes to the subject of crime prevention, which partners the figures about crime that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
The noble Lord and I have worked together not just in London and not just in the country. He has worked mainly in London. As far as this country is concerned, I have worked mainly with the police in other parts of Britain. For very strange reasons into which I will not go now, I have had probably more experience of the police abroad than I have in this country. Indeed, your Lordships may think it very strange that I wore German uniform for an appreciable length of time, including in the capital city of Berlin, where I encountered many of the same problems to which the noble Lord referred in respect of London.
One of the important features about crime prevention is that there is no clear measure of its success. That is something we can never really be sure about. Figures are reported to us about crime and policing, and as far as they go they are all right. However, we never have accurate figures about crime prevention, and success in that area can never be reported. It is difficult to judge any measure of success
1054
because, as I say, we do not have any figures to make a comparison with, perhaps, a previous period. Nonetheless, the more time that is given to considering the problems now before us, the more success we shall have in understanding those problems and in taking the correct action to solve them.
Inward thinking is a difficulty that we have to fight against. Until comparatively recently our police, who have so many good points, were inclined to fall back on inward thinking. What we really must do now is to improve the relationship between the police and the people. That is particularly difficult to do in a big city, especially a capital city, and it is even more difficult in a city such as London that contains a whole number of important ethnic minorities as well. But a lot has been happening for the better.
This afternoon we have had reference to the establishment of the metropolitan police and to the recent increases in men and money, but when will the next slice come? A week or two ago there was mention of £52 million extra and now again there has been an increase in the establishment. When we look back over the past years we see that whenever we run into trouble it is always suggested that we need more men and greater powers. We now have more men and more powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, yet we may need still further powers and further men. We have to look ahead and think about the future and not just accept the figures that we have now been given.
I prefer to talk about the theme of Neighbourhood Watch. In this great city of ours and in large parts of the country we have made a start with Neighbourhood Watch but we still have a long way to go. There is training for selected people; and we must appreciate that the claims on regular manpower for training are expensive. In fact, if we try to raise the whole standard of our Neighbourhood Watch schemes and train people for them, then we are taking a certain number of men from the limited numbers available and occupying their time on other duties.
However, we must bear in mind that members of the Neighbourhood Watch are not police. No matter how hard they work they are not police. They must not use violence or carry weapons, but they are very valuable in helping identification and surveillance—that is, the eyes and ears of the police. "Surveillance" is a curious expression to use though it is in common use among the police. Nevertheless, a large part of their time must be spent looking out for things and watching for those things which professionals may see even if nobody else notices. The activities of Neighbourhood Watch schemes must be kept within limits. One does not wish the keenest of members to spend so much time that they become bored. They could be just as successful as many regular policemen if they were given the chance, but then we have to be on guard against any professional jealousy. It is not peculiar to the police but occurs throughout the whole professional world where professionals and amateurs come into contact. Certain problems can arise and it must be admitted that this situation is to be found in the police as elsewhere.
Two days ago I received from the International Police Association a copy of their magazine through

1055
the post. Other noble Lords also may receive it. In it there is an extremely good article written by an English Chief Inspector of West Midlands Police who has just been in the United States and visiting Detroit, which is the sixth largest city in America. There they have easily the most advanced and successful Neighbourhood Watch scheme in operation. He says:
"It is stressed to volunteers that they are not Police Officers and they have no legal authority except that as an ordinary citizen. Observation and reporting are the two main objectives. Whilst on patrol they should leave their vehicle and they must not carry a weapon of any description".
He had said earlier:
"[The Chief Officer] was adamant that whilst he found Neighbourhood Watch programmes the finest way his Police have to combat crime, there had been a much larger success. The active involvement of citizens in Crime Prevention has had the effect of improving Police performance in serving the community".
We should pay rather more attention to that sort of thing. I do not think that we pay sufficient attention to what is being done in other great cities, particularly in countries in the western world where we should all learn from one another.
I spoke about our minds, which were half-closed until recently. We must keep open minds. We now have our minds open, I hope. We need the right sort of leadership when we have volunteers undertaking various jobs with the police. We must instil good leadership and enthusiasm if we are to see this problem which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, through successfully. We must take into consideration figures from those who have been trying to work with the police, and will be doing so over the next few years. We shall find that necessary support on a big scale must come from the civil population. We must work very hard at this—police and people together.
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, first on his excellent speech and secondly for getting the Motion on the Order Paper. I had a Motion on crime prevention and the involvement of the community, which rested calmly for a year and nothing happened. Of course, we have constantly debated the plight of prisoners, about whom we are always very worried. We debate the plight of the prisons and why they are falling apart. We raise questions about these problems; but we do not pay enough attention to the questions of law and order, and certainly not to the question of crime prevention.
I say to some of my own noble colleagues who are absent at the moment that my daughter-in-law has recently been canvassing on behalf of the Labour Party in the borough of Fulham where a by-election will soon take place, and the prime question on everybody's lips is whether we can prevent crime. People are much more concerned about that than anything else. So if any politician really wants to consider the feeling of the people outside this House they must pay attention to this concern.
It is always boring to say, "I have said this before". It is supposed to be a sign of old age and ex-Prime Ministers. However, I should like to say that I have said all this before, over and over again. It is very
1056
depressing when it takes a terrible incident to bring this situation to the attention of the media. Only this week there was another example of one of the many violent acts that I have referred to before—violence against people at work. Twenty years ago the only worker who might have feared violence in his daily life was the police officer, and that did not happen every day. Now, we have violence against bus conductors, train drivers, social workers and teachers; and there is news of something which I have referred to before, which is violence in hospitals. It seems incredible that those who aim to do good are now subjected to violence and left defenceless—as they are—against such people.
A number of hospital doctors have written about this. I shall mention only one from Denmark Hill, who says in a letter which has been printed in The Times that the events that were recorded by the doctor who had previously spoken about this matter were typical of every day. What a scandal it is that the staff of our great hospitals in this great city are subjected to violence! On many occasions nurses, medical staff and students have all suffered personal assault. How disgraceful also is theft from our hospitals, which ranges from the loss of television sets to toys taken from children's wards.
What kind of society are we living in? The correspondent says that last year the financial implications of criminal acts were brought home sharply to them by the savage knife attack, which I think we all recall, on one of their local policemen, Police Constable George Hammond. He says that a conservative estimate of the cost to the health authority of the treatment of that brave patient was £100,000. That is what happens. One per cent. of the population puts 99 per cent. of the population in danger and discomfort, and then the 99 per cent. have to pay for the damage as well. While the money is being spent on the damage caused by such savage attacks it cannot be spent on other things in the health service.
Let us consider the Underground. Last year there were 1,500 assaults on staff, which is a 10 per cent. rise on the year before. There were 1,200 assaults on the buses, which is an 8 per cent. rise. Then there are the schools. We often talk about the teachers and their long holidays, but do we talk enough about their position, assaulted by parents and by children and surrounded by the most incredible vandalism? I recommend your Lordships to see some of the London schools, with their broken windows and smashed desks. Such acts are perpetrated by people in totally mindless violence.
Then we come to the shops. As many noble Lords will know, I am concerned in a crime prevention exercise on behalf of the retailers. I am proud that they have elected to take such action and to spend their money. They could easily have let the situation ride and done nothing about it. I commend such action to industry. It is difficult to know which cases to mention and which to leave out in a short speech. We have the situation of the small shopkeepers who are often Asians. One such shopkeeper was robbed four times in a fortnight by gangs of youths. The manager of a supermarket in the borough next to me three weeks ago was shot by three youths who have never been captured. The young manager of a West End shoe

1057
shop was killed by a customer in an argument over size. In an off-licence in the City Road the manager was knifed for a paltry £30. I could go on. Yesterday your Lordships rightly spent time discussing concern for shop assistants working on Sunday. I ask your Lordships also to exercise concern about the violence perpetrated against those people who are only trying to do their job.
Part of the solution is deterrence. The criminal must know, first, that he will be caught and then that he will be dealt with severely when he comes to court. When I was involved in publicity about the light sentences handed out many people wrote agreeing with what I said. Anyone who uses violence or intimidation must receive a custodial sentence if for no other reason than to protect the innocent who are being attacked. I congratulate the Government on putting crime prevention at the top of the agenda. I was at the seminar chaired by the Prime Minister and I am a member of the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention. I hope that we shall underline what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. This is not a party matter. To prevent crime we must involve the whole community. Society gets the law and order that it deserves.
If we are to prevent crime in London we must bring in the community. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said. Let us have more of these excellent neighbourhood and business watches. The London boroughs that do not wish to initiate them must be made to do so. A young friend in a certain south London borough told me last week that a few of them were so disgusted that the borough would not set up a crime prevention panel that they called a meeting. On a bitterly cold night in a bitterly cold hall 100 people turned up, such was the feeling of the citizens about the need for a panel.
We must have a larger police force. People must see the police doing the job of preventing crime. I feel irritated when I see every morning two able young policemen outside my office watching cars to see whether people have paid for a road licence. That is important, but it is not as important as the possibility of people being attacked, robbed and violently treated in other ways in back streets. We must spend more money on that exercise. Every borough must have an active crime prevention panel. We must have much more publicity about crime prevention; and for that I appeal to the media. It is much better to prevent an incident than to indulge in even the most important inquiries that we often have after a terrible event. For years I campaigned for a crossing on a certain main road. One child was killed and then we got our crossing. Let us prevent crime before the terrible things happen to our great city that we have seen in other parts of the world.

The Philippines: President Aquino
3.36 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
1058
Affairs about the situation in the Philippines. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will be aware of the dramatic development yesterday in the Philippines which led to Mrs. Aquino taking up office as President. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in warmly welcoming this development, the more so because it has come about with the minimum of bloodshed and violence.
"The Government wish President Aquino and her colleagues well in the fulfillment of their new and heavy responsibilities. The task of restoring the Philippines to peace, stability and economic regeneration will indeed be a challenging one.
"We have been greatly impressed by the courage President Aquino, her colleagues and the Filipino people have shown in defence of democracy. This, and the evident wish of the Government and people of the Philippines for reconciliation, bodes well for the future.
"The Government look forward to a close and positive working relationship with Mrs. Aquino and her colleagues. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is sending the President a congratulatory message. I would also like to pay tribute to our Ambassador in Manila, Mr. Robin McLaren, and to his staff. The information and advice which they have provided and their protective role in relation to the British community have been an excellent example of our missions abroad at work.
"President Aquino said last night,
'a new life starts for our country tomorrow'.
"The House will, I know, wish to send her and the people of the Philippines its warmest good wishes on this new start".
My Lords, that is the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We warmly support the good wishes extended to President Aquino and the new Government and wish them all success in their formidable task. We have also noticed with admiration both her courage and that of the Filipino people who stood between the conflicting armed forces and whose will prevailed, thus avoiding significant loss of life or excessive violence. We have also admired the role of the Church as a calming influence throughout recent weeks. We further recognise the quick appreciation of a dangerous situation by the United States Government and the decisive way that they acted towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis during the past few days.
I have one short question to put to the Minister; namely, to ask him what positive steps Her Majesty's Government will take with our allies and through the United Nations to help the new Government to tackle their huge economic and social problems so that stability can be restored to the Philippines.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is most welcome and with which of course we all fully agree. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the international team of observers at the election. I was

1059
immensely impressed and moved by the courage of the Filipino people and of Mrs. Cory Aquino, who had already seen her husband murdered by a vile régime—
Lord Molloy: By Marcos.
Lord Mackie of Benshie:—as I was by the courage of the National Institute for Fair Elections, led by a business man in Manila whose life had been threatened, and by the courage of many people throughout the Philippines who were opposing—not like we are in this country merely by words, but by their lives—the régime that has just been ended. They deserve positive support.
I should like to echo the question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Labour Party, by asking what positive measures we can take. Can we, for instance, try to see that we do not produce any more sugar in the EC for export and so destroy the sugar markets of the world? This is a very serious matter. We have done more to destroy the living of many third world people by our exports of sugar than we have done good by assisting with money. Such a step is necessary. The difference in the standard of life between the extreme rich and the extreme poor in the Philippines is indeed startling. If the Philippines are to be any form of bulwark and safe haven for the West, these differences need to be ironed out. I trust that the Government will do their best to help.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to the Statement. I should like to mention two ways in which we are helping and will help the Philippines. We have already a small technical co-operation programme worth about £225,000 in 1985. We stand ready to discuss our programme of assistance with the new Government of President Aquino. More important perhaps, we have fully supported the package of assistance amounting to some 615 million special drawing rights which the IMF is providing for the Philippines and we look forward to a continuing beneficial relationship between the international financial community and the Philippines Government.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Lord of the opinion which my wife and I found ourselves very strongly to hold after some six weeks on a remote Philippine island just before this election—that the Filipinos are possibly the best natural democrats seen anywhere in the world? Was this not made extremely clear by the extraordinary manner in which they conducted their recent troubles with remarkably little rioting and quite remarkably few deaths? In view of this, should we not be giving them all possible help in putting matters right, especially in view of the fact that Marcos and his family have managed to extract from the economy for themselves, or their purposes, an amount, so far as can now be made out, of some 3 billion dollars? Would the noble Lord therefore not agree that there is need for a great deal of help if the Filipinos are to get straight? Would the noble Lord find it difficult to agree with me that there are some definite advantages for a country in putting a lady in charge of it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would naturally agree with the last sentiment expressed by the noble Viscount. But he is right to say that it is a matter of considerable satisfaction that it was possible for the Filipino people to overcome the obvious shortcomings in their recent election with the minimum of violence and death, to which the Statement referred and which the noble Lord has underlined. These shortcomings were, I believe, very apparent to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and his colleagues when they were in the Philippines at the time of the election. I know that the noble Lord was good enough to express those misgivings to my honourable friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are all heartened by the message that our Government have sent to the new President of the Philippines? That, I sincerely believe, will give encouragement, as it will fill the hearts of many British people with happiness. However, having said that, we must have the courage to acknowledge that a murdering, terrorist president who killed people by the hundreds of thousands over a number of years and who was one of the world's greatest terrorists, received the full backing of President Reagan and the United States of America. Would not President Reagan and the United States have been well advised if they had only listened to the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe? Will the noble Lord the Minister ask his colleagues at the Foreign Office to make sure that the United States does not compound the felony by offering assistance and help to a murderous president of the Philippines who ordered the murder of the husband of the present President, to whom we have sent congratulations? Can we have an assurance that he will not receive succour from the United States or any other freedom-loving country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, his points are not enforced by the loudness with which he mentions them. It is nonetheless the case that the United States had and still has important interests in the Philippines. I hope that the noble Lord will not lose sight of that fact.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in view of the appalling economic situation that will confront the unfortunate new President of the Philippines, will the Government assist in any efforts that may be made to alleviate the debt repayments of the Philippines that now amount, I believe, to 25 billion dollars? Will they also assist in any efforts that may be made to recover any of the vast sums appropriated and exported by the late frightful president?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the Government have any role to play in the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. We are, however, making some assistance available and I referred to that in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, in talking about the international reaction to these events, can my noble friend say whether there has been any reaction from the Soviet Union?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Soviet Union appears to have been the only country to congratulate Mr. Marcos on his co-called election victory. I dare say it must be wondering if it did the right thing.

Crime in London: Preventive Measures
3.46 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, if we may now return to this important debate, this is an issue that worries people in London and, I would guess, in the country, almost more than any other at present. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in his constructive speech, drew attention rightly to the vicious circle that is insufficiently appreciated by the public and indeed by politicians generally—the vicious circle that exists in narcotic-related crime. It is widely believed that the prevalence of the use of narcotics is linked to idleness, either enforced idleness in the case of those who are unemployed, or idleness in some instances by choice, certainly in regard to those who use cocaine. Once people are using narcotics they tend to become addicted. And once they become addicted, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, they need money, a great deal of money. An average of £150 a week is often cited. Once they need money, the only way, very often, that they can get it is by resorting to crime. We then see the enormous increase in robbery, burglary and attacks on ticket collectors and that sort of thing. It is a vicious circle. It is no use thinking that one agency alone can tackle the problem.
I subscribe entirely to the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his speech. I should like, however, to broaden the consideration of the matter and to refer to the great need for international action to deal with the enormous question of narcotics. The increased use is most noticeable in the West. The producing areas are mostly the developing countries. There is need for much greater international co-operation. I recognise that we have achieved some, but draconian measures need to be taken against the growers of these materials in some developing countries. This can only be achieved by the West providing financial resources. It is therefore an area where more public resources should be spent.
However, my main reason for intervening in the debate is to underline a point touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I refer to the schools. The most effective safeguard, it seems to me, that we can have against increased use of narcotics is education in all its aspects. This includes education in schools, the use of films, as seen on both BBC and ITV, and the greater use of videos, advertising programmes and press publicity. Unfortunately, the publicity is often of the worst kind. There was a man called Thomas Comerford who was recently sent to a very long period of imprisonment in London. He was the main trafficker in drugs on Merseyside. When he was convicted and sentenced most of the media concentrated on the very desirable, luxurious lifestyle that he lived, all as a result of his trading in narcotics, whereas the true publicity ought to have been given to
1062
those many victims of his activities who had suffered great illness, a living death, and no doubt sometimes death itself.
It troubles me that, as has been pointed out, the police cannot go into certain schools. The police ought to be going into schools. There ought to be the utmost co-operation between the important profession of the police, and the equally important profession of the teacher. I am extremely disturbed at the fact that the teaching profession at the moment is in such a demoralised state. We ought to think in much broader terms than merely the question of the police attitude and support. The police equally need the support of the teaching profession; and the children and parents certainly need it. We cannot afford to allow a great profession like the teaching profession to remain in its present demoralised state if we are going to ask them for the utmost co-operation with the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has rendered a great public service in drawing our attention to this important matter and concentrating our minds upon it this afternoon. He is echoing a fear and concern that is felt throughout the land.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, once again this very important matter has been brought to your Lordships' House and I for one am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for doing so. However, the question that he has put before us this afternoon is couched in such broad terms that when I sat down to look at it my thoughts amounted almost to a five-hour speech, like that of our friend Mr. Gorbachev yesterday. But I felt that your Lordships would not want to hear more than the maximum of 10 minutes from me.
Everybody, not only in your Lordships' Chamber but outside, recognises that crime has unfortunately increased throughout the country. But in the middle of the Motion we are asked this afternoon to talk about trafficking in narcotics especially within the Metropolitan area. Trafficking is evil, and done in my view by evil men. It is difficult to catch traffickers. They are not always even based in this country. The money that they get from trafficking is very often rapidly salted abroad. We are not only worried about the traffickers but also about the end of the line: those people who take narcotics, the young people who can lose their lives, who can have brain damage, and who can lead an unhappy and squalid way of life. We do not have to look far in our great city to see some of those whom I have mentioned.
There is an excellent committee being chaired by the right honourable Member, Mr. David Mellor, which is a ministerial committee looking into this problem nationwide. We wish them luck. They want to reduce supplies from abroad, to strengthen deterrents, to have better preventive measures and especially to treat and rehabilitate those who have taken and become addicted to narcotics. They are also looking into the education of the young people, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has just said.
To that end, they have spent £3·4 million in Pakistan to try to eradicate the opium crops there. There is a national campaign which is costing the Government £8 million annually by posters,

1063
advertising and the media generally to try to warn people about the evil of narcotics. A further million pounds—above the amount already given—has been given this year by the Government to the health authorities, again to try and help those who are addicted. In the schools the teachers are encouraged to be more aware and to look out for the problems that some of their pupils might be suffering, by a video film which the Government have just made, and by another film and many measures which the Government are taking throughout schools.
In 1984 25,000 people were found guilty or cautioned by the courts for drug offences. Four thousand one hundred people were found guilty of trafficking offences. That was an increase of 25 per cent. over 1983. I had the honour of serving under the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he was chairman of the parole board. To me one of our major problems was what to do with those traffickers who had been caught and who were imprisoned. I, for one, and many of my colleagues also, took a very, very hard line. There was no way that they would come out of prison on one-third, or even two-thirds release. One wanted them to stay to the end of their time in prison because we all knew that directly they were out they would start trafficking again and would reopen the communications that they had throughout the world for trafficking in these dangerous and very harmful substances.
As I have said, serious crime has increased but to me it is horrifying when I see the statistics that the majority of crimes in this country are now committed by 15 year-old boys and 14 year-old girls. It is very difficult for anybody, certainly for me—I cannot speak for the Members of your Lordships' House—to realise that the youth of our country, who are not even yet, as we would have thought, adolescent, are committing more crimes than any other age group in our country.
I contacted Y-Division with whom I used to be a magistrate. They said that at holidays and half terms in the schools in Y-Division the police had to be more on the alert for the children and what they were doing than at any other time or for any other person in Y-Division because the youths were getting into trouble not only by vandalism but petty crimes as well. I would say that fear of detection is one of our best hopes for the future. I feel that that would do more to reduce crime than anything else we can do. The metropolitan police resources are greater than ever but crime goes up at a greater rate than ever.
In the 1986–87 budget the metropolitan police had £851·8 million; last year the sum was £771 million. It is now only 1·1 per cent. below establishment, whereas in 1977 it was 16 per cent. below establishment. However, in the division of which I have spoken, they say that the establishment is not enough to deal with that area. Perhaps when I tell your Lordships that the Broadwater Farm Estate is also within that area it will help you to understand that Y-Division has a very big and difficult area to cope with.
Since 1979 the strength of the police in the metropolitan area has risen by 4,500 and the number of civilian staff—the people who do not have to be trained, the shorthand typists, etc.—has risen by 1,250. So in that respect there has been an increase.
1064
The Government hope that full strength will be reached by this year—that is, the summer of 1986. Indeed, 50 extra officers have been trained specially to combat drug abuse. There is also the new intelligence unit at Scotland Yard. Therefore, I submit that no one can say that the Government are not doing anything; they are putting the best brains of the metropolitan police and of the Government to bear upon the problems facing us in this country. Therefore, a great deal is being done.
As one noble Lord has already said, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said in public that the escalation of help to the police in this country will go on. However, it is up to us—not only you, me and the media, who I cannot stress enough, but also everyone else in this country—to turn this alarming tide of crime backwards.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, as is his wont, my noble friend Lord Harris has raised a highly topical and wide-ranging subject for debate. I only wish to concentrate on crime prevention. When we debate law and order, whether regarding the police, the courts, the prisons or the probation service, what we are really discussing in each case is an aspect of crime prevention. Those of us who have consistently questioned the efficacy of long sentences; huge prison building schemes; short, sharp, shocks and so on, have often been labelled as "wets" or "do-gooders" by many members of the party opposite. However, I believe that there is now a very general recognition that that approach to crime is founded upon a hardheaded policy based on experience which emphasises crime prevention rather than the simplistic and blunt instrument (and I say this with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips) of crime punishment.
In London the attitude of the metropolitan police is all important on this topic. The central document in that regard, which I have in my hand, is the report for the last year of the Commissioner of Police to the Secretary of State. Speaking for myself, I find the report a remarkable piece of work. I find it radical and very encouraging. I should like to pay a tribute to Sir Kenneth Newman as regards its contents. His aim is to harness public co-operation, to lead a police force which he describes as "turning outwards towards the public". He wants community policing, neighbourhood policing, consultative committees and crime prevention panels. He approves of the lay-visitors scheme to police stations. He encourages victim support schemes and he even highlights in his report the community awareness workshop in the Borough of Newham and the New Addington befriending scheme in Croydon. He has issued a code of professional conduct for the officers of his force.
In praising the commissioner and applauding the manner in which he has so rapidly reacted to the Scarman Report, I must nonetheless say this to him: you will only succeed in your admirable aims if your officers win the admiration, the respect and the trust of the public, and that, in two vital areas of crime prevention in the metropolis—the young and the ethnic minorities—you have not, I would suggest, so far succeeded in doing.

1065
There are in my view two continuing obstacles to this success and we must face up to them. One of them is the question of corruption and the other is the question of behaviour. I fear that there is a tradition of corruption in some parts of the metropolitan police and if, as I have, you spend all your working life either appearing for the prosecution or for the defence of criminals and offenders in London, you meet hundreds of police officers, offenders and solicitors of all different types and kinds.
Your Lordships must appreciate that corruption persists—for example, the magical disappearance of objections to bail; the wife against whom charges are suddenly withdrawn; the absence from the note book of the alleged admission; the absence of one-third of the recovered stolen property; and, alas, the planting or the threat of planting of incriminating evidence.
Only in the last few months—and I know that this is only anecdotal evidence but it is the type of matter which keeps arising—I was contacted by the parents of a young man who had been in some establishment in the West End when the police entered it. A number of his friends had already left and he refused to give the names and addresses of the people who had been at the table he was at. He was taken into the passage and there it was said to him, "Hello, hello, what's that on the floor?" It was a piece of cannabis which he had allegedly dropped on the floor. He was taken off to the police station, kept there for five hours and ultimately charged with being in possession.
His parents contacted me and asked for advice. My advice was that if in the morning he pleaded guilty to possessing so small an amount of cannabis he would be fined a small sum and that would be the end of it. However, if it were true that it had been planted on him and his parents were satisfied that that was true, then, I said, "You must go to the very best possible legal representation and you must fight the case—and it will be extremely difficult to succeed". In fact, they took that advice and fought the case and in 10 minutes that young man was acquitted before a jury. At the moment the inspector in charge of the group of officers concerned is serving a term of imprisonment and five other cases have been dropped.
It is no good shutting one's eyes to that situation which, alas, apparently still persists. Sir Robert Mark, when he was commissioner, tried to root it out and, as your Lordships know, over 200 officers in the CID resigned, were prosecuted or left of their own accord. However, it made very little difference. Sir Kenneth says in his report:
"There is endless opportunity and temptation to blur the distinctions between ends and means—working in the twilight areas of criminality".
He cites that as a reason for his code of conduct to officers. However, I say to Sir Kenneth, "You must do more than a code of conduct. You must somehow instil into your new officers the dangers that lie ahead and publicise them and give these young men and women a clear, confidential path for lodging a complaint if they see corruption or are asked to participate in it". Because, my Lords, we must have whistle blowers in the metropolitan police just as we must have them in the Civil Service.
As regards behaviour, there is too much anecdotal evidence of simply bad, arrogant, or rude behaviour
1066
towards the public among a number of police officers in the force. Those of us who have children or grandchildren know very much about this. People do not mind being stopped. They do not mind having their cars or boots searched if the police are entirely polite about it and tell why it is being done. But harsh or arrogant behaviour towards a young person in those circumstances can make the police an enemy of that young person for the rest of his life.
The same applies to racism, which is a serious matter in the metropolitan police and is something that again one has to face up to. I am sitting on a committee at the moment which has that as one of the matters being looked into. We had a distinguished commander come and speak to us the other day who said, "You must remember that we reflect in the police force the widespread intolerance of the community at large". That surely is not the proper approach. The metropolitan police must be a force apart in that sense, they must have higher standards, and they must understand better than the ordinary person does about their own prejudices.
The last thing I wish to say is this. The commissioner is keen on helping crime prevention measures in the community. The outstanding example of that is the Crime Prevention Unit of NACRO, and I think that my noble friend Lord Donaldson will say more about that in a moment. What I should like to ask the Minister is, how is it that the Home Office find it impossible to fund crime prevention measures and units?
The money for NACRO's crime prevention unit—and I think over 40 local authorities now have these units of one sort or another—comes from the DoE and from the urban fund, but no money comes from the Home Office. I ask the Minister why the Government would not agree that crime prevention schemes really go to the grass roots of crime, and that it is there that you can deter the young criminal and build up confidence in the police among the public. So far as the battle against crime is concerned, it is at the crime prevention level that the battle might begin to be won.
4.13 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my speech is going to be rather short. Due to some mental aberration it was only when I arrived in your Lordships' House that I realised that the speech I had prepared was on the Sex Discrimination Bill, which is to be considered tomorrow. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich gave us some interesting facts and figures, which is just as well because for obvious reasons I do not have any facts or any figures. However, those like myself and other noble Lords here interested in the subject of drugs do not actually need to spend many hours sitting down trying to write a speech. You may not know the facts and figures, but you know basically what you want to say.
The last time we in your Lordships' House debated drugs was some while ago. It was when the television cameras were fairly new here, and as a result many noble Lords wanted to speak. We were therefore restricted to five minutes each, which is not long enough to cover such an important subject. In my

1067
speech I suggested that the drug barons, if found guilty, should suffer sequestration, and later the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, also subscribed to the same view.
A short time ago the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in a speech on rape suggested that convicted rapists should be castrated. I am not sure whether she was really serious on that. It is rather permanent, is it not? But on that basis, and with exactly the same view, I would suggest that if you have a drug baron who is found guilty, why should the taxpayer support him in prison? Why not "mainline" him with heroin and give him a taste of the living death that he had been pushing, and then put him out on the street and let him die a degrading and filthy death? Because in the newspapers one reads the same story over and over again of young kids explaining how they got on to heroin. They say, "I know it is killing me, I know that I stand a good chance of catching Aids. But I cannot stop". That is the awful thing.
On some housing estates nearly every single child is on drugs of one kind or another; because once a sufficient number of young people are on drugs, then if any of them do not go on to drugs too they are out of it. They think, "Well, it is not really harmful. Everyone is doing it" Then they are caught, and they are addicts.
Previous speakers referred to the numbers of kilos of heroin intercepted. What they are really saying is that if we had more money for the Customs and Excise and police we could intercept more drugs and take them off the streets. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. At the moment, comparatively speaking, heroin is cheap because there is a plentiful supply. If you intercept a lot of heroin it will come to be in short supply, which means that the pushers will cut it down so that it will be weak. Therefore, the addicts will have to take more in order to get the same effects.
Then if a large consignment gets through it will become plentiful again, and therefore it will be cut less. But the addicts do not know this and become used to taking a large amount; they suddenly find they are taking a large amount of high concentration heroin, and they unknowingly kill themselves. This is not supposition. This is what we were told in the select sub-committee by the experts. It is not just a case of intercepting the drugs.
A previous speaker said that we have to get to those countries, mostly in the East, which are growing the drugs; those countries—and I believe that the Netherlands is one of the worst offenders—where they refine the drugs and where they are readily available, and we have to hit them. If we are going to stop heroin addiction—and I think we are basically talking about heroin addiction—then it is not just the growers who have to be stopped, but the refiners and everyone along the line. And we have to stop not 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the drug traffic; we have to stop as near as we can 100 per cent.
The last time I spoke in your Lordships' House on drugs I had never tried any drugs, apart from cigarettes. I admitted then that I smoked cigarettes. A few weeks ago on holiday with a convivial party someone passed round what I believe is called a joint.
1068
I suddenly realised that I was on what I think is called "a high". I hated this. I sat there and fought it. It is one thing having too much alcohol, but to go on hallucinatory drugs terrified me. I sat and fought it and beat it. I brought myself off that high, possibly because I said to myself, "Be stubborn". My wife considers me to be bloody-minded. I was not going to let that drug have its effect on me. But I might have enjoyed that sensation. Many young children do, so they try it again and after a bit someone says, "You get a far better high on something else". Before you know it, they are on heroin and on the road which only ends one way: in degradation and in the grave.
My noble friend Lord Hooson mentioned the police and police corruption. I agreed with much of what he said. I have a young friend who is a punk. He is a very gentle, nice boy but the police take one look at him, stop him and arrest him. He has been fitted up, just as many of his friends have been fitted up, not with drugs; but that could happen. It is no good the police having rules of conduct, because they just put them in their pockets and forget them. This boy's father told me yesterday that there are now books in schools where there is an item on contact with the police. The basic rule is. "Don't. Keep out of the way of the police. If you see them coming, turn round and go away. If you are stopped by the police you stand to attention and say 'Yes, sir; no, sir; three bags full, sir'. But whatever they do, you stand to attention". These are recommendations to young children. This is not a book written by Left-Wing loonies, but a serious book. If we come to that in this country we must do something quickly; otherwise we shall alienate a whole generation from the police. However, we must consider that only a few of the police are bad apples.
I thought I wanted to make a short speech. I have spoken for 10 minutes. I shall sit down.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl did not go on a little longer to tell us who are the author and publisher of this remarkable book. Perhaps he will do so in private afterwards.
Everybody who has spoken up until now has had special knowledge or experience. I have neither, at least not recent knowledge or experience. I speak merely as a consumer of police services. Recently my neighbourhood formed a Neighbourhood Watch, rather different from that described by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He described someone patrolling on watch. With ours, it is simply neighbours keeping a sharp eye for somebody behaving in a suspicious way. The other night there was a man prowling up and down the avenue looking up garden paths. Two people telephoned and within seconds the police arrived to question him. It proved to be my next-door neighbour, who had lost his dog. Happily, the dog was restored the next day from Battersea.
Nevertheless, before this Neighbourhood Watch a few months ago this would not have happened. People would not have been alerted to telephone the police. The Neighbourhood Watch, even in its modest minimum form as we have it, will be a good thing.
We see and hear much about the police nowadays. We see them on television, locked in struggle with

1069
pickets, coping with rioters or football hooligans. We read of them when they used firearms nervously or clumsily or when they have been engaged in some form of corruption. We read about their problems in coping with the young and especially the black young. But we read less often about the problems they have to face—an argument so well deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I am thankful to him for initiating this debate. He is right to have confined his debate to London. Some people in the provinces may wonder what on earth we are talking about because their experience of the police is entirely different from the experience in the metropolis. Policing problems are different in every town. I remember as a young reporter discovering police methods in Blackpool and entirely different police methods when I went to the dockside city of Salford, only 40 miles away.
Law and order are not the exclusive concern of the party of government, but of us all. The police are not there simply to protect the property-owning minority from the mob. We are all at risk from burglary, mugging and assault. This applies as much or even more to the old and poor living in our inner city districts. It applies to our children and grandchildren who face the same dangers from the drug peddlers, no matter to what social class they belong or in what district they live. Girls and women are afraid to go out at night alone and some coloured families live in terror.
A number of us must have watched "Panorama" on Monday. We saw what is happening in Islington, the problems the police have there in dealing with so many crimes. We saw, too, how in the neighbouring borough of Holloway the road to improvement in the quality of policing might be found by using modern organisational methods and by the use of computers to record and classify crime so that the force may be most efficiently deployed. The case for a vast improvement in the quality of police organisation and methods certainly exists. Although a great deal has been done in the reorganisation and creation of special forces, nevertheless there is a long way to go.
What about the quantity of the police? Is it enough even with the recent increases? As journalists, we were taught never to write about the "police" and "civilians"—not to have that type of dichotomy, for our English police are civilians. However, it is a convenient term. I notice that the police are using it and I now propose to employ it myself for convenience. As long as I can remember, it has been suggested that the police should be relieved of some of their functions which could be better and perhaps more cheaply performed or as well performed by civilians, or there could be a separate force dealing with road transport and the motor car.
Some progress has been made in the recruiting of non-police help, but not enough. I suppose chief constables want to control as large an organisation as the public are willing to provide, because in the last resort on the day when the revolution threatens every police filing clerk may have to open his drawer marked "T" and draw out his truncheon to defend the established order. But that of course is over-insuring. It may be that in the large cosmopolitan cities innovations are required which are not needed in rural districts and in small market towns. Surely, somebody
1070
should even now be looking at the range of the problems, not just at specific ones, but at the large range, because some of the new difficulties represent a change in the dimensions of the old problems of muggings, of drugs, drug pushers, hooligans, gangs, burglars and crimes due to racial tensions, to say nothing of the new danger of the terrorists.
Obviously, the problem of the prevention of crime, as well as its detection, should be under constant review. However, if I am mugged, if I have my house burgled and my sentimental possessions turned over, it would be just a bit of consolation if the offender were discovered and sent to prison. But, frankly, I should rather not be mugged or burgled at all. Prevention is the word. Surely the presence of police on the beat, police who are seen by the public regularly and frequently, is still the best deterrent. The police in the past year or two have begun to climb out of their cars and one sees them, but not very often. Surely, one item of public expenditure that nobody will begrudge is the money required for a larger police presence.
Let nobody say that this means a police state. The term has quite another meaning; it means a state where the police themselves operate outside the law. Finally, the reason that people no longer go about in London saying, "Our police are wonderful" is that they are not always so. But could it be that some, a proportion, perhaps even only a small fraction, of the reported cases of wrong behaviour have some connection with the frustration and fatigue of the police with more duties put upon them than they can possibly perform?
4.32 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I want to deal with one particular end, the distribution end, of the drug problem which is where ultimately the money comes from. This has not been dealt with very much today. The international side is very important and needs as many police as can be found. But quantities of police are not going to solve the problem of the distribution end. I want to support my noble friend Lord Harris in his request for a significant increase in the establishment of the metropolitan police and for the provision of additional resources to support local crime-prevention schemes. I wish to point out that it would not be much good to have the first lot if you did not first have the second lot. What is needed in these difficult inner city areas where drug pushing is particularly rife is for the police to be more effective and not necessarily more numerous.
Indeed, in very hostile communities too much police presence may be counter-productive. This does not apply to the importing side to which I have referred already. On this end of the business, I speak with some knowledge as president of Nacro whose reports I receive regularly and read with close attention. We have 60 crime prevention units now working within 40 local authority areas. The oldest was set up in 1976 in the Cunningham Road Estate at Widnes in Cheshire and it and its 50-odd successors have been carefully monitored. They have been extraordinarily successful as the following two examples show.
The Widnes unit, when it was first set up in 1976, revealed vandalism to one in every three houses. By

1071
the 1979 survey, this was reduced to one in every eight. In 1976, 70 per cent. of the residents reported a burglary against 8 per cent. in 1979. Police and survey workers both reported good progress in reducing crime. Later monitoring has confirmed these results. To take another example, this time in the London area, in the nine months to June 1985, compared with a similar period to June 1984, on a Lewisham estate burglaries had dropped by 54 per cent., car crime by 60 per cent. and street crime by 48 per cent. These are just two instances; but I am talking about something which is not difficult to do, not expensive to do, and is working.
The Home Office and Sir Kenneth Newman have both publicly acknowledged the value of this work. Last year in his Howard League address Sir Kenneth said:
"The resources provided by Narco are used to build effective multi-agency initiatives against crime, involving police, social services and housing departments. These initiatives are beginning to show results on some of the most difficult housing estates in London in reducing crime".
The system is worth describing in a few sentences. Nacro sends in a team of two or three experienced workers. They call on and arrange meetings with local authorities and other statutory and voluntary agencies concerned in the area. They bring together senior representatives from them to form a steering committee. A team is appointed which goes round and consults the residents to discuss problems and possible solutions; it reports back with a report of recommended improvements and with a draft action scheme on behalf of the residents to the steering committee which considers and perhaps amends it. The team then relays the agreed action plan back to the residents for endorsement.
The important thing now is that the steering committee then has the continuing task of overseeing progress, and in particular the involvement of the residents. We have found that success depends on first the involvement of the residents; and secondly in getting one or two of the recommendations quickly and visibly implemented to maintain everybody's morale. Obviously, this sort of thing can be well or badly done. We have had enough experience to see that it is well done.
Now I come to the question of narcotics. These under-privileged—indeed, disadvantaged—communities are specially vulnerable to criminal activity. The 1984 British Crime Survey showed that the poorest estates had burlgary rates five times as high as the national average. The young people, mostly unemployed, are obviously an easy target for the drug pushers who come in and push their drugs without much danger of being caught because their customers protect them. But the parents of the young are as horrified as any other parents at what is happening to their children and they want above all things more effective policing. If the system involving the residents that we have been talking about is thoroughly set up, these parents will be of the greatest possible assistance to the police in every possible way.
Community policing can never be successful until the community is wholly behind the police and regards them as friends and protectors. This cannot be
1072
achieved overnight and is inevitably easier in predominantly white areas than in mainly black areas. Particularly among the latter there is a fear and hatred of the police—based on past behaviour, alas! undeniable and inexcusable—but which Sir Kenneth Newman is making the most strenuous efforts to correct as is shown clearly in the paragraphs to which my noble friend referred in his recent report. I think he is making real progress. I also think we can help him. We have found, where our teams have commenced, that we can bring the police in with the residents in a way which is reassuring to both sides and which begins to change the attitude of suspicion into one which noble Lords in this House have naturally: that the police are on our side and will protect us.
The parents, whether black or white, need to be persuaded to ask the police to come in and help. If the police come in, as of course they are obliged to in pursuit of crime, without this familiarisation through discussion which we have been talking about, they may easily, by stopping or sometimes even arresting youngsters who are in fact innocent, add to the reputation they already have of picking on blacks and lose the confidence of the parents who should be their main supporters.
They have a real difficulty here in that it is hard to pick up the pushers without interfering with a good many youngsters, not all of whom are customers but most of whom will protect a colleague against the police. The only way to get round this is to persuade the community as a whole that their children's lives are being ruined and that the police must come in and help them. Thus, though I think that more police may well be needed to deal with the dreadful scourge of drugs I should like to see priority given to the forming of crime prevention units on every housing estate in the country, and particularly in the metropolitan area. This would enormously add to the effectiveness of policing.
If the system gives good results, as we in NACRO and others can demonstrate that it does, there should be no hesitation in multiplying the use of the method without the usual government delay in setting up pilot schemes, running them for three years and then waiting a year for a monitoring report. We can show people at least 60 pilot schemes, so let us get on with it. I hope at least that the Secretary of State will see that this is done, and done properly in each of his five trial inner-city areas.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we all start, I think, from the common ground that we are in the throes of a drug epidemic which is fuelled and spread by the ready availability of illegal narcotics and a vulnerable population. Both supply and demand factors are abundantly present. On the law enforcement side, the Government made some very foolish cuts in the Customs and Excise service prior to 1984, which may have been partly, but only partly, repaired. That is important because, although seizures by the police account for more than three-quarters of the total numbers of seizures, the Customs account for 90 per cent. of the volume seized, which is of course the more significant measurement.

1073
However, even with the recent improvements in the Customs success rate, SCODA (that is, the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse), estimate that no more than 15 per cent. of the drugs destined for the United Kingdom are intercepted on entry into the country. I think that my noble friend Lord Harris gave a lower estimate of 10 per cent. so the scope for increased police effectiveness once the drugs are inside the country is very considerable. And of course this is particularly so in London, Despite the spread of the epidemic all over the country, London remains the drug capital of the United Kingdom. In 1984 there were 12,489 drug misusers known to the Home Office, but according to SCODA it is reasonable to estimate that the real figure is closer to 60,000 of whom as many as 20,000 may be found in the London area.
There are two questions I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, here. If, as my noble friend Lord Harris suggests, there is to be a further increase in the strength of the metropolitan police, will the Government ensure that it is sufficient to allow an increase in the staff of the Central Drug Squad from its present strength of 57 to its target strength of about 200? That does seem to be a very serious shortfall from the number the force believes it needs to combat the drug menace effectively.
Next, do the Government agree that there is a need for police officers to receive more training about drug use, and do they support the increased use of cautioning (which does of course involve a criminal record) for cases involving canabis, in order that more police time can be concentrated on suppliers and those committing the very serious offence of trafficking in class A drugs? It really does seem important that we should get our priorities right here.
I now want to switch briefly to the Government's media campaign against drug abuse, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. This has so far taken the form of leaflets for parents, public information from the Central Office of Information transmitted by the BBC, commercial TV advertisements, advertisements and articles in the youth and professional press and public posters. The total cost for the period from October 1984 to March 1986, but mostly incurred since May 1985, was, according to the Social Services Committee of another place, £1,792,000, of which £1,220,000 was specifically directed at young people.
Unfortunately, I understand that once the figures are finalised there is likely to have been a 25 per cent. increase in the notification of new addicts during 1985. This may of course be due to improved notification procedures or to factors unrelated to the campaign, and it is perhaps early days for any positive results. All the same, it seems to me that this interim, or provisional, result (if I may call it that) should give the Government food for thought.
It is the view of SCODA and of the citizens' advice bureaux that, though the take-up—however that is measured—has been encouraging, the campaign has been largely ineffective because it was targeted at a middle-class audience. Certainly the problem affects all income groups but there are obviously a larger number of abusers in the larger socio-economic groups. It therefore seems that this campaign has not been properly designed or targeted. Can the
1074
Government tell us what their plans are now in this respect? Will they drop this means of persuasion or attempt to refocus it?
I should add that before this idea was put into effect there were knowledgeable people who warned that it would be ineffective and even counter-productive. I accept that the sum of money involved is not large by today's standards, but it is considerable in relation to the Government's £10 million central fund, and I believe that the cost-effectiveness of this type of approach to the problem should be scrutinised very carefully indeed.
I want finally to turn to wider considerations. We are in the grip of an epidemic, but our response has been slow, fragmented and lacking in co-ordination. As I have already said, both the supply and demand sides are booming in a sinister symbiosis. The police and the Customs operate on the supply side, and must be enabled to do so more effectively, as my noble friend's Motion urges. The demand side is more complicated because it is stimulated by poor social conditions, by boredom and by despair.
Though one cannot prove a causal connection, there is a distinct correlation between drug abuse and unemployment. The annual level of drug offences and of registered addicts varied little between 1974 and 1978 when unemployment did not, at its maximum, rise much above 5 per cent.; but when unemployment took off between 1979 and 1984 drug offences doubled in that period, as did notifications. Common sense would seem to indicate a link between unemployment and drug abuse, and it certainly seems to be there.
Then again there is the question of the interrelation between alcohol and drugs. Does expensive legal alcohol enhance the appeal of illegal drugs? With stable or falling street prices, that may well be the case. We do not know because it is unusual to discuss alcohol and drug problems together; but the fact is that the real price of alcohol has gone up since 1979 while the street price of heroin has halved.
Next there is the question of the media campaign I have already referred to. Are such campaigns effective or are they counter-productive? There is also the international angle which has also been mentioned in this debate. More is being done to mobilise international action, and this appears to have had some effect on the amount of cocaine entering the country, but not on heroin.
There is also the question of education and of the approach adopted in schools. Only yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was telling us about video films being issued to schools, and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, also referred to that. All these are aspects of the drug problem, without touching on treatment and the role of the GP, the community health team and social workers or on the pressing need for more research. I will not continue on this tack. My only purpose is to show that the drug problem is linked to other social factors, is multi-faceted and involves all sorts of bodies and agencies, some statutory and some not.
I am not saying that this pluralist approach is wrong; but the plain truth is that we do not have a national strategy, we do not have enough funds and it is my belief that it is high time we brought together the

1075
medical, scientific, social and criminal evidence and looked at the problem in the round. Because it is not going to go away and it will be with us, in greater or lesser volume, in the year 2000 and probably well beyond.
So how should we go about this? I want to ask the Government tonight to look at the idea of a standing royal commission. I know that these distinguished bodies have not been held in much esteem by the present Government, but there is one active and highly effective example still in business: the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, set up in 1970. It has produced no less than 11 effective and influential reports on all aspects of pollution, whether of rivers, the sea, the air or the city environment. As a result of its work we have built up an invaluable picture of the threats to our environment and of the possible remedies. Of course, royal commissions cannot make policy but they can provide the essential background against which decisions can be taken.
I think that a commission of this sort would be of great advantage to the drug scene. It could explore the role of the police, of doctors, of psychiatrists; the findings of research; the relationship with other addictions; the results of campaigns; the efforts of schools. All these strands could be brought together in the same clearing house. Everything of relevance could be sifted and evaluated by an objective body not tied to the interests or theories of any one profession or agency. Given the existing sense of national emergency, I am sure there are outstanding people who would be willing to serve.
I have, incidentally, checked on the cost. It would be tiny compared to the sums already pledged. The Supply Estimates for 1985–86 show the total budgeted cost of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution at £148,000—barely more than the sum spent last year by the Government on leaflets for their campaign. No objection can be raised on grounds of cost and I venture to suggest that the creation of such a body would be no more than the proper and explicit recognition of the scale of a problem that is almost certain to persist well into the next century, though one would hope on a diminishing scale if effective prevention and remedies can be devised.
I realise that the noble Lord cannot hand me a royal commission across the Dispatch Box this evening, but I want to get his undertaking to discuss the matter seriously within Government circles and possibly to write to me about it. This suggestion is aimed at a better appreciation of the drug scourge and more effective action in the medium- and long-term. It is in no way intended to detract from the urgency of my noble friend's case for an immediate increase in the strength of the metropolitan police. The front line response is the first priority. But we must have a strategy. Otherwise, we shall go on winning the occasional skirmish and making the occasional spectacular seizure; but we shall not be winning the war.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the opinions expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon have really been
1076
all one way, and that perhaps makes it easier than it might otherwise have been for me to wind-up this short debate on behalf of the Alliance. We look forward with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord the Minister will say in his reply. If the leak in the morning press was an authorised one—and it may well be that it was—he is going to indicate to us that the increased resources for which we are asking are in fact about to be provided. I resist the temptation to say—if he does indicate that—that that demonstrates the power of the Alliance. What I do say is that it certainly appears to indicate that there is a great deal of influence to be obtained by your Lordships' House in having a well-timed debate, because I strongly suspect, if this concession is made this afternoon by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government, that it is a statement that perhaps would not have been made had this debate not taken place today. It would have been postponed, no doubt, to some time in the future.
That the case has been made out for the increased resources for which we are asking is perfectly clear. We know that the Government have as one of their main platforms their belief in law and order. I think the record shows, certainly in the metropolitan police area—the one with which we are primarily concerned this afternoon—that the promise has not quite lived up to what was anticipated. I know that looking at the number of notifiable offences is not a very accurate indication of the amount of crime that is committed, but it is a reasonably accurate indication of the amount of crime that the police are called on to investigate.
The figures really are quite startling—an increase in notifiable offences of some 75 per cent. over the last 10 years, and an increase in the metropolitan police area alone from 1979 to 1984 of from 557,000 serious crimes to some 716,000. That is a very substantial increase and, during the time that that increase has been taking place, one is entitled to look to see what the Government have provided by way of increased forces to deal with it.
The facts, as your Lordships now know from what has been said by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, are that metropolitan police numbers have risen from some 22,800 in 1979 to some 26,800 in 1984—a total increase of 4,000 officers and a percentage increase of rather less than the amount by which crime has increased. But one then has to take into account the figures repeatedly stated by the commissioner and referred to by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich.
Without repeating the figures in detail, it is clear, is it not?—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will agree with this—that when one looks at those officers who had to be diverted to the royalty and diplomatic protection corps, at those officers who had to be diverted to Heathrow airport, at those officers who had to be diverted to the district support units, and then when one takes into account also the reduction in the effective strength caused by the reduction in overtime, which, in turn, has been partly caused by a Government imposed reduction in the cash limits, one reaches an overall figure which shows for all practical purposes no increase whatever in the number of police officers in the metropolitan area

1077
available in the last five years to fight this great increase in crime.
Those officers are desperately needed. I do not need to repeat what has been said this afternoon by so many noble Lords about the crime figures in the metropolis, nor, in particular, about the figures for the increase in drugs traffic which was particularly referred to by my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Kilmarnock. Those increased numbers of officers are needed primarily to go on the beat, partly to deter the commission of offences, partly to catch offenders and partly because that is the only way by which community policing by consent can be made effective.
The desperate need for that has been made clear recently. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who mentioned the "Panorama" programme which showed that, certainly in one area of London, the number of young people who were willing to support and co-operate with the police was very small and the number of young black people was almost entirely negligible. That is a serious matter. The neighbourhood crime watch programmes, about which we have heard, can exist only with the active support of the public. From the "Panorama" programme it rather looked as though such members of the public as were willing to participate in those neighbourhood crime watch programmes were almost entirely elderly or middle-class and white. That is no way in which those programmes will be made effective, and there is therefore a desperate need to promote active co-operation between the police and the community.
This does not involve overlooking—of course it does not—the occasional misdemeanour by some member of the police force. It is quite right that that should not be glossed over. It is quite right for example, that the incident in Holloway should receive the treatment that it has done. I do not want to refer to that matter because it is, I suppose, so far as those who have been arrested are concerned sub judice. But I might mention one matter to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.
He and I have crossed swords across this House on several occasions about Section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which makes it an offence to withhold information. I ask him to consider whether, if police officers who are themselves innocent of any offence know perfectly well that an offence has been committed and agree together not to disclose it, they are not in fact committing a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I do not want to go on about that. I think one ought to take—as I hope one can take—the sort of balanced approach to the occasional case in which the police misbehave that was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, which I so much admired when he spoke a little earlier this afternoon.
There must be criticism where it is due but it must be balanced, it must be constructive, and it must recognise that those in the police force who do offend are a small minority. There must be no place in our society for the sort of criticism sometimes uttered, particularly, I am afraid, by local authorities and largely—inevitably perhaps—by Labour-controlled local authorities, in which every police misdemeanour is seized upon with glee as an opportunity to try to expand and exaggerate the differences that might appear between the police and the public.
1078
With a balanced approach, with an increased force which can be used constructively to cement relations with the public, it ought to be possible, given the increased resources about which I hope to hear in a few minutes' time, to provide a police force in the metropolitan area which at last will make a really successful attempt to tackle the problems of increasing crime.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in thanking from these Benches the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for introducing this important subject, I would say, as I believe has been implied in this debate, that if the nation at this moment were asked what were the main issues worrying it, the reply would come from a very large majority: the unacceptable limits now to be endured of unemployment and the unacceptable limits, presumably now to be endured, of the increase in serious crime. If parents were asked to state their main worry these days in regard to their children, I should have said the answer would be the temptation of narcotics. We are dealing with a matter which is very important for the nation as a whole even though this debate is limited to our capital city.
One is tempted to ask, "What is the cause of this increase in narcotics"—the figures have been dealt with—"and in crime?"—the figures have been dealt with. Is it the figure of unemployment? It must play a serious part, especially when one is dealing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, did, with the age group which concerns us terribly as regards the serious increase in both cases—crime and drugs. I refer to young people. It must have some sort of influence.
The lack of discipline in the home and in schools must have some sort of influence. The dropping in the values of family life must have some sort of influence. Depriving youngsters of the roots that our generation had, whether it was in religious faith or whether it was in the security we felt we had and they do not have, must have some sort of influence. But whatever may be the causes—and obviously, in so far as we can remedy them, we would want to—there are matters that have to be looked at of a practical and immediate nature.
Narcotics have formed as they should do a very serious part of our debate this afternoon. The figures show that the biggest increase is in those under 21—again, a matter that was referred to obliquely, although she dealt mostly with crime, by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. Of course this is a matter with which we should love to deal by way of decisions reached this afternoon. What we can do is pose to the Minister some questions. The question of dealing with this problem internationally was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. There is of course a good deal of international co-operation. Perhaps I may pose this question, as it has been posed, I have noticed, in some journals that I have read.
The main source of the heroin that we are particularly worried about, apart from cocaine, is in the poppy fields of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The peasants who pick that crop get a very small sum for their labours. Ought international funding be put towards ensuring that there are alternative crops out of which those peasants can earn their livelihood?

1079
Bearing in mind this cancer which enters Western countries, Western populations and Western youngsters, is it just a fantastic idea or complete lunacy to think in terms of funds being employed (if there can be no alternative crops) to the purchase of the crops and their destruction before they ever reach the markets that we have been decrying this afternoon? It is worth a thought.
Again, when we deal with narcotics we are dealing with legislation. It is right that Parliament should do that. Our legislation has consisted of turning a previously fairly severe sentence into a maximum sentence of life imprisonment when the big dealers are caught, when the big people trafficking in this evil trade are apprehended. We are to consider soon in Parliament a Bill which will try to take the profits from those who have these ill-gotten gains. Before we ever reach that stage the big people have to be caught. I turn to the Minister and I ask him this question. Is it a fact that police efforts and resources—I shall deal with the question of further recruitment in a moment—are being taken away from the catching of the big people because of the worries that so many of us have in various areas towards the little supplier and the taker of the drugs?
I am not saying that there ought to be a decrease in vigilance in order to try to deal with those people; but I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether there is Home Office guidance. The Home Office is, after all, the authority looking after the metropolitan police. Are there guidelines laid down for the police? Are there consultations with the police about the drive and the resources that must be employed in order to catch the big people? It is the big people who are responsible for this trade, not the people who for £1,000 or £2,000 carry these evil substances in aircraft or in ships or wherever it may be. The people we are talking about are making billions of pounds out of this wretched trade.
I turn quickly to the question of crime. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had listened more carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The noble Lord. Lord Harris, started off with his usual eloquence and said he regretted so much that anybody should try to make political capital out of a matter of this kind. The noble Lord decried the way in which, presumably, the two other parties were doing it. It is a little regrettable, as I said, that that guidance was not followed more closely, otherwise we would have been spared the lashes which were so undeserved in regard to certain political matters that the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, he even tried to get for the benefit of the Alliance Party the fact that there was a headline in The Times this morning:
"Bigger police force for London urged by Home Office".
If the noble Lord had read that article with a little more precision, he would have seen that the review was started last October. What happened—and we are all very glad about it—was, so the press say, that there was a recommendation made in an internal Home Office inquiry. The report says that a substantial increase has been recommended. Furthermore, The Times states that an announcement is to be made of that increase. Here is an opportunity for the noble Lord the Minister. He has been pressed from these
1080
Benches and from the Alliance Benches—and now the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will see the generosity of treatment, politically, that we accord—and the Minister has a wonderful opportunity now to announce to the nation today that there has been that recommendation and that it will be implemented.
There is no point in recruiting a police force unless the quality of that police force is that which the metropolitan police has proudly held over many years. There must be quality as well as quantity. There must be a proper intake. I know that the views of the Minister are favourable, and those of the Secretary of State and the Government, are favourable in this respect; that we must see to it that there is a bigger intake into the police force of the ethnic minorities.
Steps are being taken in that direction in other parts of the United Kingdom. I was reading that there is funding of some £60,000 in one part of the kingdom, in order to see to it that there is a door-to-door approach in regard to areas that are occupied very largely by the ethnic minorities, to tell those minorities how much the police would like people from their communities to be recruited into the police force. One would like to see that being done very definitely in the Metropolitan Police Force.
There has been reference made to some of the sinister reports that have reached us, where police from the Metropolitan Police Force have been concerned. I want to say from these Benches on behalf of the Opposition—and it has been said by others wiser than I—that we hold the Metropolitan Police Force and the whole of the police forces of this kingdom in high regard. We look upon them as courageous people who are fighting the battle of justice, and not just of law and order, with honour, with distinction, and with integrity. The police forces lament as much as we do the miscreants in their midst, who are a minority. However, we must see to it that those miscreants are weeded out of the forces.
I pay my tribute—and it is not often in your Lordships' House that we do so—to the media, who were not content with an announcement that was made by the very worthy police complaints authority after much consultation with New Scotland Yard some little time ago that it was impossible to identify who the miscreants were. It appeared in that dreadful Holloway case—and the matter has not been tried yet—that it was impossible to find out who were the people concerned because the facts were being hidden. The media were responsible for seeing to it that the matter did not end there. Investigations have obviously continued, and rightly so, in order to protect the name of the police. I shall say no more because it would not be proper for me to say more.
As I said before this debate has been useful in dealing with a matter that is of such great concern to the citizens of London, and indeed to the nation at large.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we will all be grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having initiated a debate on such an important subject. The debate has been wide-ranging and interesting, and there have been many thoughtful contributions. I have

1081
a lot of ground to cover in winding up the debate. I shall do my best to deal with the points that have been raised but first I should like to say a word or two about how the Government see the way ahead on the three major issues to which the noble Lord has directed our attention: the rise in serious crime, especially drug trafficking; crime prevention; and the manpower needs of the Metropolitan Police Force.
There can be no doubt that there has been a rise in serious crime in London. The facts are stark and daunting. In 1984 the number of notifiable offences recorded in the metropolitan police district was 717,00. In 1974 it was 414,000. The rise in crimes of violence is particularly disturbing. The number of recorded offences involving firearms rose from just over 1,000 to more than 2,000 in 1984. The number involving knives and other sharp instruments increased from under 3,000 in 1975 to nearly 6,000 in 1984.
The number of recorded burglaries roughly doubled over the same period, although there have been some recent welcome improvements. The number of burglaries in dwellings recorded in the first nine months of 1985 was 13 per cent. lower than in the equivalent period the year before.
I ought to make two further points about those figures. First, and to expand upon a point made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, those figures relate to recorded crime. They exclude offences that were not reported to the police. There is some evidence from the British crime survey that people may be rather more inclined now than they used to be to report offences such as burglary; perhaps for insurance reasons, or perhaps even because more people have telephones today and can report such crimes more easily.
There is no dispute that the amount of crime has increased, but the rise may be rather less than the statistics of recorded offences suggest. Secondly, there is nothing new about that increase in the crime figures. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, himself pointed to that fact. The national statistics for recorded crime show a steady rise since the 1950s. In making those points, I am not in any way trying to play down the problem; that would be foolish. I am simply underlining the point that the phenomenon of rising crime is both complex and long-standing.
Equally complex are the reasons for crime in the first place. It would be impossible to find any simple explanations for the increase in crime or to establish links between the rise in crime and changes in other factors in society. Unemployment levels, for example, have varied greatly throughout the century while the incidence of crime has steadily increased. Equally, while the crime rate is higher in relatively deprived areas, it is also high in some relatively affluent districts. There is no evidence to suggest that poor housing and other types of deprivation in themselves contribute to greater criminality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, raised some important points. I share her view of the serious matter of violence against staff in the workplace. The Government are well aware of the problems and are supporting a number of working groups to identify how best to tackle and disseminate advice. The Health
1082
and Safety Executive is examining, in a working group across the range of interested government departments, violence to staff generally. It is seeking to exchange experience gained by different departments in tackling their problems and will issue initial guidance by the summer. The Department of Transport has two working groups; one on attacks on bus staff that will be reporting very shortly with recommendations for future action, and another in prevention of violence on the London Underground that will report by mid-summer.
The Home Office is supporting a working group on violence associated with licensed premises. Violence caused by people who have, to differing extents, lost self-control because of too much drink is a very real problem for the police, and the group should produce helpful advice on the way forward.
I think that the noble Baroness will know from her own attendance at the No. 10 seminar that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister commended the manual on security in hospitals produced by the National Association of Health Authorities; and the Home Office Crime Prevention Unit is supplementing that valuable and practical advice by a research study based on the experience of a provincial hospital on crime in hospitals.
As for sentencing and the question of violence being treated severely, of course sentencing is a matter for the courts but offences of grievous bodily harm carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and assault occasioning actual bodily harm carries a sentence of five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made some telling points about drug trafficking. Indeed, other noble Lords have also done so. In preparing for this debate I refreshed my memory of the debate on drug trafficking which the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Mayhew, initiated just over a year ago. It is with no small sense of progress since then that I now turn to the vigorous steps which the Government have taken over the last 12 months to tackle the growing menace of drug abuse.
My noble friend Lady Macleod drew attention to the work of my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Mellor, and his chairing of a ministerial group to consider this very serious matter. I think that to some extent the existence of that group is the answer for which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was looking when he suggested that perhaps a standing Royal Commission might be able to look at it as well. That group is a very important means of bringing together the different parts of the Government and different parts of public life which have an input to make toward dealing with the problem.
It is not of course on action aimed at the drug trafficker alone that the Government have based their strategy; action has to be aimed at all stages of the chain from production to supply to treatment of misusers. Nor is the problem confined to London. Nonetheless, given the terms of this Motion and the restrictions of time, I shall confine my comments to initiatives in respect of police and Customs action against traffickers in London. I shall return later to the establishment needs generally of the metropolitan police, which include that of resources to tackle drugs.

1083
But we must remember that in Heathrow we have a significant point of entry for drugs into London and that Customs too have a crucial role to play; indeed, it is there that they have had some of their most notable successes. In one week alone last year Customs seized 45kg. of heroin at Heathrow. I gather that to a major trafficker that has a street value of £1,125,000 or thereabouts.
Returning to the role of the police in drug matters, the commissioner is continuing to give priority to action against drug misuse. As in 1985, so in 1986; action against drug misuse continues to be one of the force's main goals. The central drug squad has been particularly active against drug traffickers. During 1985 it removed 40 major drug trafficking organisations in the London area which were dealing in heroin, cocaine and the production of amphetamines. Moreover, the squad has produced an information folder and a set of slides about drugs and methods for their use which have been given to every police community liaison officer in the force, in order that knowledge about drug misuse is disseminated as widely as possible.
Your Lordships will also recall that my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary announced in July last year a number of initiatives to enhance the police response to drugs. These initiatives relate to the country as a whole, and all forces, including the metropolitan police, will benefit greatly from the appointment of Mr. Colin Hewett, previously in charge of the metropolitan police anti-terrorist squad, as National Drugs Intelligence Co-ordinator, to head the enhanced National Drugs Intelligence Unit—to which my noble friend Lady Macleod referred—and co-ordinate and develop police action and liaison with Customs to a high degree which fully takes into account the increasing sophistication of these criminals.
The noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Mishcon, asked about international collaboration. At government level the United Kingdom is an active member of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and is supporting fully the United Nations proposals for a new convention which will cover a range of practical means of enhancing collaboration arrangements. The United Kingdom is also in the chair of the European Co-operation Group on Drugs which is known as the Pompidou Group and is also supporting the involvement of the European Community in collaboration with the Pompidou Group.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I be permitted to ask the Minister a simple question, which is this: is there intended to be collaboration with foreign countries not just through the metropolitan police but through other forces in this country, or is it to be done through London?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot explain the mechanism to my noble friend in a moment or two, but I shall certainly let him know what it is.
I described the Pompidou Group and the importance of collaboration internationally, which of course we realise is a very important feature. One only
1084
has to recall the initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last year at the Bonn economic summit and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the Bahamas. But collaboration is a practical exercise too by police and Customs—which in part may answer my noble friend. These two services are full participants in international organisations which provide channels of practical co-operation. Interpol and the Customs Co-operation Council are the two well-known examples. Both services build bilateral links too and these direct links are being developed by our increasing international network of United Kingdom drug liaison officers.
As for the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about international funding of alternative crops (and I have to say that this is a valid point), through the United Nations fund for drug abuse control considerable funding is made available for crop substitution, but this is of benefit only provided that enforcement in those countries is able to secure that peasants do not revert to poppy cultivation. Through the United Nations we are therefore giving funding, training and support for the enforcement agencies in those countries.
Regarding the noble Lord's suggestion that the police might be diverted from dealing with the really big people in this sort of crime because of resources, I must say that that is not the case. The whole thrust of the commissioner's plans with drug trafficking as well as other types of major crime is to tackle organised crime; that is, he is aiming for the major criminals and not the small fry. This was made clear in the lead which the commissioner has given his force for the year ahead with the agreement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
But enforcement is not in itself sufficient. Your Lordships will also be aware of the Bill which was referred to earlier to deprive offenders of their drug trafficking assets, which was given its First Reading in your Lordships' House on 20th February. The Drug Trafficking Offences Bill provides wide-ranging new powers for tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking. It will require the courts to impose on a convicted offender a confiscation order which is equal to the full proceeds of the offender's drug trafficking activities. It will introduce provision whereby any of the offender's assets will be liable to confiscation if he has salted his trafficking proceeds outside the jurisdiction or spent them; it provides important new offences directed at those who assist the trafficker by laundering proceeds or alerting him that his affairs are under investigation; and it provides the necessary powers to put these provisions into effect and for reciprocal arrangements for enforcement to be agreed with other countries.
These are stern measures, and intentionally so. They constitute an important element in the Government's strategy for combating the scourge of drug misuse to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred with some emotion. We are confident that this Bill, which your Lordships will shortly have the opportunity to consider in detail, will provide police, Customs and the courts with the strong and effective powers which are necessary to cope with the threat posed by this evil and sophisticated form of crime.

1085
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lady Macleod referred to the question of education and prevention. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced on 13th January, the initial evaluation results of our major £2 million national education and information campaign are encouraging. They suggest that the campaign has hardened young people's attitudes to heroin and other drugs, with increased awareness of their harmful effects without encouraging experimentation, and that is a particularly important point. He has therefore decided to make a further £2 million available for work on the campaign in 1986–87.
Again we talked earlier about the video training package for professionals released on 16th December. On 13th January we launched "Double Take", a two-part video for young people for use in schools and elsewhere. As announced on 30th December, all 96 English local education authorities have been allocated a share of the £2 million to be allocated next year through the education support grants programme. I could go on, but in the interests of time I shall have to cut down what I proposed to say.
As to the question of drugs and unemployment which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, raised, I do not doubt that young people who are bored seek relief through drugs, but I cannot accept a causal link. One has only to see press reports of young people in different walks of life who have been found in possession of cocaine, cannabis and heroin to realise that drug misuse is a menace that goes much more widely through our society than perhaps he suggested. I shall turn in a moment to the question of NACRO and funding for crime prevention units.
I come now to crime prevention and the Government's efforts to do all that they can and to encourage others also to do all that they can to reduce opportunities for crime. Much activity is now in hand, especially at local level, and those efforts were given fresh impetus by the seminar of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 8th January. The action points agreed at that seminar covered auto-crime, residential burglary, violent crime and crime in the workplace; and the different but complementary responsibilities of industry, the CBI, the TUC, voluntary organisations, nationalised industries and central and local government in carrying forward the agreed programme of work were recognised, as was the need to sustain momentum if results are to be achieved.
Activity on the ground includes Neighbourhood Watch schemes. There are now some 3,770 schemes in the Metropolitan Police District. There is also the crime prevention initiative under the expanded community programme through which useful crime prevention projects can be carried out by people currently unemployed. Your Lordships may also be aware of five local demonstration projects. The object here is for a local steering committee comprising a range of statutory and voluntary organisations to identify local projects designed to respond to local needs. The Home Office is funding a local co-ordinator for each of those projects, and we are also providing publicity and research back-up.
1086
The important point in all that activity is to convince the community by demonstration that it is not helpless in the face of crime and that by collective effort, organisation and determination it can be reduced significantly. I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, had to say about that in the example that he gave. My noble friend Lord Inglewood mentioned the fact that the people who take part in Neighbourhood Watch schemes were not policemen and so had rather more constraints on them; but the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made brought out the importance of the part that the public at large have to play.
As for the question of NACRO and the crime prevention projects, I am sure that my noble friend will realise that the Home Office funds NACRO under Section 51 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. That section empowers the Secretary of State to fund NACRO for the purpose of rehabilitation of offenders but not for crime prevention, so it is not open to the Home Office to fund the NACRO crime prevention projects in the way that he and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, suggest, although we regard highly the projects to which he referred.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the point that I was trying to raise was why the Home Office does not fund crime prevention when it spends such a lot of money on dealing with crime.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, unfortunately in the time allowed I cannot cover that point as fully as I should like, but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Concern about rising crime inevitably raises the question of police manpower. It is the duty of every government to form a judgment about the amount of manpower that the police need to deal with crime and then to see that they have it. Before outlining the way forward for metropolitan police manpower, as we see it. I should say a word or two about the present and about the immediate past, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, forecast that I would. He gave some numbers and I need not repeat them. He described how by the end of 1983 we had reached a figure about 4,500 more than in May 1979. That growth in size is roughly equivalent to the size of the Merseyside police force, which is one of the largest provincial forces. The strength of the civilian staff, most of whom work in direct support of police officers, has also grown. The force embarked upon a period of consolidation. Although there have been further increases in strength, the accent has been on making more effective use of existing resources. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is right.
The commissioner has been energetic in pursuing measures to secure the better use of manpower and other resources. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, seemed to accept that. The commissioner's recent report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary outlining his strategy for 1986 contains a full account of those measures. I could give much more information, but in the interests of time I fear that I shall have to cut out much of what I was going to say. I should like to have referred to the importance of special constables.

1087
But let me say this. As the force nears the establishment figure, we have been considering whether it should be increased. Some increases have already been given. An increase of 43 in civil staff from 1st April has been approved in order to help with further civilianisation. On 21st October my right honourable friend announced in another place that he had agreed in principle to an increase of 50 in the police establishment from the same date to strengthen the commissioner's efforts against drug trafficking.
Beyond that we set in hand urgent work last October to assess where there were specific needs for further increases in the establishment. A major review, as has been indicated, has been undertaken by the metropolitan police and the Home Office. The review, which looks ahead, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood hoped that it would, has been completed and its report is on the desk of my right honourable friend. He is giving it careful consideration. I expect that your Lordships will understand that, despite the desire of so many noble Lords for me to be in a position to say something today, I cannot do so. However, I agree with all that has been said by those who say that the police deserve our full support. I share their distaste for those who hinder them in their work.
In my haste to finish I have lost my place and I shall try to find it. We are determined to do all that we can to bring crime in the many ways that have been described to a sensible level. The debate has provided an opportunity for many useful views to be expressed and for me to demonstrate in rather too much haste but certainly without complacency the Government's commitment. The fact that the problem persists despite our efforts must not be allowed to dispirit us or to induce fatalism or despair; rather, it should fire us all with renewed determination to get to grips with it.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, first I thank all who have participated in the debate. I hope that it has been useful; I believe that it has. I should have been mildly surprised had the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, announced the Home Secretary's decision on metropolitan police manpower in a debate such as this, and he was not in a position to do so. But he will realise from what has been said in this House the expectation on all sides that there must be a substantial increase in its manpower.
As he rightly said, the size of the force has gone up by over 4,000, but he did not deal with the point which I raised and which was repeated by others. The overtime restrictions imposed by the Government have led to a reduction in its effective strength by over 3,200 officers, which seems to be the central issue in the debate. We very much hope that as a result of the discussions which no doubt the Home Secretary will now have with the Chancellor, who is the central figure in the argument, we shall soon hear an announcement of a substantial increase in the size of the force.
I agree with what the Minister said in his last few words. There is a clear need to recreate a sense of national unity when we are talking about relations between the police and the public. As I said, and as my noble friend Lord Wigoder repeated, there has been a
1088
damaging growth of publicly financed, anti-police bodies in London and elsewhere. They have poisoned the atmosphere. Those concerned have a heavy burden of personal responsibility for what has happened. General support for the police is admirable. What would be even better would be if some of those who have greater political responsibility used occasions such as this to denounce those who have conducted themselves in such a fashion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Government, Parliament and the Civil Service
5.40 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson rose to call attention to the relationship of government and Parliament with the Civil Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put down this Motion I realised that, unlike a number of your Lordships who will be taking part in the debate, I have no experience of government. I have no detailed knowledge of the Civil Service. I shall be adopting very much the parliamentarians' view of the relationship of Government and Parliament with the Civil Service. I also wish to point out that I had in mind in putting down the Motion not only that it was timely, as I thought, in the light of recent events, but also to demonstrate my concern about the immediate relationship and the relationship in the fairly foreseeable future as opposed to the long-term relationship.
I say this because, on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, I have referred to the fact that there are forces, I believe, inexorably driving this country in the direction of what may be described as a new constitutional settlement. The reasons are most eloquently set out in that remarkable book The Dilemma of Democracy by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor—a book, as I have pointed out previously, that was written when he was in opposition and not when he was in government. The noble and learned Lord sets out there the forces that are at work in this country which will eventually drive us, I believe, into a state of affairs where we have a codified constitution.
I shall adopt virtually as the text for my opening remarks a quotation from an article by Mr. David Watt in The Times newspaper of Friday 7th February under the heading "Whitehall pact in need of repair". In it appear these words:
"For better or worse, we have to live with professional, full-time politicians who live and die by the media and cannot afford to accept formal responsibility for more mistakes than they have to. As a result, we are gradually learning to live with an identifiable, and to some extent separately accountable, Civil Service and we can expect to face a parliamentary system which becomes more and more fluid, unpredictable and inquisitorial".
I ask myself the question: is this view correct? I believe it to be so. The three characteristics of civil servants, the traditional ones of anonymity, secrecy and permanency, have probably at the very least been modified very much over the past decade. The theory of government in this country, on which the so-called pact depends, is that government exercises the will of

1089
Parliament through the authority of the Sovereign and that the civil servants are the administrative arm of the Government, the Government having behind them the full weight of the Sovereign acting in Parliament. So the duty of the civil servant has always been said, traditionally, to be the Crown in Parliament. But, in practice, things have become very different.
What are the factors responsible for the weakening and/or the potential breakdown of the constitutional pact? I shall mention some of them. First, the growth of the power of the media in a modern sophisticated society must be among the more important. Is Mr. David Watt correct in stating:
"Most inside information disobliging to governments does not come from the Tisdales and the Pontings but by way of discreet 'guidance' from senior Civil Servce colleagues who do not see why they should take all the flak for their ministerial masters".
The second reason is, I believe, this. The traditional arrangements presume a single party system—a single party in government and a single party in opposition. However, we have been witnessing the slow but sure breakdown, within this country of the rigid two-party system and the realisation by Parliament that its main role should be to make things difficult for Government and to be a stouter critic and check on the Executive. This was a view eloquently developed by my noble friend Lord Grimond in a debate in this House about a fortnight ago.
The growth of the Select Committees in the other place and the independence of government that some of them increasingly tend to show is simply a manifestation, I believe, of this longer term trend. My noble friend Lord Grimond expressed some doubt about the direction that the Select Committees were taking, saying that he had initially been one of their supporters but was worried about modern trends. It seems to me that the Select Committees were set up because of a realisation by Members of Parliament of how poor their resources were individually in comparison to the resources of Ministers. The power of the group is very much greater than the power of the individual. It is my belief that Question Time in the other place has become less formidable to the Government than it used to be. And, if I may venture a view, Question Time in your Lordships' House, with the greatest respect, I find of very little value at all.
The third factor is the considerable breakdown in consensus politics. There is a great deal of difference in the basic assumptions made, for example, by the Conservative Party in its modern guise and by the Labour Party in its modern guise. There have been clear signs that some civil servants have thought it their duty to try to thwart, for example, left-wing Ministers. There have been statements, for example, by Mr. Brian Sedgemore, about civil servants in relation to Mr. Tony Benn when he was a Minister. Others have thought it important to try to expose Right-wing tendencies in Ministers in the present Government. The present Government, and perhaps to a lesser extent, the Labour Party when in power, seem to have wanted civil servants to demonstrate conviction in implementing government policies. The phrase, "Is he one of us?" is not unknown in an attitude towards civil servants. There has been perhaps a general undermining of the impartiality not only in relation to civil servants but also in relation to
1090
quangos, the BBC, and so on. It is a general trend of our time. The result of this trend within the Civil Service is perhaps a tendency to want more politicised civil servants. The long-term implications of that are very important.
Fourthly, there is a tendency to delegate tasks to civil servants which make them more directly accountable particularly with regard to such matters as development of the Welfare State, the financial management initiative, and so on. Fifthly, there is the increased blurring of distinctions between policy, which is the province of politicians, and administration, which is the province of the civil servants, and also the emergence of the management role.
Sixthly, and perhaps more important, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility seems to have become increasingly a fiction behind which the Civil Service can hide its decisions and behind which Ministers can also now hide. In the debate to which I have previously referred that took place in your Lordships' House on 12th February on parliamentary and democratic systems of the United Kingdom, two distinguished parliamentarians, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, both spoke. I quote first the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who said at col. 241:
"In the light of recent events, I think I must now mention the Civil Service in its relationship to Parliament. I think we shall be getting into very deep water if we go on much longer as we have been recently in relation to our civil servants. I see no way of making civil servants answerable to Parliament for what they do in the performance of their duties".
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, after referring to his experience, said, at col. 260:
"I believe it is part of that assistance that it is given on a confidential basis to Ministers and, if it were not, I do not believe it would work. I am very jealous of that and very nervous—I agree with the noble Lord"—
that is, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—
"about some of the trends which have looked as if they might go in the opposite direction, because I do not believe that that would be in the interests of good government".
Therefore in the long-term interest of this country it is very important that we should now examine afresh the assumptions on which the so-called Whitehall pact has governed each side of the triangle on which constitutional government in this country rests. At the apex is the Crown; one side of the triangle is Parliament; the other side of the triangle is Government; and the base of the triangle is the Civil Service.
The theory on which the traditional duty of the civil servant is described as being the servant of the Crown in Parliament is easy to explain in theory but is surely somewhat outdated. In theory the executive powers of the Crown are exercised by Ministers who are answerable to Parliament. However, this Government—like so many of their predecessors—have long abandoned adherence to the full theory of Ministerial responsibility. Not since the resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale over the Crichel Down affair has a Minister faithfully discharged in the traditional manner the theory of ministerial responsibility. When there was a breakout in the Maze Prison (I think it was last year or the previous year) in Northern Ireland, Mr. James Prior felt no duty to resign—he explained that

1091
he knew nothing at all about the matter—for reasons which we perfectly understand. But the theory has really gone by the board.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, resigned over the Falkland issue?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I think that this is not quite dealing with the same point. When Mr. Leon Brittan, for example, resigned recently—which is perhaps a greater parallel—it was because of his own improper authorisation of the leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter, and not because one of his civil servants had made a mistake or done something improper. It was his own act, and his own view. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was resigning over his own viewpoint, and not because of his responsibility within the department.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Prime Minister, as has been pointed out, did not feel in any way obliged to resign or even take lesser responsibility for the mistakes which she impliedly admits were made by her senior officials, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham. Therefore given this climate, which is only indicative of a trend, the House of Commons has been bound to take steps which ultimately suggest that civil servants have an overriding obligation either to Parliament itself or to the electorate as represented by Parliament. Civil servants, who are increasingly known and named, are bound to wish to a degree to co-operate in this process if sometimes they are impliedly or specifically blamed by Ministers and are identified, because evidence before a parliamentary committee is a very good forum for defending oneself in public.
I believe that verdicts of juries over the past few centuries have been as important as Acts of Parliament themselves as landmarks in the changing constitutional balance within this country. Lord Devlin rightly observed that a jury is a parliamentary rather than a judicial body though it is called upon to discharge a judicial function. Throughout the history of recent centuries the jury in England and Wales has had a happy knack of laying down important markers to constitutional change through verdicts in specific cases.
Thus the Ponting case verdict proclaimed and published a clear reluctance, at the very least, to accept any longer the simplistic traditional view that a civil servant's exclusive duty in all circumstances was to the government of the day. A great deal more, and unjustifiably, has been claimed for the verdict in the Ponting case but I think that it is always dangerous and foolish to draw more than the obvious and minimum inference from a verdict in a specific case. But it is there to be drawn in that case.
The present situation is obviously potentially dangerous. If every civil servant is to be allowed to judge for himself what is the public good and then, having judged, to be allowed to put his so-called public interest duty above his loyalty to government, then one can ask the question: where does it end? On the
1092
other hand, we have been among the first people to criticise the German civil servants, the German military—when they were called upon to serve in the Bündestag when it was eventually taken over by the Nazi Party and Hitler—that they did not act in some way to try at least prevent him overthrowing the democratic safeguards in their constitution.
Can we really contemplate the view of Mr. Michael Elliott of the Economist, who has argued,
"one should extend the concept of civil servants having a duty to the public beyond the mere provision of state benefits to one of seeing that there is good government"?
He has argued more recently that it would be mad to constrain the Civil Service,
"from changing, probing and judging government in the public interest".
What are the immediate steps that should be taken to improve the situation? Perhaps I may say from these Alliance Benches that if we had an Alliance government the relationship of the Civil Service to that government would be very important. It is possible that if there was an Alliance government we would have a reduction in adversarial politics. There would be more of the problem-solving approach. The relationship—the present pact—between the Civil Service, the Government and Parliament depends to a very large extent on the background of adversarial politics.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is my noble friend saying to the House that he has forgotten Lloyd George entirely?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, no. I never forget Lloyd George any more than the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, does. But, on the other hand, unlike him I do not end my life with Lloyd George. We have moved on a considerable period of time and in ideas since his day. But if the prime blame rests anywhere for the breakdown, or at least the modification, of the so-called Whitehall pact it rests with government and the refusal of Ministers to accept full accountability to Parliament.
I believe that a very important immediate step that should be taken is to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act; and, more importantly, that a very broad freedom of information Act should be enacted. This should clearly set out the rights of Ministers, Parliament and the public through the media in the field of information, and what the duties of civil servants are towards them. For example, the factual and analytical background to major policy decisions should surely be published, as the Croham directive of 1977 suggested. If one casts one's mind back, the problems which have arisen with so-called leaks and so on have mainly or almost entirely been over factual information. What happened about the "Belgrano"? What happened in relation to the Westland affair? What were the true facts—not the advice on which the approach to the facts should be made but the facts?
If Ministers accept full accountability for their actions to Parliament, then I think that we could insist that civil servants owe their primary loyalty to Ministers. But the decision on that rests politically. For example, when in recent times Mr. Heseltine disagreed with the Prime Minister and advanced his particular

1093
views on the Westland affair he was, it is said, breaching the collective responsibility of the Cabinet and any Prime Minister would have been entitled to send for him and demand his resignation. But this is not what happened. What happened was that there was a leak of information through another Minister, and so on. There were internecine battles between Cabinet Ministers, which surely illustrated the breakdown of Cabinet responsibility.
The question arises: what are the duties, if any, of civil servants to Parliament? Do they owe any duty to Parliament if Ministers lie and a civil servant knows that it is a lie? Do they owe any duty to Parliament if the Minister refuses to be answerable to Parliament? In other words, what are the limits of a civil servant's duty to Government? Has the House of Commons, through its Select Committees, the right to question and cross-examine any civil servant on any matter? For example, recently the Defence Committee cross-examined Sir Robert Armstrong. Should the committee, in fact, have sent for the Prime Minister? Was she the correct person to question about these matters rather than the civil servants?
Guidance was laid down in February 1985 by Sir Robert Armstrong, after the Ponting case, and it is all right so far as it goes. But does it cover the difficult situations which in practice arise? The part played by civil servants in the recent disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter poses a dilemma. The guidance from Sir Robert Armstrong is:
"The duty of the individual civil servant is first and foremost to the Minister of the Crown who is in charge of the Department in which he or she is serving."
How does that general rule help a civil servant to decide how to react to a particular ministerial request; for example, when a Minister for industry authorises disclosure of another Minister's letter—the Solicitor-General's letter—without the latter's agreement? The Prime Minister later agreed that it should,
"have been released into the public domain."
and urgently.
Is there not a need for a much more practical and particular code of ethics? Surely in the present situation there is need to publish the guidelines for Ministers which, we are told, are issued to Ministers which guide the corresponding responsibilities which Ministers have in relation to civil servants; and, indeed, guidelines for Ministers in their relationship with the media. Why should these guidelines be kept away from the general public? The public, and indeed the Civil Service, have a right to see them and to be informed.
Finally, Sir Robert Armstrong's guidelines lay down what seems to be perfectly acceptable. In the event of a civil servant being faced with a fundamental issue of conscience they state what the civil servant should do; eventually having to resort to the head of department as a last resort. But surely there must be some independent element here. I should have thought the Parliamentary Commissioner, or someone like him, could be involved so that eventually there could be an appeal from within the Civil Service to a Parliamentary Commissioner in the event of an unusual circumstance arising where there is a fundamental issue of conscience.
1094
I think I made it clear that my approach to this is a concern for a repairing operation, but not a long-term one. I believe that a long-term solution to this is bound up with all kinds of other issues which I feel, for reasons I advanced on another occasion, are slowly but surely coming about. I should like to end this introduction with one more quotation from the article by Mr. David Watt:
"The question is rather how we maintain or reacquire (since we seem to have lost them) the minimum requirements of good administration: considered, practical policies executed efficiently by people who believe in them for people persuaded to give them a try. How, in fact, do we reunite the constitutional parts of government?"
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, we each have rather longer than usual for a short debate but I hope not to take up too much of your Lordships' time. I must make a few comments about the speech of the noble Lord. After his opening remarks I have come to the view that the only thing I should do is thank him for introducing the debate, because I disagreed with so much of what he said.
The resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was, of course, an absolutely archetypal, typical resignation because he judged that there had been a failure on the part of his department and that it was a failure for which he was responsible. I personally greatly regret that resignation and I have always thought that one of the great losses resulting from the Falkland Islands war was that of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as Foreign Secretary. Quite a number of people—certainly I did—tried to persuade him not to go. However, it was a resignation.
The noble Lord's opening remarks did smack rather of what might be called an idiosyncratic Liberal point of view from members of a party which has not, sadly, actually participated in Government for a long time. It is worth noting that in this debate no less than four former Cabinet Ministers are taking part. We will, I am sure, seek to put views from our own experience and comment on some of the matters. Nonetheless, the noble Lord has raised an important issue. His concluding remarks were on how we should restore the situation—if it needs restoring—and whether it is restorable with a Government where, as he pointed out, there was a collapse of collective responsibility of a most notable kind. I find it inconceivable that Mr. Heseltine was allowed to go on for so long without being called to order. However, I do not propose to follow some of those points and nor do I think that the situation is as desperate as the noble Lord thinks.
I should like to start by referring to the debate we had on 5th December, just over a year ago, on a Motion on the Civil Service tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, stressing the importance of a dedicated, efficient Civil Service. That is something we all seek to have. On that occasion a number of noble Lords took part, notably the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—and I certainly took part—who pointed to the grave disquiet in the Civil Service at what was happening. It is necessary to take that into account and to look at the evidence.
I do not propose to spend very long on this point, but it is worth reminding the House that the mistakes

1095
the Government made over GCHQ are acknowledged by most people, including members of the Government, as being very serious indeed. These included their treatment on pay, the abolition of the Priestley principle, the abolition of the Civil Service Department and a number of measures which have caused a great deal of disquiet to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office, drew attention. I certainly said that morale could not be lower. I regret to say that it could be lower and that comes out in the evidence.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has taken the opportunity of reading the evidence that has been given to the Treasury and the Civil Service Committee's sub-committee, of which a great deal is immensely valuable. I see no greater or more valuable development from Mr. Crossman's ideas—it was Mr. Crossman who was the chief architect of setting up departmental committees—that reveals how clearly the Civil Service works and brings out the problems which confront it. One need only look at the evidence of the First Division Association of Civil Servants who, after all, are senior in the policy field of civil servants, to realize how much disquiet there is. They are concerned, in a number of directions, to have a better relationship with Government. They quote, and it has often been quoted, the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, that when praise is given it is given through clenched teeth. They quoted that, and I quote it again now.
I think that the Government—because they have made statements—are anxious to improve the morale in the Civil Service. However, I am bound to say that it is low and much of the responsibility rests on the present Government. There is anxiety about politicisation—a horrid word which I cannot properly pronounce—of Civil Service appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the fact that as regards a particular appointment there was a rumour that an individual was not promoted because a touch of Keynesianism was detected in his outlook. I do not know whether that is true. Nor, when it comes to the selection of permanent secretaries, do I entirely blame a Cabinet Minister for seeking the right person. Nonetheless, there is a danger if it goes too far.
As regards the appointments which have been made, there is no doubt that the senior civil servants at permanent secretary levels are entirely worthy and entirely able to fulfil their role and I have no doubt that they would fulfil the same role effectively with another government.
Those of us who have been in government before a general election will have observed with interest the devotion of our civil servants to the cause of the government which they are serving even if they are thinking there may be a change, and at the same time their wise preparation for a future government even to the extent of thinking out the type of issues that will be raised, having studied the manifestos. They used only have to consider two, now perhaps they will have to consider four—I do not know what the possible future governments will be. There is little doubt that they still stick very much to the old idea of a non-partisan Civil Service regardless of their personal views.
1096
I have quoted, and I quote again, the example with regard to my own private secretary. I did not know his politics; I assumed that he was probably a Conservative or (shall I say?) a Liberal—I do not know whether there were Social Democrats at that time. One day I went into the outer office and one of the girls said, "Roy won't like that". I said, "Why not?" In fact, my Lords, I have given his name away; I should not have mentioned his name—it is a non de plume. She said, "He is ever so red. He is much redder than you, Minister!"
I am sure that those of us who have been in government can confirm the total impartiality of the Civil Service. However, there is grave disquiet. There is no time to go into the whole of the FDA evidence but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned, they would like to have somebody like an ombudsman. Indeed, the previous permanent secretary—was it Sir Douglas Wass?—advocated that there should be an inspector general to whom matters could be referred. I have my own solution as to what I should like to see when I come to examine some of the issues that are concerned with the so-called "leak" or, as Sir Robert Armstrong prefers to call it (and I think correctly so), the "disclosure".
Sir Robert Armstrong could not have made clearer in his evidence to the Select Committee—the evidence has not yet been published and therefore I do not think I can quote him—that the whole episode was regrettable. I would say that it was deplorable and I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House thinks otherwise.
When the Prime Minister said that the facts are sometimes stranger than fiction perhaps I am unique in believing that what she said was so. It is the most extraordinary imbroglio that I have ever come across. Everyone I know who has been a Minister or senior civil servant is amazed at what happened.
I do not know whether the officials, who only had an hour in which to make up their minds—they had no opportunity to appeal to anyone—even knew that the Solicitor-General's memorandum had a particular secrecy of its own. I am bound to confess that when I was in the Cabinet I did not know that and I have talked to one or two other ex-Cabinet Ministers who also did not know that. Maybe we were very incompetent. What was objectionable—and it would be objectionable by any standards in any community and industry—was the leaking of a memorandum from a colleague without telling him and without admitting that that was being done.
The next question is: has the system failed? This particular issue has been well taken care of. However, I am bound to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that Sir Robert Armstrong's first memorandum on the subject was not entirely satisfactory. Let me say that I have the highest opinion of Sir Robert Armstrong. He has served successive governments. No one knows the system of government better than he does. My only criticism is that he carries too heavy a burden. However, in his first statement he said:
"when having been given all the relevant information and advice the Minister has taken a decision. It is the duty of civil servants loyally to carry out that decision with precisely the same energy and goodwill, whether they agree with it, or not".

1097
Earlier he had said:
"The civil servant has no constitutional ability or role distinct from that of Ministers".
Whether or not we use the word "constitutional", I believe that the Civil Service has a role. It may be that 99 per cent. of the time civil servants should serve their Ministers. However, when it comes to certain actions which are objectionable—not just contrary to policy—then in my view they have an obligation. I cannot believe that my permanent secretary would have allowed me to have done what Mr. Brittan did. I simply do not believe that he would have allowed me to do it any more than the chairman of my company would have allowed me to do it and to conceal the fact that I had done so. In the evidence given by Sir Robert Armstrong's department—and I commend the reports of the Select Committee chaired by Mr. Austin Mitchell because they are very thorough and interesting—he said—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in his most interesting speech, but will he explain why he used the word "allowed" which seems to me to be extremely important in this context?
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please repeat the word that I used?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "allowed"; he said that his permanent secretary "would not have allowed the Minister". It seems to me to be the crux of the matter.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I shall tell your Lordships exactly what I mean. One's relations with one's civil servants are personal. He would say, "Minister, you can't really do that", and I would listen to him. However, in certain circumstances he may feel obliged to take the matter further. I am using the word "allowed" in a general and not in a legal sense. He cannot stop me doing it but he can complain. If I may, I should like to follow this argument which is a rather careful one.
In the evidence of Sir Robert Armstrong's department to the Select Committee they go on to say:
"As advisers to Ministers, civil servants have a duty to give honest and impartial advice without fear and favour. But once a Minister takes a decision, civil servants have a duty to abide by his decision, subject to the law, and to give effect to government policies … If a civil servant has sincerely-held doubts about the propriety of a policy or action,"—
and I stress the word "action"—
"he does not need and should not try to carry the burden alone".
The two civil servants in the Department of Trade had to carry it alone and they sought some comfort by referring it to No. 10. We do not know what took place in that transaction, but they only had an hour and a difficult decision to make. A civil servant not only has an obligation to fulfil the law, but an obligation to uphold high standards of government; and it should be possible in certain circumstances for him to go to the Cabinet Secretary who would approach the Prime Minister. As to whether or not there should be a different code of ethics for Ministers (and of course new Ministers receive instructions on behaviour, instructions which I believe are never published and
1098
that was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was referring) there is nonetheless no doubt that the average permanent secretary would have been able to persuade anyone except a lunatic Minister that it was improper to do it.
However, we must look at the timing in this case because that is really the issue. Even the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry himself—and I think it deplorable that he agreed to this—had to be telephoned and did not really give the matter proper consideration. The two civil servants then rang No. 10 and sought some kind of comfort. We should recognise that there is a role for civil servants. Indeed, the permanent secretary as the accounting officer has a role which is, if necessary, different from that of his Minister. Although I stand by the general description of what Sir Robert Armstrong said, I think that some amplification of this is necessary.
I shall not keep your Lordships for more than another minute or two. The question is: what do we do at this particular moment? First, I think that the Cabinet Secretary has too heavy a task. That is apparent. Although he is a remarkable man and discharges it with great brilliance, to be the principal Civil Servant adviser to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister, and to run the whole Civil Service, is too much.
Going back, let us face it, to Sir Horace Wilson, we have in the past seen senior civil servants with too much power. Indeed, there were criticisms of the head of the Treasury when Helsby was there. We need a third arm. One of the mistakes of the Government was to abolish the Civil Service Department and not to reappoint a permanent secretary who was head of the Civil Service, like the noble Lord who is likely to follow me. It was my fortune, as the first Minister in day-to-day charge of the Civil Service Department, to have Sir WilliamArmstrong as my permanent secretary. That is the first thing I would say; that he would function alongside the permanent secretary to the Treasury and the head of the Foreign Office.
Next, should there be a code of conduct? They are terribly difficult to draw up. The First Division Association would like to see one. Perhaps we ought to have one. I should like to refer briefly to the Official Secrets Act. I am nervous about substituting a freedom of information Act. It is an easy thing to say. I always thought that one of the advantages of the Official Secrets Act was that it was almost impossible to understand what it meant. Now and again we had a situation such as where Mr. Ponting—and I do not take up any position to support him—gets acquitted. This may not have been a bad thing in terms of freedom, but someone who leaks information in future may still be convicted and go to prison.
What does a freedom of informatioin Act mean? If the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, had had the time he might have been able to explain it more fully. They have them in other countries such as Australia and Canada, and for all I know they work very well. But it is imperative that the working relationship between Ministers and civil servants, and the advice given, and what goes on in Cabinet, should remain confidential. I only regret, as a former member of the Radcliffe

1099
Committee looking at the publication of ministerial memoirs, that that confidentiality is breached so often by Ministers.
The Government should take a serious look at the situation. We do not want people's heads to roll on this question. I personally see little advantage in summoning more officials to appear before a Select Committee, but that is a matter for them and the last thing I dare to suggest is how a Select Committee carries out its activities. But there are certain things which I believe must in the public interest remain confidential.
I should like to see a more determined attempt by the Government to seek to restore the morale and understanding of officials. We know that recruiting is not going as well as it should, and this Government carry a heavy burden of responsibility for what I believe is a serious decline in the morale of the Civil Service. Secondly, we need—and this is one of the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, although I did not go far with him—a little more clarification as to the role of the civil servant. I have talked to permanent secretaries who believe they must carry out their duty if they have to deal with a situation where not only is something unlawful involved but something immoral. My sympathy is with these poor civil servants who are caught with only an hour. And the blame?—we know where it rests.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I rise following two notable speeches. The one of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, delivered with great lucidity, force and elegance, and with which I almost, but not totally, disagreed; and Lord Shackleton's speech, with which I almost, but not totally, agreed. I therefore stake out my position to begin with. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, implied that the system is beginning to break down; that a new constitutional settlement might be necessary; that the triangular pact is in danger of erosion, if not collapse. Now I would be a rich man if, every time someone had said to me, "The system is breaking down", or, "Things will never be the same again", they had given me a fiver. I should have been a very rich man indeed.
One has to look at the present position of the Civil Service, Parliament, and the Government in broad, historical terms. All I should like to say, following up Lord Shackleton's speech, is that I entirely agree with him, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that the Official Secrets Act has long been discredited, but I would not myself replace it with a freedom of information Act for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, explained.
I find myself in an invidious position on the question of whether or not one should have a head of the Civil Service and a separate Cabinet Secretary. All I would say is what I have already said in another place, that the two posts have one similarity in that they are both extraordinarily sensitive; otherwise they are totally different. The Cabinet Secretary necessarily must be the intimate adviser of the Prime Minister of the day, and must be at his or her beck and call, and rightly so.
1100
The head of the home Civil Service has a role as the head of a profession, and a representational function both to Ministers and to other constituencies as well.
Perhaps I had better put my cards on the table and confess that I am sufficiently old fashioned to believe that the pact, the system, the settlement, is under strain but is not actually breaking down. I believe that the desired relationship between Ministers and their officials should still be what I call the classical one; namely, civil servants, for their part, are recruited by open competition; are promoted on merit; are not required to behave with impropriety; enjoy a reasonable degree of security, and with adequate but modest rewards; Ministers, for their part, should refrain from the political preferment of officials, enjoy non-partisan support from them, and protect them as, effectively, agents of Ministers.
I am only too well aware, particularly in the light of Lord Hooson's notable speech, of the developments which are cited as impairing, if not perhaps exploding, this classical relationship. He has cited a number: the increasing power of the media; the increasing growth of the professional politician; the, as he sees it, erosion of the old concept of ministerial responsibility, on which I do not go all the way with him; and there are a number of other developments including, for example, the financial management initiative which increasing places open answerability on officials.
There is also—a point which has been mentioned—the appearance of officials before Select Committees of both Houses, nowadays virtually always in public. There it has been possible to strike a happy medium thanks to the common sense of both the parliamentarians, on the one hand, and the civil servants and their Ministers, on the other. I have seen it in a curious way from both sides of the table and it has been interesting. But the job of a civil servant when he appears before a Select Committee in my view is that he explains, he does not defend or justify. That is for the politician, the Minister.
I do not regard these developments—many of which I welcome—as striking at the root of the relationship as I have described it. In one form or another it is fair to say that they have been with us for a long time. I am thinking particularly of the Select Committee development, which is really an extension of what accounting officers have been doing to the Public Accounts Committee under successive chairmen since the year dot. I still regard as totally valid the limpid definition of the role of the civil servant in the 1853 Northcote-Trevelyan report:
"The great and increasing burden of public business … could not be carried on without an efficient body of permanent officers, occupying a post duly subordinate to that of Ministers … yet possessing sufficient independence, character, ability and experience to be able to advise, assist and, to some extent, to influence those who are from time to time set above them".
Reference has been made by both noble Lords who have spoken to notes of guidance—I regard that quotation as a very good note of guidance—for both Ministers and officials which are revised and reissued from time to time. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I wish they were published and publicised more. Sir Robert Armstrong's memorandum last year was, I thought, a good piece of work—if that does not sound patronising—and is a good example of what I have in mind of something that was published and publicised.

1101
There are others, as was noted, including guidance for Ministers. I, too, should like to see more of those published. It should be part of explaining what I call the classical position.
Reference has been made to the Westland episode. There is a tendency, not in this House but elsewhere, to regard it as again calling into question the fundamental relationship between Ministers and officials. It was a decidedly rum affair. It has been left with two ministerial casualties on the uneasy basis that their resignations were unnecessary and that it all turned on misunderstandings between four unfortunate civil servants individually named. One must have sympathy for them. The episode also included citing named civil servants as witnesses to the veracity of the Secretary of State. In each case that is role reversal with a vengeance. Apart from the tragedy of the ministerial resignations it is deeply sad that on ministerial instructions the Civil Service should have been sucked into involvement in political intrigue which can only bring discredit on the whole process of government and on Ministers and civil servants.
Ministers should not require civil servants to do things which are unlawful. If, short of that, a Minister should instruct an official to do that which is improper, the official should take the action open to him or her under the Armstrong memorandum, in particular bringing into play the department Permanent Secretary. It is always possible for officials to note the file in the event of their being requested to take unprofessional action. But it is not open to them to adopt the unprofessional course of reaching for a brown paper envelope, the copying machine and the address of a newspaper or of a Member of Parliament. In the last and desperate resort there is resignation. You might say that that is easy advice from an elderly buffer who has retired. Your Lordships would be quite right.
I am similarly old-fashioned in my view of the relationship between Parliament and the Civil Service. It is right that officials should appear before Select Committees with clear guidance as to their role, just as, as I have said, Permanent Secretaries have been appearing before the Public Accounts Committee. But I must confess to an impatience with civil servants who profess a quite other-worldly rectitude and chastity. Their admonishing hands are apparently unstained by the abrading influences of Whitehall and Westminster. They profess a higher answerability above and beyond the elected Government of the day direct to Parliament itself.
I hope that what I shall say will not shock your Lordships, but all of us know that in practice the parliamentary process involves both the Government and opposition parties in presenting their policies in as fetching a light as possible. Inevitably this involves a degree of suppression and misrepresentation in which—let us be robust about this—the official on occasion cannot help but get involved. But almost without exception the degree is kept well within bounds by conscience, by common sense and by the heavy sanctions (of which we have seen recent evidence) which Parliament brings to bear against Ministers and other members who might be regarded as misbehaving. It is this aspect of reality which has
1102
moved me to say that officials should not wear their necessary virtue on too prudish a sleeve.
In conclusion I should like to say two things: one I should like to address to the Opposition Benches and the other to the Government Benches. To the former—this follows something that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said—I say that, in my view, claims are wholly misplaced which have been made (not in this House but elsewhere) that the Civil Service is being politicised by appointing as Permanent Secretaries career officials who are political sympathisers. I do not believe that to be true of any of the Permanent Secretary appointments which have taken place from within Whitehall during the four years or more since I retired. There is never a single god-given candidate for a particular post. There is always a field of two or three possibles. In no case, in my view, has an appointment been made from candidates falling outside such a field. Politicisation is a more insidious and subtle process than that.
To the Government Benches I say that it has taken a century and a quarter to build a permanent, non-political Civil Service, trusted, on the whole, by government, opposition and public. Its efficiency can and should be kept under close constant scrutiny. It can be treated as a mildly or perhaps even wildly funny institution. In the late Lord Bridge's memorable phrase, it is in the same galère as mothers-in-law and Wigan pier; nowadays I suppose it is Mr. Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby. But it can also be destroyed in a decade by ministerial hostility, misuse and indifference, and that I fear may be what is happening. I use one illustration only; there are many others. The Government, to their great credit, have at last proposed to the Civil Service a move towards the reintroduction of a pay system which was abandoned in 1981. Under their proposals they even edge nervously back to the notion of comparability. I can claim consistency here because, as some noble Lords may recall, I praised the Government for their courage in accepting the findings of the report of the Top Salaries Review Board last year which included a degree of one element of comparability.
The proposed new system entails the Civil Service putting its trust in the Government's good faith. This proposal was recommended to their members by a number of staff association leaders. It was something, however deficient, on which to build for the future. In the event, I understand that the proposal was decisively and heavily rejected by all but two of the associations. One of those which rejected it was the First Division Association, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, represents the senior members of the service.
This saddens me beyond measure. The only hypothesis to explain it is that this Government have even forfeited the trust of many of their senior staff. They do not, alas! believe in the Government's good faith. Let me say in parenthesis here that I am not talking about personal relations between Ministers and their official advisers, which I am sure in many cases—in most cases—are excellent. But I have to repeat that this Government's record as employers in relation to their employees, all but a handful of whom are gifted, devoted and loyal public servants, is seen by

1103
most of them as one of—and I choose my phrase carefully—callous opportunism. It is that relationship of trust which needs urgent repair.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may ask him a question purely for my own clarification. He referred to the guidelines given to Ministers in their relationships with their civil servants and the guidelines of civil servants in relation to Ministers and Parliament. May I ask him—and I am not asking for the names, of course—whether the Civil Service drafts those guidelines, both of them or one of them?
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I can answer in relation to the guidelines which are given to officials appearing before Select Committees. The original draft, of course, was done by civil servants in my day and it was then approved by Ministers. The same I have no doubt is true of the memorandum which Sir Robert Armstrong issued last year. I think that to ask me to be drawn into who drafts the guidelines for Ministers would be asking me to go too far—and 25 years too early.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who speaks on the subject of this debate with a knowledge, experience and authority which must be unrivalled in your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships will understand if among such a distinguished list of speakers I deal only with the relationship between the Government and the civil servants in the relatively narrow field of industrial relations in which I feel qualified to speak. That will involve reference in particular to the controversial matter which has been touched upon already of whether civil servants employed at GCHQ should enjoy the right to belong to a trade union.
On this occasion I have given notice of what I am going to say only in the most general terms (and I seem to have heard that phrase before) to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. That is because delicate issues are involved and I do not wish to tempt the Government into striking an inflexible attitude in their response. My purpose is rather to sound a warning note as to where my noble friends—for I think I may speak for them, too—and I now stand in this matter.
In my view the Government, in declining two years ago to engage with the unions involved at GCHQ in negotiations which might have resulted in a "no strike" agreement, missed a glorious oportunity to establish a precedent which might have been of inestimable value to us all. I say that because the case now seems to me to be as strong as ever for introducing as a quid pro quo in such an arrangement some form of independent arbitration as a last resort in disputes involving the pay and working conditions more particularly of those public servants who are employed in key occupations that are vital to the support of life or to the security of the state.
Instead, the Government offered to pay £1,000 to every member of GCHQ staff in compensation for their withdrawal of individual rights and threatened
1104
with dismissal those who declined to exercise either of the two options extended to them or to accept a suitable alternative posting. At the time, I said in this House that there was something about that arbitrarily fixed financial inducement which stuck in my gullet. Whatever it might be called by the Government, in my view the purchase for money of the individual liberty involved was unsavoury. I did not believe that a price could be set on such a loss and the Government's offer to enter into such individual contracts left a bad taste in my mouth.
I further expressed the fear that if the Government remained unwilling to reach some accommodation with the unions that safeguarded both the defence capability of this country and the freedom to belong to a trade union, the morale of civil servants would be damaged, the standing of responsible union leaders diminished and the security of the state thus placed more, not less, at risk. The Government might then come to regret their action but it would be too late for they would have achieved precisely what they set out to prevent. I have seen no reason to change the views that I expressed at that time.
But since then there have been a number of developments. Six months ago the head of the Home Civil Service wrote to the Council of Civil Service Unions saying that any member of GCHQ staff who had signed an undertaking accepting the changed conditions of service offered him at the beginning of 1984 and who had joined or rejoined a national Civil Service trade union after a specified date and remained in membership had either to resign from the union or face disciplinary action for breach of conditions of service.
That ultimatum was issued despite the fact that the European Commission of Human Rights had still—and, indeed, it still has—to consider the legality of the Government's union ban. It is fair to say that the people facing disciplinary action are as yet confined to those who rejoined the union after having received their £1,000. That money, was, however, given in compensation for loss, not of trade union memberships, but of employment protection rights. Moreover, I understand that a number of those who rejoined their union offered to repay the £1,000 but had no response from management.
All the Civil Service unions have committed themselves to demonstrate their strength of feeling by taking industrial action should any member of GCHQ staff be dismissed because he or she is a trade union member. More than that, leaders of unions in the crucial field of electricity supply, noted for their responsible attitude in such matters, have promised to ballot their members concerning possible action should any GCHQ member be sacked.
The Labour and Alliance Parties are, I believe, united in their opposition to the action taken by the Government in this matter, and in the interests of the test the Government themselves applied, namely, national security, I take this opportunity to urge the Government to stay their hand.
There is one other matter concerning trade unions which is relevant to the relationship between the Government and the Civil Service, on which I will touch only lightly, again because I do not wish to exacerbate a situation which is already somewhat

1105
highly charged. It concerns the desire of a number of Civil Service unions to hold ballots on the possible establishment of political funds under the provisions of the Employment Act 1984. I think I am right in saying that the members of all unions which already have such funds have voted in favour of retaining them. Some unions which have not previously had them, including a number of non-industrial civil service unions, have decided to hold a similar ballot.
Recently, the Government sought to discourage them on the grounds that in their case political funds were unnecessary because Civil Service unions are free, like others, to spend money from their general funds in support of their members' interests. Additionally, in the Government's view the establishment of political funds in Civil Service unions would not be in keeping with the need for the service to remain politically neutral.
I do not propose to rehearse in any detail the various counter-arguments which have been advanced by the unions. Suffice it to say that in their view it is no less appropriate that, for example, cleaners or messengers in non-industrial branches of the service should contribute to a political fund than that their counter-parts in the Ministry of Defence should do so, and that the establishment of a political fund is not the same thing as affiliation to a particular political party.
Of course there is much more than that which could be said on both sides of the argument. My purpose, however, in referring to these matters is not to come down heavily on one side or the other. One of the things that most disconcerted me—and here I come near, I think, to agreeing in a rather different context with something the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said—is the way in which in politics everything has to be presented in terms that are either black or white whereas, as we all know, they are very often grey. My hope is that in this delicate area the Government will not over-react, for I fear that if they do it could prove counter-productive.
In matters concerning pay and employment conditions generally, the difference between employer and employees in the Civil Service is already great enough. Morale, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is low. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, went further and talked of trust having been forfeited. In my view it would be prudent for the Government to think long and hard before making any further moves on this particular point concerning political funds. In short, I hope the Government will find it possible to handle as coolly and as passively as they can both the matters I have taken the liberty of putting before your Lordships this evening.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken with much expertness about a very important aspect of the question in this debate initiated so arrestingly by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I agree with so much that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, and he speaks with an authority I do not possess because he has been Minister for the Civil Service Department. That was an appointment that was awarded to a Leader of the House of Lords after my time.
1106
I agree with so much that he said that I would only emphasise one thing in particular. He insisted in quite a controversial way—and I agree with him—that civil servants have a duty beyond that of simply carrying out the instructions of their masters. They have a duty to uphold high moral standards. I do not think that this is something one can ever put into black and white: it is either done or it is not done. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put it very well and I was very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, if I may say so, challenged him on the point because it enabled us all to be clear on what he was saying. He said that his Permanent Secretary would not have allowed him to do a certain thing and I think he then explained exactly what he meant. It would have been impossible to do it in his relationship with the Permanent Secretary.
I am an admirer of former President Nixon; in fact, I wrote a small book about him. One of the things I have always said about Nixon is that Watergate could not have happened here. I still believe that, in spite of anything that has been said since. It could not have happened here because the top civil servants—Sir Robert Armstrong, or whoever was there—would simply have said, "Prime Minister, you cannot do that". I still believe that to be true of our system. Of course if it ceased to be true the whole thing would go to pot and one might as well go and live somewhere else. That was, I think, a terribly important point brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, speaks with enormous authority. I am glad that I am not the Minister who is to reply tonight, because the noble Lord could hardly have been more severe in his final remarks about the attitude of the Government to the Civil Service; and no words of mine could add to the severity of that criticism. Other speakers will have their own qualifications. I suppose mine are really more of a Rip Van Winkle, perhaps, than anybody else. It is over 60 years since I first began to study British political institutions, well over 50 years since I began to teach them as a don at Oxford, and over 40 years since, in a humble way, I tried to apply what I knew as a Lord in Waiting here in the Government. So I speak just as a kind of Nestor in this debate, in relation to relatively young men.
I personally agree with what I think was one of the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft: that our system is still, in a sense, as pure as we have claimed it to be. In that sense it seems to me it is the same system that I studied as an undergraduate over 60 years ago. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be fatal to the standards of our life if it ever became politicised, although there are always going to be dangers of that and you can never quite say where the line is to be drawn. We expect a lot of our civil servants. In fact, we expect such a peculiar mentality or psychology among them that I am amazed that such people have ever come into existence at all. We expect them to have this dispassionate quality, this readiness to serve whoever happens to be their master, along with this independence of moral judgment. We expect those qualities.
I remember, when I was helping the then Leader of the House to carry the nationalisation of iron and steel, being sent over to that Box in the corner over there because I had been asked to obtain a reply to

1107
points—no doubt tiresome ones—that were being raised by the Conservative Opposition. I saw in front of this high official two piles of notes and I asked, "Why have you got two piles?" He said, "These are the notes enabling me to equip you to reply to the Opposition". I said to him, "what are the others?" He replied, "Those are the notes I have got ready to help the Opposition to reply to you when they come into the government and they want to denationalise steel". That is actually true, and it is a very good example of the neutrality.
Somebody might say, "No one but a eunuch could have that point of view"; but in a curious way that is the quality we expect of civil servants, always remembering that at a certain point the civil servant says, "No, Minister; you cannot do that". We have a picture of the civil servant which remains what it has been and how all my life I have seen it. I think it remains the same today.
There are these many developments which have been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said with so much conviction that no attempt has been made to choose Permanent Secretaries who were suited to the special point of view of the Government that I have to go and think again. All the evidence supplied in the press is against that conviction. Again and again, we have been given names of people at great length. It has all been spelt out. I do not know whether I hope he is right or I hope he is wrong. But, quite honestly, I do not quite believe him. That is the long and the short of it. I am sure that he believes it himself, but it is not generally believed that the Thatcherite approach is considered quite irrelevant when appointing top civil servants. As a matter of fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, put it in such a careful way that I need to read it in Hansard. He said that no one is chosen outside the small circle of people qualified, which is not quite the same as saying that the best person on other grounds is always chosen. But, as I said, I must read that carefully in Hansard.
We have the Select Committees. It has been the role of the civil servants to appear before Select Committees. I welcome these Select Committees. They enable Parliament—the House of Commons, at any rate—to play a creative role and they are good for civil servants in keeping them on their toes. One of my sons is in the Foreign Office. He has appeared several times before the Defence Committee and thoroughly enjoyed it. So a good time can be had by all. But in theory it is a very difficult line to draw and we realise that at some point the civil servant has to say, "I am afraid that is policy and I cannot deal with it". So it raises problems and there may be, in times to come, clearer guidelines laid down.
In passing, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about the separation of the head of the Civil Service from the Secretary to the Cabinet. I know that in theory the Secretary to the Cabinet is the servant of the whole Cabinet. In my time the noble Lord, Lord Trend, went out of his way to be kind to all Cabinet Ministers, but he was basically the Prime Minister's closest adviser. Nothing can stop that and to have him in charge of the Civil Service is bound to put too much power in the hands of any Prime Minister,
1108
whether this one or any other one. That is the conclusion which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reached, and I agree with him.
Another point of my own that I want to make—I do not know whether it will ever come about—is that more responsibilities ought to be placed on junior Ministers. If we could only hand over some of the responsibilities to junior Ministers, the extraordinary dichotomy between them and the top Minister, with thousands of officials underneath, would not be so severe and officials would be in a better position to interpret policy. I say that in passing.
There is one other development I must mention: that is, the coming of these information officers. Information officers sound all right. It sounds as if they are a sort of extension of the Daily Telegraph information service, just giving facts to help people form their opinions. But in practice they are propaganda officers, just as the Ministry of Information was a propaganda Ministry during the war. This is a development that would certainly have horrified my dear old chief Lord Attlee. It would have nearly killed him to have all these information officers about the place putting up the Government's case.
I have nothing whatever against Mr. Bernard Ingham, who has become very famous these days. We are told, quite authoritatively, that after the Prime Minister he is probably the most powerful man in the country—if not, he is very close to it. So that tremendous power is passing into the hands of these information officers. How can we see that in relation to the idea that civil servants are neutral? How can these passionately committed propaganda officers be regarded as neutral in the old sense? I do not have time to provide the answer. I will just leave it there.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he interrupted me to point to the example of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I was on my feet at the time but I have now given it mature reflection. I think that was right. It was a genuine example of the acceptance of ministerial responsibility in its fullest sense.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am immensely grateful. In all my 40 years in this House, the noble Lord is the first one who has ever said that I was right when I interrupted him.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, this debate has been conducted with great objectivity and good humour. It is a very important debate and we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend for having introduced it. He introduced it by saying that he was going to look at these matters mainly from the point of view of a parliamentarian. It is fitting therefore that I, as the other half of the Alliance, should look at it mainly from the point of view of an ex-Minister. Indeed, that is the way in which I do look upon it in the context, and exclusively in the context, of how to achieve good government—a very difficult task for which the nation, Parliament and, in particular, Ministers need every possible assistance.
The first assistance which they need is the total reliability and perfection, so far as it can be achieved,

1109
of their closest advisers in their ministerial office. I was very glad that in this connection my noble friend quoted with approval the view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who said that civil servants owe their primary responsibility to their Minister. I cannot see any other method by which a Minister is better equipped in his difficult task of good government than by having the best possible advisers, objectively chosen for their professional skill, offering him their total loyalty and he, in return, doing everything possible to merit, achieve and keep warm that loyalty and mutual trust.
I think therefore that the memorandum of Sir Robert Armstrong, which has been referred to, is entirely to be respected and read with the greatest care in the various ways in which it sets out how a civil servant should behave. It starts on the principle, which I can accept completely, that for all practical purposes—I am not sufficiently equipped to discuss the theory of the matter, but I am to discuss the practical purposes—civil servants are answerable to their Ministers, because they are the servants of the Crown in Parliament and the Crown acts through Ministers.
I know of no organisation, whether business or Parliament—they are very different things, but they both need to work efficiently—which can work efficiently if the lines of authority and the lines of communication are confused, as they will be confused unless there is a clear understanding of who is responsible to whom. The civil servant is responsible to his Minister and the Minister is responsible to Parliament. The Minister is reponsible to Parliament for policy. The Minister is responsible to Parliament for the administration of his department as well. Of course, it is his Permanent Secretary who carries out that responsibility, but the Minister is in charge and has to answer questions, and it follows that the civil servant does not have to answer questions. It follows from that that a civil servant should not be put in the position of having to answer questions, except at the request of his Minister, and to the extent that his Minister wishes information to be given or policy to be explained.
I do not draw the difference that has been drawn hitherto between policy and facts. Policy can be explained by the civil servant; it cannot be justified, as has been said, by the civil servant. It is appropriate that a Minister should assist Parliament, to which he is responsible, by seeing that his civil servants are there to provide all the facts, to explain policy and to give it whether it is given to Parliament in the form of sitting as a full House or sitting as a committee, in particular as a Select Committee. That I feel is the only way in which a Minister—and therefore a Government—is best equipped to carry out his most difficult task.
On that assumption, is everything well at the present time? It clearly is not, and I therefore have to offer a suggestion or two as to what remains to be done to improve the situation and, if I may say so, to restore the situation. I am not relying on hearsay; I am relying on my own knowledge. I am relying in particular on an occasion—I shall not date it and therefore it will not be possible to say which government were in power at the time—when having addressed a meeting of senior to very senior civil servants at the Civil Service College it
1110
was then question time and I was cross-questioned about a great variety of the things I was saying. I was putting forward what has been well called a classical view of the relationship between the civil servant and his Minister and between the civil servant and Parliament.
They asked me how on earth I could propose such a simple view having regard to the situations in which from time to time they themselves had been put. They explained what they were and my hair stood on end at the thought that they should have been put in such very difficult positions by Ministers departing totally from the accepted view of the relationship between a Minister and Parliament. Therefore, I am bound to say that all is not well and much needs to be done. Perhaps I may divide it into two parts and say, first, what I think ought to be done on the part of the civil servant; and secondly, what ought to be done on the part of the Government.
With regard to the civil servant, I have very little to add to what I have already indicated. Whatever his anxieties are, whatever his difficulties are, there exists machinery within the Civil Service to enable his difficulties to be ironed out and his anxieties to be dealt with, to be explained and, if necessary, brought to the highest possible quarters. Having that machinery, and because he is able to do all that, whatever his anxieties are—on whatever basis they are—it is not open to a civil servant to seek release from his difficulties by explaining them, by uncovering his conscience to the public at large through a leak to a particular newspaper. That is simply not open to him; nor is there need for it. Had there not been this machinery it would be totally different. If in the final analysis after all these processes have been gone through, a civil servant finds himself completely unable to carry out his responsibilities, it is obvious that he has chosen the wrong profession and must choose another. That is all I have to say about the Civil Service.
With regard to Ministers, there is far more to do in re-creating the morale which is undoubtedly at a lower ebb than it should be, and indeed in certain areas at a very low ebb indeed. I am concerned therefore with what re-creates morale. An obvious answer to that is recognition—recognition both by the public and more particularly by Parliament and by Ministers—of the work done by the Civil Service and enthusiastic defence of the civil servant when some of the things that the Government have done are blamed on to the civil servant. I say this to the noble Lord who is going to be good enough to reply to the debate and who has sat through and listened to every word.
I regret that during the 15 years I have been in your Lordships' House there have been several occasions—far too many—when civil servants, by category and not by name, have been referred to and criticised and there has been no defence whatsoever when it was the duty of Ministers sitting on that Front Bench immediately to get up and explain that it is not our practice to attack people who cannot defend themselves; that it is quite improper for us to do so; and that the explanation is whatever it is. That has not been forthcoming on a sufficient number of occasions for me to feel embarrassed and, I am sure, for civil servants to feel that they are not being properly protected. If what I have said is right the civil servant

1111
must be protected by anonymity; and if what has been done—whether or not it is on his advice nobody will know—by the Minister is to be laid at the door of a civil servant, in my view the Minister is there immediately to defend him.
A second area to restore morale is responsibility. A civil servant has an important profession. Every professional man enjoys exercising his responsibility and helping the public to the greatest extent he can. That is true, too, with civil servants. How can that happen? How can he exercise his responsibility unless a Minister listens carefully to the views put to him—listens, not accepts; listens carefully to the reasons given by the civil servant as to the possible practical difficulties of giving effect to the policy?
It is a familiar phrase that Ministers are confronted by civil servants who will always tell them the reason why something cannot be done. Those who have experienced government know that the one thing you must avoid is legislating for and giving effect to policies which do not work. You are far better off to have the annoyance and irritation of having all these pitfalls pointed out to you in advance than to take the alternative line and say, "I know better. I am going ahead with this", and then seeing your policy collapse in practice. So it is through both recognition and responsibility that morale will be raised.
As I am on the point of responsibility, perhaps I may also say that as it has become the practice for Ministers to bring into their private offices specialist advisers from outside the Civil Service it is very easy for a Minister to forget that his chief adviser is his permanent secretary and that his permanent secretary must have the fullest opportunity of expressing his advice and his views no matter what the perhaps more sympathetic views of the political adviser may be. The permanent secretary will of course feel that he has been denied the possibility of doing his job fully if he is not so consulted.
The third and most important way of raising morale is of course through pay. As that subject has been covered—in particular, the question of a no-strike agreement has been referred to so clearly by my noble friend—I have no need to take up more of your Lordships' time on that matter.
So far as concerns achieving the greatest possible efficiencies, I am glad that many speakers have referred to the need for purely objective criteria in choosing civil servants and in appointing them to important tasks. I would only disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to this extent: he thought there might be circumstances in which subjectivity was justifiable. In my view, there are no such circumstances. The agreement that a sympathetic civil servant would carry out his tasks for and with a Minister better must rest on the assumption that he is sympathetic to the Minister politically and will therefore do better for him—and so do worse for the next Minister he has to serve, if he comes from an opposite political party holding a different political point of view. It is essential that there should be no sense of political commitment at all disclosed to a Minister, and that the Minister should be able to know that he has the fullest confidence of the civil servant in carrying out his duties.
1112
My Lords, something has gone wrong with the timing machinery in your Lordships' House because it is already indicating 17 minutes and I have spoken for only five minutes! However, I shall bring my remarks to an end by saying that I am sure this debate has been well chosen. I am sure that I have made my position clear, as complementary to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I am sure also that the Government have a lot of hard thinking to do if they want to return the Civil Service to the kind of service that I knew and which was the most helpful instrument possible in achieving good government.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has raised a subject that is both important and timely, and one that, to us as parliamentarians and politicians, is intensely interesting as well. The noble Lord's opening speech was a thoughtful introduction to our debate. I probably agree with most of what he said, excepting only the slight party political flavour he gave to his remarks at certain points.
All the speeches we have heard have been informed and authoritative. I listened to them with very great respect. We have lived through a period when the workload of the Civil Service has increased enormously and the numbers have grown in proportion. There were only 500 members in the administrative class in 1914. We also live at a time when certain well-established principles are being called in question.
When I entered the other place, those principles were regarded as immutable and, with others of my generation, I accepted them. They have been discussed by my noble friend Lord Shackleton in one of the authoritative speeches we have heard. Chief among those principles is that of ministerial responsibility. Another is the principle of neutrality.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned the case of Sir Thomas Dugdale. I recall still with what respect and sympathy I heard of his resignation as Minister of Agriculture over the Crichel Down affair. Sir Thomas Dugdale accepted responsibility for maladministration by some civil servants of which he had been unaware. In fact, he corrected the abuse but he resigned. I remember also asking myself at the time whether his resignation, although it did him very great credit, was really necessary.
As we know, the range of ministerial work has increased enormously, and the decision-making process has developed in complexity. There are thousands of administrative decisions that affect the individual citizen and which have to be taken by civil servants without a Minister's knowledge. Although the appointment of additional ministers of state and of parliamentary under-secretaries—especially in the time of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx—increased ministerial control to some extent, it only touched the hem of the problem. Decisions—so many of them—still have to be taken by officials.
I suppose that the best method of control would be to define broad lines of policy within which officials

1113
must carry out their work. However, I do not believe that Sir Thomas Dugdale would have been required to resign his office today.
Many authorities have analysed and defined the principles under which our civil servants work. In Dr. William Plowden's important article in the winter issue of Public Administration, he writes:
"The boast of the British Civil Service is that its total neutrality enables it to serve ministers of any conceivable government with equal loyalty and effectiveness".
We have all said something similar at one time or another, and we have believed it. We believe that we have the best Civil Service in the world.
My own experience as a Minister confirmed me in that belief. Not all civil servants are perfect, any more than all politicians are perfect. There are of course some civil servants who want to have things all their own way, on the pattern of "Yes, Minister". However, it is up to the Minister concerned to ensure that, at the end of the day, he holds the final authority in his department. In my experience, civil servants understand and respect that situation and have a healthy appreciation of the party system and of Minister's political sensitivities. A Minister, for his part, should also have the instinct to detect any deviation from neutrality. If he cannot do that, then he should not be a Minister.
I agreed with my noble friend Lord Longford when he said—and I believe the same point was made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton—that it is the clear duty of a civil servant to advise a Minister if he believes that the Minister is about to say or do something stupid, impracticable, or against the broad public interest. It is in that respect that the importance of the Private Secretary and the Private Office within the departmental machinery cannot be over-estimated. That link between the Minister and his staff, and between other private offices in other departments, is of central importance.
With reference to the Ponting affair, I confess that I should have been appalled if anything that I had said at the end of a long, tiring day, when I always thought that I could let my hair down, would be leaked to the press the following day. A Minister must be able to rely upon the absolute loyalty and discretion of his civil servants. They in turn—as your Lordships have been reminded by a number of speakers—have procedures that they can follow if they disagree with their Minister. Ultimately, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, civil servants can resign. I have never understood why Ministers are always the people that have to resign. I was fortunate to have Private Secretaries who served me loyally; who became, and who remain, my friends; and who forgave my idiosyncrasies.
In the course of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that Ministers tend to ask, "Is he one of us?" No doubt that passes through a Minister's mind occasionally, but I must say to the House that this never occured to me when I was considering major issues or problems. When I was chairman of the Rhodesia Committee in the middle 1960s when the Unilateral Declaration of Independence was made, and had to deal with the problems of Rhodesia; when I had to deal with the appalling and tragic problems of the Aberfan disaster; when as Minister of Agriculture
1114
I had to deal with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease or the rabies epidemic—I did not turn round and ask if civil servants were Conservative, Liberal, Labour or Flat-Earthers. I was concerned to see that they were able to give the best advice so that I could make the best judgment. We must keep a sense of proportion as to what we expect our civil servants to do and to be.
One or two noble Lords have made a comparison with the civil services in other countries. This is always interesting especially when one considers the problems of politicisation—and, if we can learn anything useful from them, all well and good. We know that the civil servants in other Western countries are not expected to observe the same traditions of political neutrality as are our own, but we should bear in mind that they do not enjoy the same security of tenure either. For example, we know about the large turnover of civil servants which takes place in the United States when a new administration takes office. We know that in France and West Germany top civil servants can be dismissed by Ministers, though in practice many of them keep their posts. The key point is that they are likely to lose their jobs if the Minister begins to suspect their politics.
But the systems of other countries may not be appropriate for us. Nowadays for some curious reason it is not regarded by some people as proper to praise our own traditions. However, it must be said plainly that, while change, modernisation and new blood are obviously desirable, change must make sense. It must not be change just for the sake of change. We must be careful not to damage the system which is well tried and which has resulted in a first-class Civil Service.
This has been a century of cataclysmic change: democratic governments have fallen and countries have been subjected to tyranny and the chaos of civil disorder. In this country we are fortunate to have avoided these grim excesses. Our parliamentary democracy, which is composed of Government, Parliament and the Civil Service, with its independent judiciary, has survived two great wars and has produced periods of great reform, notably in 1905 and 1945, without sacrificing stability. In my view we must avoid excitable or ideological change which would upset the balance. This is our clear duty to the people of this country.
It is true that we could have more open government without damage to the national interest. Perhaps there is a tendency to classify too much and to keep the lid down too tightly on matters which are not of the first importance. Nevertheless, we have seen some substantial modifications and on the whole I think they have been beneficial. There has been recruitment from a wider field and from more universities; a system of political advisers; the Policy Unit was set up following the recommendation of the Fulton Committee; another recommendation of Fulton led to the creation in 1968 of the Civil Service Department by my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. In 1967, we had the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Ombudsman, which was a significant step.
Last but not least there is the extension of the number of Select Committees and their work, which has brought civil servants more frequently face to face

1115
with Members of another place. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, referred to the Estimates Committee and to the Public Accounts Committee. I served on those two committees for several years and we had close contact with senior officials there. As the noble Lord would agree, the system is now far more significant and extensive, as was very clearly demonstrated by the recent sittings of the all-party Select Committee on Defence about the Westland affair, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and several other noble Lords.
It is sad to have to say, but nevertheless it is true, that there has been a decline in standards in recent years and this has come out time and again in this debate. The conduct of political heads of department and the way in which civil servants were involved was one of the least attractive aspects of that unhappy Westland affair. I felt particularly sorry for Miss Colette Bowe, who was doing no more and no less than she was told by her superiors.
There now appear to be two schools of thought. One is represented by Sir Robert Armstrong in his note on Civil Service relations with Ministers following the Ponting case and of course in his evidence to the Select Committee recently. The other school has an able advocate in Dr. William Plowden, to whom I referred earlier. Sir Robert has stressed that the civil servant has no constitutional personality separate from the Minister and can be expected to be protected from publicity or responsibility. Sir Robert defends the old doctrine in its entirety. Dr. Plowden believes that the Civil Service is being politicised and he would like to see the traditional, rigid career patterns broken down.
I think it would be of interest to the House if I quote one paragraph of his article very briefly. Dr. Plowden writes:
"Civil servants would become, internally and externally, more accountable for their own decisions, for their success and failures. Some would become nationally known figures. Ministers (and Parliament) would have to accept this. Ministers reciprocally would be entitled to take a far closer interest in Civil Service postings and selectively to insist that certain posts be filled by people of their own choice, from inside or outside the service."
That is the view of Dr. William Plowden.
I see the gulf between these two viewpoints as very wide indeed. But let me say as clearly as possible that if major changes are to be made then they must be made by Parliament after due deliberation. We must listen with respect both to civil servants and to distinguished commentators, but the final decision rests with Government and ultimately with Parliament. The experience of the last few years shows that some further changes are needed. The Government, in their treatment of GCHQ, mentioned by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and in the way that they have involved civil servants and information officers in particular in politically controversial issues, have contributed to this uncertainty and the lowering of morale, which I believe to be very unfortunate indeed. I hope that the serious words of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, will be heeded by the Government.
Ideally, the problem should be resolved by all the political parties after a full parliamentary inquiry involving both Houses and after extensive debates. My
1116
noble friend Lord Diamond also made some valuable suggestions in his speech and I hope that account will be taken of these by the noble Lord who is to reply and that he will convey them to his right honourable friends.
The Civil Service of this country, with its superb reputation, must not become a party political football. In my judgment that would not serve the best interests of the people of this country. In Britain we have so far managed to find sensible and workable solutions to our constitutional problems, and there is no reason why we should not do so in the continuing development of our primary national institutions.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for putting down the Motion that we have been debating. The relationship between the Government and Parliament and the Civil Service is rightly seen as being of considerable importance, not just to the Government or to Parliament but, I suggest, also to the welfare of our country. The importance of the subject has attracted four former Cabinet Ministers and a former head of the Home Civil Service to speak.
Early in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke of the constitutional position—"the pact", as he referred to it—between the Civil Service and the Crown in Parliament. That brought this afternoon's debate immediately to Sir Robert Armstrong's note on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers. The note was issued in February of last year. It did not break new ground. It was a restatement of the principles on which the relations between Ministers and the Civil Service have traditionally been, and continue to be, based. In the Government's view those principles remain as valid as ever.
As Sir Robert has made clear, the note is not designed as an exhaustive document. It is impossible to prescribe for all circumstances in advance. It is designed as a yardstick against which civil servants should judge how to behave in particular situations. I must say that I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, say that he believed in the classical position of the Civil Service in the constitutional pact. That is a point of view which was repeated in other speeches in the debate.
The basic doctrine in the note is that civil servants are servants of the Crown. For all practical purposes the Crown in that context means, and is represented by, the government of the day, and the Civil Service has no constitutional responsibility separate from the duly elected government of the day. The duty of the civil servant is to his Minister. He must advise Ministers without fear or favour in the consideration of policies. Once a decision on policy has been taken, the duty of the civil servant is to carry that policy out loyally. Under our constitution it is the Minister who is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the department's affairs and the management of its business. That, in essence, is the central theme of Sir Robert Armstrong's note. It is a theme which was most strongly endorsed by the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Cledwyn, towards the end of the debate.

1117
It is unlikely, but there may be occasions when a genuine difference of view arises about the legality or propriety of what a Minister asks his officials to do. That is a matter to which some noble Lords have devoted part of their speech. Alternatively, a civil servant may face a crisis of conscience about policies or actions that he has been asked to carry out. Internal procedures are laid down for such occasions, as your Lordships know very well. Those procedures involve consultation with senior officers, including, when appropriate, the permanent secretary of the department and the head of the Home Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was absolutely right to remind us that the internal procedures were not fully activated in the Westland affair because the timing was quite exceptional and, in effect, made it impossible for the consultations to take place which would have been very desirable, as it turned out.
As your Lordships will be aware, a sub-committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is currently taking evidence in another place on Sir Robert's note and intends, I understand, to publish a report shortly. The Government will be giving the report and its recommendations very careful attention. But without prejudice to the report, I should just like to make a few observations on points made during the debate and also to give an assurance to the House that the Government will certainly take your Lordships' views very seriously into account in considering the sub-committee's report. Among the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was a request that I draw my right honourable friend's attention to this debate, and that I intend to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the case for a code of ethics for civil servants. I understand that a draft code is still under consideration by the Civil Service unions. It is difficult to comment substantially without seeing specific proposals, but, as Sir Robert said in his evidence of 25th November to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the problem lies in drawing up a code to cover all eventualties. That is the reason why his note sets out the general principles, with provision for senior officers to be consulted on their application in particular circumstances.
Also during the debate your Lordships have questioned whether the existing guidance for civil servants is sufficient when an issue of conscience arises. Crises of conscience relating to work are always difficult for those involved, whatever their profession. As I have already said, Sir Robert's guidance is deliberately set out in terms of general principles, and he has indicated that it should not necessarily be regarded as the final word on this subject.
However, some noble Lords, and notably the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in his opening speech, have referred to the suggestion that there may be a need for an external, independent appeals procedure for civil servants, or that civil servants may owe a different loyalty other than that to Ministers. It is a matter on which some noble Lords who have long experience of ministerial office have expressed very strong views indeed, particularly towards the end of the debate. That again is an area in which I am sure the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee will have views, and I must not pre-empt them.
1118
But I think that it is worth considering what would actually happen if civil servants had the right of appeal to an external authority, whatever format that authority might take. Even if the appeals procedure was used only rarely it would in effect mean that civil servants, who, after all, are neither elected nor accountable to Parliament, would be in a position, as it were, to bypass the Ministers to whom they work. Thus appeals to an external authority would destroy the basis of trust and loyalty which is currently the norm between Ministers and civil servants.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, also spoke of the increasing polarisation of policies among political parties, although I think I am right in saying that he did not draw the conclusion that the time has come for senior Civil Service posts to be political appointments, or, alternatively, that Ministers should be served by cabinets in the continental style, as some people suggest these days. I think that it is fair to say that the Government are by no means persuaded by the polarisation argument. Let me follow some of your Lordships and venture an opinion which is in line with the views of the Government but which is also my own. I believe most deeply that almost anyone who has worked with the Civil Service must have a great respect for its integrity and loyalty and its ability to service successive administrations and to give objective advice. I am convinced that a non-political, career Civil Service is in the best interests of our country. That is not to say that difficulties do not arise or that there is not scope for change. For example, some Ministers are making more use of political advisers. But any difficulties surely should be dealt with in the context of a system of government service of which we have good reason to be proud.
In that general context the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, suggested that there has been a recent tendency to want senior civil servants to be "one of us". I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, from the Minister's point of view, said, as I understood him, that the test is whether the advice being given by the Civil Service is as good as the Minister could possibly expect and is given in as good a working relationship as possible, bearing in mind the alarms and excursions to which he made reference.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, speaking with the authority that he has as a former Minister for the Civil Service, testified to his experience of the impartiality of civil servants whatever their own private political views may be. And the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, as a former head of the Civil Service, spoke of the considerable competition that there is for senior posts in the Civil Service. This makes it quite inconceivable that, in some way, one particular individual can be placed in a particular position. At any rate, if that ever could happen, it would be in the teeth of fierce competition from very highly qualified people.
I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to the evidence given by Mr. Callaghan to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in another place when the right honourable gentleman made clear that, in his view, this Government's policy for appointing senior civil servants was no different from that in his own period of office.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, then devoted part of his speech to ministerial responsibility. Until the noble

1119
Lord came back and intervened during one of the speeches, I confess that I did not share his views about ministerial resignations. If I may say so, I now share the view that I understood him to express. I also share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, over the naming of individual civil servants during recent events. The point has been made that if the Government are blaming civil servants for what has happened, or expecting them to take the flak as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, put it, then they should give those civil servants the power to defend themselves. If not, they should exonerate them. I wanted to, and your Lordships have allowed me to, steer clear of the Westland affair during the last few minutes. I would, however, like on this particular issue, because of its enormous importance for the relationship between Ministers and civil servants, to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the member for Richmond said in another place on 27th January:
"I therefore accept full responsibility for the fact and the form of that disclosure".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/86; col. 671.]
There is, as it were, a second half to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, then returned to the subject of the Official Secrets Act. Once again, the noble Lord has argued for the repeal of Section 2—a subject that was debated fully in your Lordships' House on 20th March last year. I would just say that the noble Lord is not alone in wishing to replace Section 2. In previous debates on this subject, the Government have recognised that Section 2 is indeed not ideal. Nor has this issue been set aside in the past. Your Lordships may remember that in 1979 the Government introduced a Protection of Official Information Bill into your Lordships' House based broadly on the recommendations of the Franks Report of 1971 and largely consistent with the Labour Government's White Paper of 1978. Although the Bill was given a Second Reading, it was clear that in a number of areas there was no agreement, and the Government, reluctantly concluding that there was no prospect of progress, withdrew the Bill. The questions of what information should be protected and who should decide what information deserved protection were the two issues on which the Bill foundered. But the noble Lord goes further today, as he has before, in suggesting that Section 2 should be replaced by a Freedom of Information Bill. With respect, I have to say that the Government do not agree with the noble Lord that this is the answer. Two main arguments have been habitually put forward in favour of greater access to government information. First, it is suggested that secrecy is too widespread within government and that this, in turn, encourages leaks which are generally deplored, and secondly that only a formal right of access to government information will properly protect the citizen against the actions of government.
Soon after taking office in 1979, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made absolutely clear that the Government's policy was to make as much information available as possible consistent with the confidentiality essential to the effective workings of government. Indeed, your Lordships only have to look at the reports of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, of its committees, and of another place, to see that there is a vast quantity of detailed and
1120
significant information available about government activities and policies, certainly as much as most people would be able to find in many other Western democracies.
A Freedom of Information Bill, I suggest, would run into very much the same problems as the repeal of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Even those in favour of such a Bill recognise that certain categories of information would have to be protected. After all, the Freedom of Information Bill introduced by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party in 1984 would, had it been successful, have exempted various categories of information from disclosure. Those categories would have included information seriously impairing defence, security or foreign relations other than relations with the European Community, information assisting in the commission of crime or impeding law enforcement, information normally protected by lawyer-client privilege, information giving an unfair advantage to competitors of the party concerned, and information constituting an unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. I have been rather tediously going through those because it is a formidable list of information which that Bill considered would still have to be protected. There was one other as well, the desirability of which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reminded us in his speech—the need to protect information that might otherwise reveal a civil servants' policy advice to Ministers.
Moreover, a general right of access to information would make a very fundamental change, I suggest, in the nature of the relationship between Ministers, Parliament and the public. That change would be as to who should take decisions on what information should and should not be released outside Parliament. Two proposals are generally mooted. Either there should be an appeal to the courts or there should be some sort of non-elected information commissioner, which was mentioned today. But in either case the judgment would rest with those bodies thus undermining ministerial accountability to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, questioned, I think, the reality of that accountability—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may interrupt. Before the noble Lord leaves the subject of freedom of information, this has, as he said, been considered by many governments. The reason, when I was responsible for an examination, was that all the evidence seemed to me to be that we would have a more restrictive situation than exists under the present Act.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an argument with which I am familiar. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me and the House of that point. I should like to stress, in reply to the doubt which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I think, expressed about the reality of the accountability of Ministers to Parliament, the actual weight of information that has to be made available now. In 1979 the Conservative Government helped to set up the departmental Select Committee system of another place. The terms of reference, as your Lordships know very well, are very wide. It is generally agreed, I believe, that those

1121
committees are now examining an increased range of government activities in greater detail and drawing out a wider range of government information than ever before.
Thinking of the Ministry in which I happen to work, I find that we have been concerned in the past two-and-a-half years with inquiries with as wide subject matter as Spanish and Portuguese accession to the Community, Aujeszky's disease in pigs, the implementation of dairy quotas throughout the farming community in our country, lower input farming, the disposal and storage of cereal surpluses and the enormously interesting and important subject of the proper operation and effectiveness of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Once again that is a very formidable amount of information through that particular channel of communication—the Select Committee channel—to be providing to Parliament from the Ministry in which I work and from other departments. In addition to that the Government have promised that time will be found for debate should there be widespread disagreement between a Minister and a Select Committee on what should be revealed. The wide-ranging powers of these committees, together with this undertaking, mean that Ministers are, I believe, accountable to Parliament.
May I end by answering two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in his speech mentioned inter alia the question of the political funds of Civil Service unions. The Government believe that these are needed only if unions are proposing to participate in party political activities or to campaign for or against political parties or candidates. For the Civil Service unions to establish such funds and for such a purpose would, we believe, be contrary to the long-standing tradition of neutrality in the Civil Service which has to work for Governments of any political persuasion.
The noble Lord counselled coolness in dealing with this matter. There is no question of the Government's trying to interfere in internal union affairs in this matter. The purpose of the statement of my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury—a statement which was, incidentally, requested by the Opposition in another place—was to make known the Government's view that political funds are unnecessary for Civil Service unions conducting campaigns on the terms and conditions of employment of their members.
The other question I must answer is that of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. He raised the question: why is Questions of Procedure for Ministers not in the public domain? This is a note of guidance from the Prime Minister of the day to all Ministers covering how Ministers should conduct themselves on a variety of matters; for example, in relation to business interests, speeches and other things. It is not how Ministers ought to behave in relation to the Civil Service. With regard to publication, the Questions of Procedure for Ministers is a Cabinet document and, as such, fall within a category of document which it has been the practice of successive Governments not to make public.
My Lords, I hope that I have set out the Governmment's position clearly on the various issues
1122
which have been raised during this wide-ranging debate. I repeat, we shall most certainly reflect with very great care on what your Lordships have said. If there are ways to improve our system we shall certainly consider them.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have found this debate fascinating. I am most grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, very much for his very full reply and for the courtesy of that reply. As the noble Lord pointed out, the debate attracted the contributions of four very distinguished ex-Cabinet Ministers and a previous head of the Civil Service. I put this Motion down because I thought the time was ripe for such a debate in the cooler atmosphere of this House in the light of events over the last couple of years. I regard this debate as a precursor to the wider debate which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, envisaged in a much wider-ranging sphere.
Perhaps I may make one or two comments. They are simply these. It seems to be generally agreed that the constitutional pact—the Whitehall pact, as I have called it—is at least under strain. I would have said that it is more than under strain. The scale of activities of the Civil Service, the introduction of such people (as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, pointed out) as information officers—really propaganda officers—changes the nature of the Civil Service to a certain extent and I suspect that we are going through the inevitable process of modification.
I believe very strongly that a freedom of information Act is necessary simply because I think most of the areas of dispute concern factual information which is held back. In response to the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, may I say this. In my view, a freedom of information Act would protect from disclosure the advice given by civil servants; certainly that would not be a matter which would be disclosed. But there is no reason why the facts upon which the advice was based should not be disclosed publicly.
I am very grateful to everybody who has participated in and contributed to this debate. In the light of the advice, given in his notable speech, that the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, gave to the Government—and I think the onus is upon the Government to restore trust between themselves and the civil servants—it is a pity that not a single Conservative Back-Bencher took part in this very important debate. Of the distinguished ex-Cabinet Ministers that adorn their Benches, not one took part. I must exempt the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who apologised to me today because he could not be present and explained the reasons to me. But I think that one upshot of this debate is to disclose quite clearly that in all sections of this House who contributed to the debate it is believed that there is a heavy onus on the Government to restore the trust that is necessary between themselves and the Civil Service. I therefore beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Settle/Carlisle Railway: Proposed Closure
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the existing procedures for public objection or support to be followed before a final decision is taken on the proposed closure of the Settle/Carlisle railway line will offer adequate opportunity for the social and environmental issues to be fully discussed.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to the Unstarred Question in my name on the Order Paper I should like to thank all those who have put their name down to speak, and especially the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle who will be making his maiden speech. We all wish him well. We look forward to hearing his contribution tonight and to hearing speeches from him on many other subjects in the not too distant future.
For some time there has been a growing concern that railway closure procedures are not really understood by the general public and that they need updating. The local authorities have felt that they have insufficient opportunities to comment on the closure proposals. There is also a wider concern because local authorities and commercial and environmental organisations have no statutory right to be heard, and there is no opportunity for the wider range of issues, including the effect of closures on the local economy, on the pursuit of leisure, and on the tourist interest, to be examined in public.
I believe that the time has come to argue for changes in the statutory procedure. At present under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 the Transport Users' Consultative Committees are required to report to the Secretary of State on the "hardship" likely to result from the proposed closure of a passenger service; and the wider issues are not subject to any public discussion or independent report. However, they can be considered in private by the Minister and his advisers.
As I see it, in practice this means that the inquiry is limited to the representations of existing passengers using an existing service on the adequacy of alternative public transport provision. Effectively, therefore, any consideration of matters prior to the issue of the closure notice is precluded. These matters could cover the rundown of the frequency of the service leading to reduced passenger usage and a further reduction in services, and even a reduction in maintenance work leading to deterioration of track and buildings.
I accept that in his private discussions with his advisers it is possible for the Secretary of State to take account of these wider issues when making a decision after the consultative committee has reported to him on hardship. The problem is that the statutory procedures do not lay down exactly what the Secretary of State does or should take into consideration, or even what he should legitimately take account of. I believe that the time has come for all the relevant and appropriate grounds on which representations may be made to be clearly defined and specifically set out in the statutory procedures.
One has only to measure this procedure against the very thorough and wide-ranging examination which
1124
takes place under town planning legislation to realise that the divergence of approach between the two types of inquiry procedure really cannot be justified. Surely the removal of important public facilities and services is just as vital as the construction and implementation of new development and facilities, especially as such a withdrawal from public services may well substantially influence public and private future investment decisions.
Many local authorities have either a statutory responsibilty or a very strong interest in public transport. Many individuals and local organisations are increasingly concerned about the rail closure proposals. They feel that there ought to be a genuine opportunity for discussions on proposed closures, not only with British Rail but with all the interested bodies.
The future of freight lines and lines with only occasional passenger services is also part of the problem. They are not covered either by the general consultation or by the consultative committee procedure. If you are looking at proposals for closure the freight aspects are critical and they assume a greater importance because possible future passenger use may not be considered. Nor is any consideration given as to whether freight traffic using a line is relevant to the withdrawal of passenger train services.
I was prompted to table this Question because of the proposed closure of the Settle/Carlisle railway and I should like to use that as the example tonight. Noble Lords may well ask—indeed. I have been asked this evening—why is someone from the edge of the flat fens concerned about this particular proposal? It is because almost 50 years ago it was my introduction to the high fells of the Lake District. Many people still enjoy this unrivalled access to remote country over a superb scenic route.
For those who do not know the area, the line was opened in 1876 by the old Midland Railway as an express route to Scotland. I am told that Appleby church bells were rung when the Railway Bill was passed in another place. The countryside through which it passes led British Rail themselves to issue a leaflet calling it,
"England's greatest historical scenic route".
In 1969 there were 14 weekday passenger through trains. In 1984 the last intercity train from Glasgow to Nottingham was removed, reducing the use then to four weekday passenger through trains. In 1985 this was reduced to two trains a day in each direction. In recent summers since 1974 the Dales rail service runs at weekends, and this has been funded by the national parks, by the Countryside Commission and by the county councils. There have also been extra daily and Sunday excursions by British Rail and excursions have been organised on steam trains.
However, there will be hardship if the line is closed. The local commuters for whom this railway really is a lifeline will lose their mobility, especially in the harsh winter conditions in the area. Those who know the area will know that it can be extremely severe on those fells. Alternative employment opportunities are scarce, if not altogether unobtainable, so there will be job losses. While these may be small, they are very

1125
important in a sparsely populated area. There will also be a knock-on effect from the economic problems which affect the more remote rural areas everywhere.
As a diversionary route for both east and west coast main lines, there is no other acceptable alternative either for emergencies or for planned closures. This line has a strategic role in linking the industrial centres of Strathclyde with Yorkshire and the East Midlands. On the very day that British Rail published the intended closure of the line it was used as an emergency diversionary route. Indeed, between January and December 1984 over 200 diverted passenger trains used the line during the engineering operations on the west coast line.
Then, too, this is really a part of our national heritage with the Ribblehead viaduct and all the other structures. The Ribblehead station building was at one time also used for church services and as a weather station. The station approach road was used as a sheep market. Dent station further along the line is the highest on any English main line. The highest water troughs in the days of steam were found at Garsdale. This marked the end of Victorian railway engineering. It was constructed through some of the most remote and hostile, yet most beautiful, scenery in our countryside.
The navvies and their families lived in hutted camps on site. There were some 350 families who lived in a local shanty town, 1,300 feet up the fells. They were connected to the Garsdale road by a tramway. More than 100 of those workers are buried in the little graveyard of the small church of St. Leonard's at Chapel le Dale. Those navvies moved one quarter of a million cubic yards of earth to make the embankment above Settle alone, and in all the length of the track there is only half a mile which is level, and that is between Settle and Blea Moor. Many of the viaducts, tunnels, bridges and stations on that line are now ancient monuments or listed buildings. I see them as a testimony to the work of those navvies over 100 years ago.
Our citizens today have more leisure and there is an increasing concern for an appreciation of our national heritage. As part of that heritage, this railway can only really be appreciated and understood if it is a working railway. A Cabinet Office Enterprise Unit document on tourism urged British Rail to take measures to preserve their historic heritage and British Rail, I believe, could do a lot more to exploit its tourist potential. The Countryside Commission is also interested in this area. It wants to expand the Dales rail service which it, the national parks and the county councils finance. It wants to provide interlinked bus services. It wants to arrange guided walks with special events and publications. If we updated the procedure for closure all those points could be considered, and surely as we enter a new era of leisure and recreation this is not the time to close this line but to preserve it in working order.
The procedures are outdated, as I have said. The Transport Users Consultative Committee is only required to consider hardship, not the matters I have raised today. There really should be an opportunity for public debate and the chance to cross-examine British Rail. The case for maintaining the investment in this
1126
line and developing its real potential is overwhelming. I have not developed British Rail's financial case for closure but I urge the Minister to consider the PEIDA report by independent consultants and their cost-benefit appraisal. PEIDA's analysis and suggestions ought to be fully considered by the Secretary of State and by British Rail.
One of the weaknesses of the existing procedure is that British Rail do not have to make their case in public as they would have to do at a public inquiry. Nor can they be subjected to cross-examination. While the TUCC chairman may allow questions to be put to British Rail, through the chair, he cannot insist on replies being given. I understand that at the former Yorkshire TUCC hearings into the Derby Dale closure proposals British Rail declined to comment on, or answer, any of the criticisms made of them. British Rail in effect are quite free to play a very limited role in the hearings in the knowledge that they will make their case in private to the Minister and his advisers.
I believe that these procedures must be widened. There ought to be an opportunity for public discussion not only on hardship, as the Transport Users Consultative Committee does at present, but consideration ought also to be given to freight as well as passenger and to recent financial performance, including the revenue which the line may generate on other parts of the rail network, and to what scope there could be for improving the financial performance by operating economies, by developing the service and even by more forceful marketing.
There should be a wider consideration of the role of the railway in the local community and economy. The elected members of an affected area should be able to make public representations and not leave the advice to the Secretary of State to come from an unelected consumer watchdog—the TUCC. We ought to be able to take a wider view of the general economic, social and environmental consequences of closure decisions and to appreciate the interdependence of lines within networks, both regional and national.
I understand that the consultative committees in the Carlisle/Settle area are considering the matter in late March and April. Is it too much to hope that something may be done before then to enable real public discussion to take place on the lines indicated? There is a need to take an overall view so as to evaluate the total costs of policies—social and economic—prior to their implementation. There is a need to retain basic facilities and a basic service structure in all these rural communities.
We know that certain individual parts of rural infrastructure are not of themselves economically viable. However, we must look further than this year's balance sheet, because any future costs of re-provision of such a service will be far in excess of the cost of retaining the existing services now.
8.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind welcome and her kind remarks. I noticed that the Standing Order of your Lordships' House concerning maiden speeches states that they should be unprovocative. That makes yet more difficult the task of a maiden

1127
speaker, for many of the subjects considered by this House are subjects of controversy. Not surprisingly, the subject under discussion this evening is a cause of acute controversy in the area through which runs this stretch of railway. Nevertheless, I hope to be able to steer clear of the shoals of controversy, at least in tone and manner and intention, in the following three points.
The first point flows from the reason why I wish to contribute to this discussion. At first sight, I may seem to be trespassing on the particular interests and concerns of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Carlisle. However, the diocese of Newcastle covers that part of the county of Cumbria which contains, I believe, the highest A-road in the country; the highest parish church, at Nenthead; and the highest market town, Alston, itself but 14 miles from the railway which is under discussion this evening. Further, the diocese of Newcastle also includes wide, sparsely populated areas of border country. All of us who live in those parts are aware of the extent to which life there has been affected by cuts in public transport.
It is commonly held that British Railways should have pruned their network more purposefully long before the Beeching reforms. Had they done so, the cuts would probably not have been so extensive. Now, with hindsight, there is a very general view that these cuts were excessive. In particular, the Waverley line from Carlisle over Whitrope summit through the border towns of Galashiels and Hawick to Edinburgh, should never have gone. The result is that a great swathe of northern England and southern Scotland, from the Tyne to Edinburgh, has no railway at all apart from the east and west cost main lines. People in rural Northumberland and in the eastern tip of Cumbria have spoken to me about the difficulties caused to them by cuts in the railway network and by the withdrawal and cost of rural bus services.
It is sometimes alleged that the services in question—both rail and road—are little used. The truth is that any diminution in public services of this kind counts for a great deal in small and remote communities. Families move to more populous parts; they are not replaced. The population of the rural parts of Northumberland is still declining. Younger people move into the towns and move south, partly for the sake of employment and partly for public amenities. Any cut in the railway network is bound to have adverse social consequences.
The second point can be put more graphically. Over the past 35 years or so I have walked frequently—indeed, very frequently—near the Settle/Carlisle railway by Dent and Garsdale, by Ribblehead and Horton in Ribblesdale. The passenger trains on that line were never numerous unless the west coast main line had been blocked. However, one has a vivid memory of freight traffic, of heavy freight trains toiling and struggling up to Aisgill. Where has all this freight traffic gone? The noble Baroness came close to this point when she asked her Question. Some indeed has gone up and down the west coast main line which is now being electrified, but some has just disappeared. Where has it gone? We all know that much of it has gone to road transport, and that adversely affects the environment.
1128
In the press recently there have been reports of yet more of the newspaper and mail contracts being given to road haulage. I do not doubt that there are formidable difficulties in the way of retaining, let alone of attracting, freight traffic for the railways, but certain routes have managed to do so. Indeed, 20 years ago few people would have believed that the West Highland line to Fort William would have such flourishing and profitable freight traffic. It is said that the freight traffic pays for the line and keeps it in being for passenger use.
As regards the Settle/Carlisle line, one may ask: is the traffic from quarrying stone, slate and gypsum really being exploited as much as possible? Further, the closure of any railway obviously precludes the possibility of regaining some freight traffic from road to rail.
The third consideration which I would advance is neither more nor less than a plea that the educational opportunities afforded by this line and by the country which it traverses should be investigated and used. I have touched on one social and on one environmental factor; now for an educational one.
A headmaster friend recently wrote to me saying that he would dearly love to exploit this line as a resource around which to plan an integrated curriculum. What a variety of subjects lie ready to hand for inclusion, ranging from Roman roads to Anglian field settlements, to the development of country towns. Even geology could become a subject of some vivid interest if one could actually see and touch Dent marble, limestone pavements between Ingleborough and Ribblehead. The entire Great Pennine Fault is to be found in the Birkett tunnel north of Aisgill. Industrial archaeology, social history, railway architecture, botany, too—all and more besides could easily form part of such a course. The Countryside Commission has drawn attention to even wider opportunities for recreation and adult education afforded by this line. Would not the restoration of the Ribblehead viaduct be a piece of modern technological education in its own way as remarkable as the raising of the "Mary Rose"?
I have tried your Lordships' patience and courtesy for long enough, if not for too long. It would be easy to go on at length about the scenic beauty of this line, about the problems which attended its construction and about the heroism of those who have served it in foul weather. But this Question concentrates on social and environmental factors. Those factors change over the years. No longer is it necessary to have a social club for farmers under the water tank at Garsdale, or to have a room set aside for the divine service at Ribblehead station. There are other social and environmental factors which need to be borne in mind today. Does the procedure for public inquiry allow for sufficient consideration to be given to them?
Social and environmental factors were clearly in the mind of William Wordsworth when in 1844 he composed his sonnet, "On the Projected Kendal and Windermere Railway", a line which runs not so far from the line which is the subject of this Question. The poet referred to a "false utilitarian lure" which had led to the planning of the railway. One cannot help thinking that precisely a false utilitarian lure underlies

1129
the proposal to close the line, and that there are powerful social and environmental forces which more than outweigh this false utilitarian lure's attractiveness.
8.32 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may first say what a great honour it is to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, and how much I enjoyed his speech on a subject which obviously is very much to his heart in an area which is very close to his heart. Try as I could, I suppose in view of the nature of the speech, I found it impossible to establish which of the various categories of bishop he belongs to as described by Sir Humphrey the other day in "Yes, Minister".
I must also say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for having put down this Question, for we are undoubtedly discussing this evening a question which evokes much feeling, particularly for those of us who live and work in the North of England, and to the many visitors who come to that part of the world and have had the honour of travelling on the Carlisle to Settle line.
It strikes me as ironic that we find ourselves in this position where the local planning authorities and the public at large are arguing for the retention of a railway and its dominant viaducts, when the very idea of constructing anything similar today would provoke every possible objection from those same planners and public. But it is not surprising that there is this strong public support for retention of this line when one considers that we are dealing with a railway which winds its way through some of the most beautiful and remotest parts of England's countryside combined with those stark, magnificent viaducts which have now blended themselves into the countryside so that they have become part of the countryside. They act as a memorial to the opulent development of the Victorian age.
It is apparently obvious that the reasons for the proposed closure are based on purely economic grounds, and so far as they go I do not think that one can blame British Rail for this. But it would appear that the on-going costs, excluding the viaduct repairs, are no greater than many other provincial lines. In fact I believe they are considerably less.
The noble Baroness made reference earlier to the independent consultants, PIEDA, who were invited to carry out this survey on behalf of the various planning local authorities. They, I believe, have estimated that even including the cost of structural repairs to the viaducts, the Settle to Carlisle line still compares favourably well. It therefore has to be questioned whether all commercial avenues have genuinely been explored, and certainly the preliminary reports would indicate otherwise.
The noble Baroness also made reference to the Dales Rail Service. This initiative was set up by the Yorkshire Dales Committee in conjunction with the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. If I may, I should like to give your Lordships some figures relating to the 1985 year. In 1985 £26,000 was spent on chartering trains for seven weekends. That included various other costs on top of the purely chartering costs. That included £3,000 spent on promoting the
1130
project; 5,000 people used the service; and an income of £24½ thousand was raised. This demonstrates, from a relatively modest input, exactly what can be produced for this particular line.
In addition to that, and as an offshoot, over 2,000 people participated in guided walks, and obviously helped from the point of view of local industry. It is perhaps interesting to note that the North York Moors Railway now runs with 350,000 passenger journeys, and it is nice to see that they are re-scheduling their lines in order to try to fit in with, and help, the local community.
It would appear that the very substantial cost of maintaining the viaducts is the main stumbling block; but I believe they are listed buildings and presumably the commitment to their upkeep would have to be discounted against any cost of keeping the line open. But if in the event of this section of line being closed, and British Rail then failing in their obligation to maintain the structure of the viaducts to a satisfactory standard, the national park authority may well find itself in a position, having served a repair notice on British Rail which they then chose to ignore, of having to acquire it compulsorily.
Therefore I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether he could give me some assurance as to whether the Government, presumably through the Department of the Environment, would be prepared to take on the responsibility of maintaining the viaducts so that at least they still stand and the quality of them will be retained for public enjoyment.
Leaving the financial arguments to one side, I believe that in the Settle to Carlisle rail link we have a national asset which has implications from a heritage, environment, social, and tourist point of view. They must be considered when coming to any conclusion. The Government have, quite rightly, over recent years given considerable support both morally and financially to conservation and tourism. The opportunity for expanding the latter, I believe, could be considerable and would have great benefit to remote villages like Garsdale (which has already been referred to), which has now become a deprived area and is looking very much for any support that could possibly come to its aid.
The rub-on effects from this service could well produce a much-needed boost to the local economy. As we know, tourism is growing apace but we are still at the stage of identifying the new leisure demands. It would be sad indeed if British Rail and the local community were to miss out by any premature decision that might be made on the closure of this line.
The standard procedures—which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has already referred to—when dealing with such closures are not adequate, and certainly not in this special case. I cannot believe that it is beyond the initiative of British Rail, central and local government, and all the various statutory bodies involved in the countryside, to come to some satisfactory conclusion as to how to retain this particular line.
It may indeed be opportunistic in the future for private investment, and I hope that the Government will look towards that avenue as well. But I ask at the very least that all these arguments are considered, and

1131
that the decision is not based purely in terms of the narrow procedures which apply to the assessment for closure of normal lines. If the only satisfactory way of doing this is through a public inquiry, then I would certainly endorse that viewpoint. We are not talking about a normal line: in fact we are dealing with—and I quote from a British Rail publicity brochure—"the most spectacular line in England".
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on his maiden speech and to congratulate him on his very apposite remarks relating to the northern end of the area we are considering and on the thoughtful suggestions and comments he made on the educational aspects.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for opening this debate and for drawing attention to the whole question of inquiry procedures and relating it to the Settle-Carlisle railway. Unlike the noble Baroness, I speak as a native of Yorkshire and with considerable pride in the unique character and beauty of the Yorkshire Dales. I speak as one who knows the area very well indeed by rail, by car and on foot. I also speak with some pride about the technical achievements of the last century which can be seen most dramatically in this line, with its 21 viaducts and 14 tunnels stretching over 72 miles of very difficult, though magnificent terrain.
However, I want to concentrate my remarks on this subject largely upon the point of view of the inhabitants of West Yorkshire. Together with the county councils of North Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria, West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has been very concerned about the proposed closure of this line from the point of view of the economic and social repercussions upon the inhabitants of West Yorkshire. Their concerns fall into four main categories: first, the hardship that the closure of the line will cause primarily for those areas surrounding the line but also for people in West Yorkshire and in the conurbations. Secondly, there will be a considerable loss of opportunities for leisure and recreational travel by West Yorkshire residents, especially bearing in mind the Dales Rail Service, which has already been mentioned in the debate. Thirdly, the closure will continue the erosion of the good main line connections between West Yorkshire, Cumbria and the West of Scotland. Fourthly, there are the possible long-term effects on the costs of supporting local rail services in West Yorkshire—those between Leeds, Bradford and Ilkley, which I use regularly, and those between Leeds and Keighley, which share the route of the Leeds-Carlisle trains and which consequently also share part of the expenses.
I consider first the hardship. The majority of journeys made by the residents of the rural areas surrounding the Settle-Carlisle line are probably to destinations in West Yorkshire—trips to Leeds and Bradford for purposes such as work, further education, shopping and cultural and recreational activities which are not available in the rural areas. All these journeys will be made much more difficult, and some may be impossible, if the line is closed. For example,
1132
early morning commuters from Settle will have to make their way to Giggleswick station to catch their train to Leeds. Saturday shoppers from the remoter Dales area will be deprived of the benefit of the Dales rail service to the cities. If the line is closed, these journeys will probably either be made by car—imposing a further strain on some of the busiest roads in the area, and putting a further strain on the limited parking facilities in West Yorkshire—or, for those who do not have cars, will not be made at all. In either event it means that the hardship which will be felt by the people in the Dales communities will also be shared by those in the urban communities because of the lack of business and contact between the new communities.
Secondly, I shall consider leisure and recreational travel. One of the advantages of living in the West Yorkshire conurbation, and one which I am continually telling my friends in the South about, is its close proximity to the extensive areas of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, the North Yorkshire Moors National Park and, in particular, to the Dales National Park. The Yorkshire Dales have been called the lungs for the cities of Leeds and Bradford. This is due in no small part to the ease with which the railway services have enabled people to reach the heart of the Dales. In saying this I am conscious of the fact that West Yorkshire has one of the lowest percentages of cars per family in the country. Consequently, the inhabitants of West Yorkshire are used to relying on public transport.
Therefore it would be a very shortsighted policy from many points of view if the recreational services which have been introduced in recent years were to be withdrawn. These services, as has already been said, have the support of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county as well as other areas. For the West Yorkshire residents, closure of the Settle-Carlisle line will mean the loss of the convenient access to this very important recreational environment. It is not easily possible for this access to be replaced by bus services because of the limited road network and, in any case, road transport does not provide the same remarkable vistas that rail transport does. If there were to be an increase in road transport as a consequence of closing the line, that would mean further congestion on the already busy Dales roads and also further congestion in the limited parking facilities.
The Dales rail service has over the last 12 years been expanded. It consists of four separate services: the West Yorkshire service operating on Saturdays from Leeds to Carlisle and back; the Lancashire services—the Lancashire urban areas are also involved—operating on Saturdays from Preston via Clitheroe to join with the West Yorkshire services at Hellifield, the Cumbria services operating on Saturdays from Carlisle to Leeds, Bradford or Blackpool, again via Preston and Clitheroe, and the Sunday service operating from Leeds to Appleby and back. Feeder bus connections have linked with the train services, so there has been access to the heart of the Dales.
The fares charged have always been kept as low as possible, but matching income with expenditure. For the local authorities concerned the services have generally achieved an overall break-even point.

1133
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred to the service provided for the fans of steam railways. This has been a great success. She also referred to British Rail themslves having attempted to market the line as "England's greatest historical scenic route". This, too, has been successful. So that there is an enormous tourist potential in this line which is largely unexploited.
My third point is concerned with the loss of mainline connections. These have been continuing over the years. The route has been allowed to decline and services have progressively been diverted from it. If this particular line is closed, British Rail propose to re-route services from Leeds via Carnforth and Lancaster, and this will add to the journey time. But that is not the important point. The important point is that some of the connecting services are so bad that the line is really not going to be a viable proposition at all. It really is very hard to avoid the conclusion that British Rail are not serious about retaining the traffic between West Yorkshire, Cumbria and the West of Scotland.
Reference has been made in the debate to the PIEDA Report. I am not being at all critical here about alternative modes of transport. I think that both are essential. But the estimate of PIEDA is that the cost of the retention of the line would be under £10 million over a 20-year period. By contrast, the by-passes proposed for Gargrave and Settle, both of which I think are essential, on the A.65 route in North Yorkshire are expected to cost £11.5 million and the recent runway extension at Yeadon Airport cost over £20 million and caters for about 400,000 passengers a year. So it can be seen that in contrast to these and with an increasing level of traffic that could be generated, the line could be a very viable proposition.
Finally, I should like to comment on the effects on local services, because, apart from the loss of revenue from the tourist lines, there are financial implications for West Yorkshire. The local rail services between Leeds and Ilkley and between Leeds, Bradford and Keighley are supported by the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive under a Section 20 agreement under the Transport Act 1968. The costs are therefore shared, and British Rail's proposals at the moment are to retain all the existing services so that the cost can continue to be shared but to re-route them via Carnforth. However, at an earlier stage, British Rail also proposed to close the Leeds-Lancaster line and, if this were so, it would mean that the full cost of the line between Leeds and Keighley and the intervening stations would have to be borne by the local transport executive. One can see that, at a time when there are constraints on finances for local services, this could be a very severe burden on West Yorkshire.
It is for all these reasons that the county councils involved feel that a full public inquiry would be much more appropriate so that the wider problems could be fully examined and brought to public attention. In the light of that, I believe that the debate that we are holding this evening is all the more important.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just sat down has spoken very largely about the southern end of this great line. I propose to talk a little about the more northerly end. Before doing so, I should like to express my own great pleasure and, I am sure, the pleasure of the House as a whole at having listened to the most notable, sympathetic and knowledgeable speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I thought that he probably knew the area better than all of us who live in the North West know it ourselves. I should like to say that I hope that he will come to the House many times, indeed as frequently as Bishop Nicolson who was Bishop of Carlisle in the early 18th century and whose presence in this Chamber was so frequent and whose influence was so great. If he can follow in his footsteps, he will be very welcome indeed.
Perhaps before leaving the Lords Spiritual, I should like to say how very well represented they have been in the House today, by not only the Bishop of Newcastle but the Bishop of Carlisle and until recently, for the first half of the debate, the Bishop of Derby. I should like also to recollect the great service rendered to this very line by the late Bishop of Wakefield. So distinguished was his service that a plaque was put up to his memory in Appleby Station, and I am happy to say that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who is here tonight was present at the unveiling of that plaque.
We are very grateful to he noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing this Unstarred Question today. It could hardly have been more timely. Whether this was by accident or design, I know not. But here we are debating this only a few weeks before theTUCCs are going to be consulted at the end of March and the following weeks and months. This is, as everyone who has spoken so far has said, a matter of more than local interest and I shall attempt to show that as well. There are of course social and environmental aspects connected with this line but I should like first to talk about social hardships, local social hardships, that are already being suffered by those who live along the line which it was built to serve and whose deprivation will be all the greater if British Rail's closure proposal is allowed to proceed.
Perhaps I may illustrate this by the local area that I happen to know well—that is, the head of the Eden Valley which used to be served also, I must mention with nostalgia and regret, by that superb link between Darlington and Kirkby Stephen which alas! was axed by Beeching. It must be realised that in a remote area, mainly dependent upon agriculture and also on quarrying, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, agriculture is a job-loss industry and quarrying cannot be expected to flourish if there is no rail to take out the gain from the quarry. So where you have job-loss industries like agriculture on which the community depend, it is vital for employment or for the relief of unemployment—whichever way you care to look at it—that there should be access to the towns. And not everyone by any means has a car—for goodness sake!—and even if people do have cars there are times of the year, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, as, for instance, just now, when it is dangerous to travel by

1135
road for long periods in the winter. A rail commuter service would promote employment in the area: there is no question about that.
Unfortunately the familiar pattern of the centralisation of hospital services has of course applied to the North West of England as it has everywhere else, but it is more of a hardship in this area than in most other places for let me say that if you happen to live in Kirkby Stephen you live 45 miles from Carlisle and there is simply no bus service. So if you do not have a rail service and there is no bus service you are effectively cut off from your friends and relations if you go into hospital, unless you are fortunate enough to have a car or can beg a lift from friends.
Those two points alone—the very important points of employment and the inaccessibility of Carlisle to so great a portion of the residents of Eden Valley—mean that this is a vital railway link from Kirkby Stephen to Carlisle. But of course, there are many other reasons for access to towns. There are shopping, communication with friends and relatives all over the North of England and not just in the immediate area served by this line but, for instance, via the connections at Leeds to Hull and connections via Carlisle to Newcastle. So there are important links which ought to be reopened for the sake of local communities all over the North of England.
The House, I think, will be interested to hear how one local area has this very day taken an important step towards providing expanded local rail services; namely, between Skipton and Carlisle. I believe this is one of the initiatives of the Eden District Council and of course they were interested to get the line going—a regular commuter line—between Kirkby Stephen and Carlisle. This is an improved version of the original proposal and it could now provide two trains in each direction, using car diesel units carrying 120 passengers: that is on every weekday, Monday to Saturday. On three of the four journeys, connections at Skipton would provide a Carlisle to Leeds service. That is a very impressive thing which has gone to the transport sub-committee of the Cumbria County Council today. It was on a joint report by the director of engineering and the county planning officer.
This is only happening because of the initiative of the Eden District Council, and now the Cumbria County Council—I am happy to say that it is on an all-party basis: this cuts across the whole spectrum of political parties—have agreed that this should be a viable project. I believe that if the cost which they are having to fund themselves at the rate of £155,000 per annum can be shared, say, between three authorities then it can go ahead this very summer.
Let me list some of the advantages of this service and let me say, incidentally, that British Rail would not do this of their own volition: this has to be done on a contract basis. The county councils will have to contract with British Rail and guarantee the sum of £155,000 a year. Of course they may very well get back a very large amount of that capital expenditure in revenue. Some of the advantages are that this doubles the basic service on the Settle/Carlisle line. It allows the reopening of all the Dales rail stations on a daily basis except Sunday. That in turn will allow a greatly
1136
improved service, particularly in Cumbria. For instance, it will allow daily commuting by rail into Carlisle from Kirkby Stephen, Appleby, Langwathby, Lazonby and Armathwaite; it will allow for shopping trips on a daily basis from all British Rail and Dales rail stations either into Carlisle or into Leeds.
It will give rail access into the Eden valley and the Yorkshire Dales via any Dales rail station, and it would permit day trips on any day of the week, except Sundays, or longer overnight stays. Even the 9 o'clock service out of Carlisle would allow longer shopping time in Leeds for visitors from Carlisle and other Cumbrian stations, using the Settle/Carlisle line. So it should appeal to locals and to visitors—though of course I am talking particularly about locals—for work, for education, shopping, leisure and recreational purposes, or merely for a run on the Settle/Carlisle line which is so popular among tourists to the area.
There was all-party support this morning when this was agreed in the Cumbria County Council subcommittee and I have no doubt that this imaginative plan, which they are prepared to fund with neighbouring county councils and perhaps the Countryside Commission, will lead to a viable commuter service running this very summer. If you superimpose this new service on top of the British Rail services, which can be done, your Lordships will see how dramatically new opportunities are opened up in the way that I have described. It is clear that such an imaginative approach must be allowed not just for one season's trial but for several seasons to test its viability.
It hardly needs saying that this, which is for the benefit of local people, will have immense importance not just for the tourist industry—which of course it will have—but nationally. We have heard about the strategic importance from the noble Baroness who opened the debate, but there are many other projects of national significance which I can think of and, if you like, they can be combined with the significance to tourists.
If you just take the enormous numbers of visitors to this country who come to London and then want to go on to Edinburgh—there must be many thousands who want to do that—how very exciting it would be for them to go up to Edinburgh via Leeds on the Settle to Carlisle line and then, when they have visited Edinburgh, to come back down the East coast, looking at all those wonderful cathedrals on the way—not least, and most special of all, Durham. What a very exciting journey it would be for the Americans and others who come to see London and Edinburgh! I should have thought that that would bring in a huge amount of foreign currency, just from foreign visitors alone, which means that the line is of national and not merely local importance.
It is absolutely inconceivable that any closure could be contemplated before the next general election. I say that because, though this is not a party matter, I cannot believe that elected representatives in the North-West would allow any political party to be a party to this rail closure. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said from the Opposition Front Bench at the beginning of this Session that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, "knows a banana skin when he sees one". I would say that this is a banana skin if

1137
ever there was one, and he knows that he would not wish to tread on it. I believe that we, and all those of us who live in the North-West and who wish this line to prosper, must be glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, lives in the North-West and will point out that this is a very slippery skin on which to fall.
I do not believe for that one reason alone that this line will close before the next election. I believe that British Rail will be so impressed by this latest initiative, and by everything that has been said in this House about the wider significance of this rail link, that they will be very well advised to withdraw their notice of closure and not persist with it. One thing is absolutely clear. If this scheme, which has had the stamp of approval of Cumbria County Council, is to be viable, it will be viable only if it is properly marketed. There should be a very vigorous form of marketing, such as did exist, started by British Rail. There was an abortive attempt to market this line in 1984 and very creditable it was. I have some of the literature here—"England's greatest historical scenic route." That was British Rail itself in 1984. Just suppose that that was spread all over the country and to the tourist offices abroad. What a huge revenue this line would bring in. For that reason alone, I would say that British Rail will be much better advised to realise that they are already defeated and to withdraw their notice of closure now.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for allowing me the opportunity of listening to this very interesting debate and for the excellent way in which she marshalled the whole subject. I should particularly like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on his very splendid maiden speech.
I have listened with great interest to the very full debate of your Lordships, and am afraid that I have very little to add that has not been said already. I might say that it was 140 or 145 years ago that my great-great-grandfather was busily engaged in battling with the navvies. Every night he would go out with his chaps and dig up the railway line that went close to our home, and every day the navvies would lay it again. He delayed that railway by about 30 years. It was not the railway which we are discussing, but an adjacent one. Anyway, as you may gather, he was not a great railway enthusiast. But my father and my grandfather both were. They saw the light and were very keen on railways. The Settle/Carlisle one was a particular favourite of my grandfather, who was a director of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway.
In view of this I have the temerity to emphasise just two points which have already been touched on. The first is that the Settle/Carlisle line is undoubtedly the most beautiful stretch of railway line in this country. It is possible that people in Wales or in Scotland may have their arguments but I have no doubts. It is a super scenic trip and a marvellous experience and example of engineering. It would be a great shame on all concerned if it were closed without taking these considerations very seriously. The Ribblehead viaduct itself and I think other parts of the line are listed or scheduled and ought to be treated with respect. I have taken American visitors to look with astonishment at
1138
the achievements, and they have taken super photographs. It should not be left to decay. It must not be allowed to happen.
My second point is that so much of the industry of the country, including tourism, is gravitating south. It seems that with time everything gravitates south—one's own waistline moves south. But, anyway, tourism needs to be generated, particularly in the north of England. If the line was promoted effectively, I believe it could draw considerable revenue from this source for a relatively small outlay. One has only to think of some of the tremendous investments that people contemplate to bring tourism into a country. How about building Disney World? You do not need to build it; you have the best line in the world, 72 miles of it, there. Develop it. Forgive me, my Lords, but I have become slightly carried away.
I am particularly concerned that the closure of this important line would herald the creeping closure of the adjacent Hellifield/Blackburn line. It may seem somewhat ironic and very disloyal to my great-great-grandfather but I rather like that railway line. It is particularly useful and I think it would be a very great sorrow if that was closed. It is an essential artery for the north of England.
Finally, it seems to me to be very regrettable that the present procedures for dealing with railway closure cases do not apparently ensure that all these issues are dealt with in public. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to assure us that he will be thinking about this in due course.
9.16 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on introducing a subject which is not only of great local importance but I think of great national importance. More particularly I should like to congratulate her because it gives me the opportunity to speak on a subject very dear to my heart. I mean of course the Settle/Carlisle railway and not the prospect of its closure.
I must of course add my very sincere congratulations to the right reverend Prelate. Perhaps I may say here how delightful it is to have a Bishop speaking about railways, because the link between railways and the Church has always been very powerful. I see the right reverend Prelate nodding his head. He did not say that he was a railway lover but he implied so in his speech. There are examples of a great many distinguished prelates who have also been very fine railwaymen. As a railwayman and a church man, I am very happy to welcome him to your Lordships' House and hope we may hear him speak on many subjects.
I do not want to overlap on what other speakers have said, but I should like to say very briefly from a purely personal point of view that this line has always struck me as more than a railway. It is in fact an uplifting experience. Anyone who has travelled along it by service train, by enthusiasts' special; anyone who has walked along it or over the tunnels; anyone who has even looked at it from the road—I have done all four—cannot fail to be moved by the magnificence of the great structures and the superb grandeur of the rugged upland scenery.

1139
I should like to say a very few words about the history of the line. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has told us that it was built in 1876. It might perhaps be of interest to know that it cost something like £3½ million to construct; that it greatly exceeded the budget of £2¼ million—a large sum in those days; that it cost far more than the Midland Railway was prepared to spend; and that it took six and a half years to construct—again very much longer than was envisaged. At one time more than 5,000 workers were involved and many hundreds—perhaps 500 or 600—died.
One detail that might be of interest to your Lordships illustrates the appalling terrain—and here I speak particularly of the boulder clay, which, when wet, becomes like Yorkshire pudding. I say that with no disrespect to the noble Baroness and others of your Lordships who come from Yorkshire. On one particular viaduct, over a period of two years more than one-quarter of a million tons of material were poured into the site of an embankment. After all that effort the embankment had to be abandoned and a viaduct was built instead.
Another example of the difficulties posed by the terrain is the Ribble valley. At one point the Ribble had to be diverted and the railway line was built along its course. Other speakers have mentioned the ferocious climate. Those of your Lordships who come from that part of the world do not need me to remind them that the rainfall there is sometimes as much as 70 to 100 inches a year, and the winds are so severe that it is impossible to walk against them.
I should like to speak particularly about the Ribblehead viaduct, which is really the key to the problem we are discussing this evening. British Rail has said that it might keep the line open if the Ribblehead viaduct could be restored. The news of the viaduct's impending collapse first came to the notice of the public in 1981, and it was then given a three-year life. Like a patient who has lingered on despite the doctor's prognosis, the viaduct remains standing today. However, it is deteriorating very rapidly and the extremely severe winter has, I am sure, accelerated that process. It is not only the Ribblehead viaduct that is in need of repair, because there are many other large viaducts, such as Arten Gill, which also are deteriorating.
What is the solution? British Rail estimate that it would cost £4½ million to rebuild the viaduct. An alternative might be to undertake a major repair work of grouting with concrete. That work would cost in the region of £3 million and the repair would last for some 10 or 15 years. I must say straight away—and I believe all noble Lords would agree—that to rebuild the Ribblehead viaduct as a ghastly modern concrete structure would be quite unthinkable. As some of your Lordships have said, the viaduct is a listed structure, and so it must remain.
From where is the money to come? It looks as though British Rail will be unwilling to advance any money, but there are other possibilities. One is a grant from the National Heritage Fund. Another is a grant from the EC's regional development fund. However, I believe that neither would be very likely and perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply will give me his thoughts on that likelihood.
1140
The problem of funding is particularly sad when one considers that the Department of Transport's budget is measured in billions of pounds. The sum now required of £10 million would pay not only to repair the Ribblehead viaduct itself but also to restore the other structures in need of attention, restore the track, and carry out other essential repairs and maintenance. All of that would cost about £10 million.
A sum of £10 million is chickenfeed. What would it do in terms of roads? I am informed that £10 million would pay for one-half mile of rural motorway or about 100 yards of the West London relief road. So we are talking about chickenfeed. If somehow or another the money required were to be found then I feel, as your Lordships have expressed this evening, that this great line could pay its way. Noble Lords have indicated various ways in which that could be achieved.
I would say from the point of view of the railwaymen, that first of all we must think in sensible terms. The line must be reduced from double track to single track. It is quite unnecessary to have two lines of rail. In fact there is one line over the Ribblehead viaduct now; it should be single track the whole way. Then the signal boxes and the signals could be removed and one could operate the line by radio signalling. That is a plan which British Rail are now considering and they hope to introduce that system of radio signalling on the central Wales line running from Shrewsbury down to South Wales. That of course would greatly reduce overheads.
I do not want to talk much about tourist potential and so on, as it has been dealt with by other noble Lords. Perhaps I could say just a few words in that context about other ideas which I do not think have been mentioned. The three mountain stations of Ribblehead, Dent and Garsdale (and my noble friend Lord Henderson assures me it is pronounced "Gahsdull") could surely be used as youth hostels. One could be a museum—and I think it has been proposed that Garsdale itself should be set up as a museum to which children could be brought—and indeed there are all sorts of ways in which the stations could be used.
Then, of course, we must not forget the enthusiasts' specials. Several noble Lords have mentioned the Dales Rail Service. I shall not repeat what has been said about that, but I think that somehow or other we must try to preserve those magnificant enthusiasts' specials. I myself have been on those enthusiasts' trains; and what a wonderful experience it is to travel up the so-called Long Drag, one in a hundred gradient, 15 miles from Settle junction, up to Ribblehead behind an old steam engine, a train of 13 or 14 coaches packed with enthusiasts, heads leaning out of the windows, listening to every blast of the engine. The pleasure which these enthusiasts' specials and the Dales Rail Service give, and the enormous potential for tourism and educational facilities and so on are immensely important factors, I think.
Sooner or later we must grasp the Settle nettle. I hope that what has been said this evening will enable the noble Earl the Minister and his colleagues to do so without stinging their hands too severely. At all costs we must preserve this great railway line.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for taking us on a tour of the Dales. It has been a very nice occasion listening to her going along there. I think it could be bettered a little only perhaps by Brian Redhead, who lives in the area, or Russell Harty, who also lives there. Both those personalities could do this tour for us and probably get it over to more people than we can this evening.
At this time of 9.28 in the evening I do not want to repeat everything that has been said already. I had prepared quite a number of points. I was going to mention the procedures, which have been mentioned several times; leisure, which has been mentioned several times; tourism, which has been mentioned several times; the lung of the north-west of England, which has been mentioned once; education, which has been mentioned once or twice; the social problems that could occur if the railway were closed; and of course National Heritage.
At this point I regret to say that I omitted to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on his enlightened maiden speech, and to thank him. I look forward to other speeches that I am sure he will make from time to time.
The points I have enumerated have been made by several speakers far more eloquent than I am, and therefore I have no intention of repeating what has already been said. However, I wish to correct the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in the suggestion that tourists coming from afar would travel via London and Leeds to Edinburgh. Surely it would be via London, Crewe and Preston to Edinburgh and not through Yorkshire. It would be through Lancashire, and that way round.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if I may say so, it is not a correction but a preference that the noble Lord is expressing.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I shall argue the point with my noble friend on some other occasion. I ask only that we should try to get the matter in order. I know that the financial argument is that we cannot retain the railway, but there is far more to a railway than finance. Please let us keep the line open.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I concur in the universal gratitude expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. I was delighted to be here when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle in making his maiden speech reminded us of the link between church and railway which, as my noble friend Lord Buckmaster has just said, is an ongoing one and one which is not subject to either consultation or closure procedures. I too share tonight's universal affection for the Settle/Carlisle line. I wish that I could share most of the other sentiments expressed.
1142
As has been hinted at, it is a main line that has fallen on hard times. The ambitions of its builders were never really met; it was never particularly viable. Nowadays it is sadly and definitely not viable. It is not those who use the two trains each way each day and who patronise the two stations that are open who are paying for the line. It is we who are doing so through the PSO grant. We must always remember that we are British Rail's principal customers by virtue of our subscription to the grant, even if we never buy a ticket. The PSO grant comes with strings, not least that the railway shall be as efficient as possible and that the taxpayer shall get the best possible deal for the over-£800 million that he is contributing this year. I feel that British Rail's decision to put forward a proposal to close the line is sensible and it is one that I support on economic grounds.
I have mentioned the two trains and the two stations. There is admittedly the commuter train that goes to Leeds in the morning. I can only say that the good workers of Leeds must work extremely short days, because if they go in on that train and come back on the afternoon train they will be in Leeds for only seven and a quarter hours.
Figures have been bandied around. My noble friend Lord Buckmaster and I have a common source in the most recent issue of the Railway Magazine. One fact that he did not use in the article to which he referred is that there are infrastructure costs variously between £3 million and £13 million that would be required to preserve the railway just perhaps for another 10 years. British Rail can do an awful lot of things elsewhere in the country with such money. If one takes £13 million, it is not far short of the cost of electrifying the 35-odd miles of railway between Bournemouth and Weymouth which the Government have recently sanctioned.
The grant is falling. British Rail are becoming more efficient and productive. There have been closure proposals—and we have this one which is behind the debate tonight—but we must bear in mind that the major directive given to British Rail away back in 1974, and which governs their PSO grant, is that they must maintain a network generally comparable with that which was operated at the time. I cannot believe that closing 72 miles of line will go against that directive, particularly since, as I say, I cannot find an economic case to keep the line open.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and several noble Lords felt that the closure procedure was too concentrated and did not take account of all interests. I made my maiden speech on the point that the closure procedure, far from being too concentrated, was far too long nowadays. It can take 18 months to close two miles of railway in south London—two miles of railway where one is never more than one and a half miles from another station among the 24 that I argued about in making my maiden speech. That does not seem to me to be the right way of spending the taxpayers' money.
Several noble Lords have said that the consultation procedure is too short. I would remind your Lordships that the consultation procedure begins when

1143
customers stop buying their tickets, when they vote with their feet. That is when it begins. It may not be enshrined in statute. But when the customer takes away his custom, he has already begun to consult, not least with himself, and he has decided that there are alternatives that he finds preferable. I would remind those who have implied that one must wait for a closure notice to be posted before embarking on consultation of a not dissimilar case in Wales in recent years—the case of the Barmouth viaduct.
The Barmouth viaduct, an enchanting wooden structure against the Barmouth estuary, was attacked by some form of ocean-going woodworm. This attack implied a threat that the railway could be closed. The local authorities in mid-Wales did not wait for the closure proposal to be nailed to the billboards. They started consulting and researching straightaway. They established that perhaps 40 per cent. of the tourism—many of your Lordships have mentioned tourism—in that area of the Cardigan Bay coastline was rail-related and would be vulnerable if the railway closed down. They established the other social and economic pluses and minuses that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would like to see established through the present consultative machinery. But they did it before the consultative procedure started. And no closure notice was ever posted in respect of that railway.
In the fulness of time they persuaded British Rail that it was worth spending £1.4 million on restoring the Barmouth bridge. Not only that, but the county council, Gwynedd county council, took the lead, and, with the district councils and the mid-Wales Development Corporation and, of course with British Rail putting in a fair amount of money, agreed to spend £4.6 million on installing the radio signalling, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, on contributing to the cost of the new trains, on bringing the permanent way of the route up to scratch and recovering from years of deferred maintenance, and on automatic level crossings. So it can be done. It does not need a closure notice to provoke these things.
I feel that perhaps the councils here have missed the boat. They are, quite simply, too late out. The Settle/Carlisle line is enchanting. I do not dispute that. But it is not the line about which I would choose to become very emotional in terms of fighting a closure proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, hinted, it is when the metropolitan councils go, when the present PTE structure goes, that we shall find ourselves with much more essential routes to defend.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I take two minutes or less, if that is allowed? As president of the tourist board in Cumbria, I find it sad to see how far the railways have been run down with over-enthusiasm shown by those at the head of the railways. They forget some of the interests upon which we place a higher priority. There has been mention of the Eden Valley line. No encouragement of any kind was extended to that line. However, when the traffic had left it, they announced that too few people were travelling on it and that it was not viable.
1144
Exactly the same is happening now. I have in my hand an ABC timetable guide. On not one of its pages is there recorded what might be termed inter-city services, through trains from St. Pancras, London to St. Enoch, Glasgow. They are shown nowhere in today's ABC. One can find a train that zigzags from Carlisle to Sheffield or Nottingham. There is nothing to show that it goes any further. Again, for those travelling from St. Pancras, it will not be possible to find details of any through trains in this ABC. That I think is barely honest.
I must not say any more, although my mind is also directed from time to time to Austria and Switzerland. There is terrain which is more difficult than our Pennines. The Swiss and the Austrians have managed to continue to run trains without these great difficulties, combining trains and post buses. I should hope that we can look at it before there is a final decision about this line. I have taken two minutes, as I promised.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for raising this very important matter. I think that it gives us an opportunity to go perhaps slightly wider than merely the line which she was discussing and to consider what the right reverend Prelate referred to in his—as he said—non-controversial speech. He was quite persuasive enough without being controversial. He said that we should look a little more closely at the whole idea of closing this line.
What impressed me was when the right reverend Prelate referred to Beeching, saying that perhaps we had been too hasty then. I think that many people who are interested and concerned about railways are now only too aware that we got involved in Beeching and decided the fate of our whole transport system to a large extent at the period when the motor mania was at its height and the demand for motorways was very great. I think that his phrase about the false utilitarian view could apply to a great many of the things we have done in the past. In some ways perhaps we have a chance to pull some of it back by looking at a line such as the Settle/Carlisle line.
I am only too aware of the great knowledge and intimate detail which most of the people who have spoken about this line were able to furnish us with tonight. Although I believe I have been over the line twice, it is over a long period, once when I was very young, and once a few years ago. I cannot claim anything like the intimacy with which many people have spoken tonight.
I must say that I do not treat the idea of railway closures as something which must be opposed. I believe that that is unrealistic. I can accept the part of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, which related to the PSO grant, but to some extent the noble Lord is taking the false utilitarian view referred to by the right reverend Prelate. That must always be considered, because there are other ways of spending money, and the railways have other ways of spending money than keeping going something which is quite uneconomic, but there are also other ways of looking at certain services and lines.

1145
However, some services are not viable under any circumstances. I myself was involved in the agreement to close quite a number of them. I must say that I cannot feel ashamed of most of the decisions that I made, or was a party to, in the days when I had to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport of the period.
I do not believe that all lines should be saved willy-nilly. We cannot keep such a railway network as was bequeathed to us by the Victorians when one has 20 million vehicles on the road compared with about 3 million before the war and when there are no longer 200 million tonnes of coal and 50 million tonnes of steel moving around the country. That was the backbone of the railways, and one cannot pretend that it was otherwise.
In fact, one of the tragedies of the railways was that in the pre-war era passengers were to a large extent supernumerary and we perhaps did not build up railway finances and infrastructure as well as we might have done. Therefore—and I do not suggest anyone has been like that tonight—there is an element of over-enthusiasm about railways from some people. As a railway buff said to me, one of the worst things about some railway people is that they keep playing trains whereas it is a serious business. Charming, wonderful and lovely as trains are, one cannot play with them. They have a purpose and they are expensive things to run.
I believe that the line we are now discussing—the Carlisle/Settle line—is one of the rather special cases. I am not suggesting that it ought therefore to be saved. What I suggest is that a much deeper examination should be made of the line, including all the points raised tonight, before a final decision is made as to whether or not it should be closed.
Although I realise the form these debates take, it would perhaps have been helpful if the Minister had spoken first and given us more information about the economics of the line before we started the debate. Unfortunately, that could not be the case, but the Minister will no doubt be giving information which we shall be able to look at at our leisure. On the basis of that and the debate we have had tonight, perhaps we can look more deeply at the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for a much wider list of factors to be taken into consideration before the railway is given permission to close a line.
From all that I have heard tonight, from what I have read about it, and from my little experience of it, I see this line as much like the two lines I do know rather well, which are of the same nature. I refer to the West Highland line to Fort William and Mallaig and the line from Inverness to Kyle. In strict terms none of those lines is a paying proposition, although railway accountancy has always been something which baffles me. It has been raised once or twice, but I hope there is no question of these lines being closed now. Why do I say that? These lines are particularly fine examples of Victorian engineering. They have a very large potential. They have a very large existing use and the marginal cost necesssary to keep these lines going, in terms of our national heritage, is not, I suggest, so much as to strain the coffers of a nation such as ours. I refer, of course, to all three lines—the Settle/Carlisle, the Inverness/Kyle and the West Highlands.
1146
I believe the PSO is around £950 million, and the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. The extra required to keep one or two lines like these running is very small. I can assure the Minister that members of my party will be very selective on the lines which we are, so to speak, willing to go out on a limb and try to retain. The Settle/Carlisle line is certainly one of them.
I should like to put a number of points to the Minister. From the figures I have I calculate that including all the excursions and special attractions about 130,000 passengers a year use this line. That is a PIEDA estimate. That seems to be a very large figure. I might be out perhaps by a factor of 10, but I doubt it. I should like the Minister to tell me, if he does not agree with that figure, what his estimate is. I include all the additional possibilities that have been discussed tonight, and not just the straight railway running with all the existing special excursions and trips on this line. Has any estimate been made as to what could come from the additional attractions suggested tonight? I am sure that they have already been put forward to the railway and to the department from people who are opposed to the closure in order to try to persuade the Minister to encourage the railways to withdraw the closure notice.
I now come to my final point, because I do not want to repeat what has been said by other noble Lords. How long does the Minister think it will take before a decision is made? Is there any intention of allowing a much wider investigation and analysis of this closure before the Minister gives his consent? In other words, will we, in Parliament, be allowed to speak to the Minister before he makes a final decision after the TUCC has issued its report?
I have been told that there are a very large number of registered objectors to the closure. I have been told that they number as many as 20,000. That number may have changed. It may have increased or it may have decreased by people withdrawing their objections or feeling that the matter was too complicated for them to make an objection. I understand that there are about 28,000 objections. I also understand that the TUCC will need to examine all those objections and somehow or other sift them to make a reasonable report to the Minister.
I have been told that it is estimated that it will take at least a year before the preliminary assessment can be made. It is also suggested that altogether it will be about five years before the Minister could definitely give a date for the closure of the line. I hope he realises that that would be considered slightly unfair because we all expect there to be a general election before that time. If it were merely a question of giving enough go-ahead to enable it to last until after the general election, I am sure that the Minister's attention has been drawn to the electoral volatility of that part of the country and that it would be considered not quite playing the game if five years were given in order to get over a very difficult period.
In my view this is a special case. Most of those who have spoken tonight have shown by their expertise and knowledge that this is a particular line just like the other lines which I have mentioned tonight. I hope that the Minister will give it great consideration and

1147
will realise that when the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave us the opportunity to discuss this matter tonight she was giving an opportunity to many, many more people than are here in this House: she was giving an opportunity to the whole country to realise that perhaps we have had enough rail closures, particularly rail closures of the very important and special nature of the Settle/Carlisle line.
9.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have heard many tributes tonight about the Settle/Carlisle line. The line passes through glorious mountain countryside whose challenges were courageously and skillfully met by the Victorian railway engineers by the construction of 325 bridges, 21 viaducts and 14 tunnels. As has already been said, British Rail have referred to the line as England's greatest historical scenic route. However, I would tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Peel when he said that it would not stand a chance of getting planning permission today. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Clitheroe recounted his ancestors' feelings towards the railway. They and many others felt that the countryside was more beautiful without the railway and its imposing viaducts, and battled to resist it at the time.
Nevertheless, I can assure the House that the present Government fully recognise the deep concern about the line's future. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to whom we are grateful for giving us the opportunity of discussing this matter this evening, has asked whether the Government are satisfied that the existing procedures offer adequate opportunity for all the social and environmental issues to be fully discussed. The noble Baroness said that the procedures are misunderstood.
Therefore, I think it may be helpful if I describe the procedures which apply. I hope that in doing so I shall be able to reassure your Lordships that the existing statutory arrangements offer the flexibility to ensure that all the relevant issues are fully considered.
The Railways Board cannot withdraw rail passenger services from a railway line or close any rail passenger station without going through the procedures set out in the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968. Indeed, the 1968 Act has survived the test of time well, and it is one that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, will know well because he was a Minister in the Department of Transport at that time.
Where there are objections from users the closure cannot take place unless the Secretary of State for Transport gives his consent. British Rail must publish a formal public notice of any proposal. This gives any user of any service affected by the proposed closure an opportunity to object, and such objections are considered by a Transport Users' Consultative Committee, known as a TUCC.
The TUCCs are independent bodies, and one of their functions is to consider objections from users to closure proposals, and to report to the Secretary of State for Transport on hardship aspects. The TUCC may hold public hearings to hear oral evidence from
1148
objectors and representations from British Rail. Their report identifies any hardship to users, and may also include recommendations on measures to alleviate that hardship. In reaching his decision the Secretary of State considers all factors which appear to him to be relevant, including, in addition to the hardship aspects reported by the TUCC, social and economic considerations.
That briefly is the general procedure. In this particular case British Rail have proposed the withdrawal of the passenger services on the Settle/Carlisle line and the line between Blackburn and Hellifield. British Rail have incorporated the latter into their proposal as it is used by services chartered by West Yorkshire County Council which also run over the Settle/Carlisle line.
British Rail have explained that they have proposed the closure of the Settle/Carlisle line because they do not consider that the expenditure needed to maintain passenger services would be justified. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that the TUCCs plan to hold their hearings in March and April of this year. Indeed there are to be hearings by the North Western TUCC in Appleby and Carlisle, and by the North Eastern TUCC in Settle, Skipton, and Leeds.
In addition to objections sent to the TUCCs, a great many representations have been sent direct to the Department of Transport covering issues such as the effect of closure on tourism, employment, rural population change, and heritage aspects. In any closure proposals the Secretary of State has, in the end, to weigh the Board's case against the arguments forwarded for retaining the line. I think there is agreement that the hardship issues, some of which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, can be fully discussed within the existing procedure.
As for the wider non-hardship issues, I cannot offer an exhaustive list of what in this case those issues are. Fresh representations continue to arrive, and the relevant considerations are clearly not the same for every closure case. Indeed, I can inform the House that we in the department have received over 850 representations, including a petition. The Secretary of State is required by statute to take into account all relevant factors. This he has been able to do in considering other closure proposals without having recourse to the public inquiry system.
My right honourable friend has already carefully considered the suggestion that in this instance the non-hardship issues need to be debated in a public forum in just the same way as the hardship issues are. There is provision under the Transport Act 1962 for the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry, and he has considered whether it would be appropriate to apply that provision. Nothing that has been put to him so far has persuaded him that this case is so substantially different from previous closure cases that the existing procedures should be supplemented by a public inquiry.
If anybody feels aggrieved that the Secretary of State has not taken account of all the relevant evidence and that he has acted otherwise, he is of course open to challenge through the judicial review procedure. Ministers fully recognise that local authorities are in a

1149
good position to comment on the wider issues, and this was a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, made to us. We shall also be ready to listen to views on any individual closure proposals. Some meetings have already taken place with representatives from local authorities and I have no doubt that more will follow. Ministers will also take account of all relevant information passed on to them by such bodies as local business groups, chambers of commerce and environmental groups. I also confirm that we shall consider any material which the TUCCs pass on on non-hardship issues.
Because of the quasi-judicial position it would be wrong of me to express any view on the merits of the closure proposal, and the House will understand why I must remain silent on the particular arguments put forward by so many noble Lords tonight. But I can assure the House that all the points made during the debate will also be thoroughly examined and taken into account.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two points in a general way. The noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman and Lady Lockwood, said that the route was an invaluable diversionary route. This is something that my right honourable friend will wish to take into account in considering the proposal. Many noble Lords spoke about the effects on local economy, tourism, bus services and other such matters. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in a very rural area and some people up there, when the local line was closed, felt, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that they would prefer to be where they were rather than in a relative centre of civilisation, such as Kirkby Stephen when compared with the Highlands of Scotland. These points on local economy, tourism and bus services will be fully considered. Points made by noble Lords tonight will only ensure that my right honourable friend takes them into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that it was difficult to have access to British Rail figures and an opportunity to make representations against them. I am sure that the board recognises this and that if it brings forward a closure proposal it has to be prepared to make a case for it. I can appreciate that objectors may wish to make representations to the Secretary of State which bear on the financial aspects, but in such circumstances it would be for objectors to approach the board direct for such information. I shall ensure that the views expressed in the House tonight about financial disclosure are drawn to the board's attention.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle made a good speech. I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed. I hope he continues to be non-controversial in the future for our sake. On his interesting point about the educational aspect and its great potential, I wonder whether the headmaster to whom he referred has been in touch with British Rail. I hope he has, because I am sure that this is something BR would like to consider. If he has not, perhaps the right reverend Prelate would pass this on.
My noble friend Lord Peel mentioned the PIEDA report. This was a report commissioned in 1984 by the local authorities and the tourist boards to study the line, the cost of maintaining it and the scope for retaining it with external funds or for private
1150
operation. The consultants reported in early 1985. It was a long report which reflected the thorough examination of the issues and it is certainly a report which my right honourable friend will wish to take into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said that British Rail had let the line run down in the past. I know that the railways board would reject that claim. It considers that the line has been maintained to an adequate standard to carry local traffic. It is true that the board did not consider it was necessary to maintain this line as a high-speed intercity link, because in its view there are suitable alternative services available on the east coast and west coast main lines. The noble Baroness mentioned that there probably had been insufficient marketing of the line, but I understand that special efforts have been made recently to promote travel on the line. The board has done quite a lot to try to mitigate the situation.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, will the noble Earl note the point I made of no through trains being shown in the ABC? Therefore, they are not marketing much.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords; I am very happy to note my noble friend's point on that, and to pass it on.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned the Barmouth Viaduct and the contribution that the local authorities are making toward upgrading and modernising the Cambrian coastline. The noble Lord was quite right to point out that the local authorities can and do support local lines in this way. For that reason, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, had to say on this subject. I hope that the local authority has been in touch with BR on this matter, because again I am sure that this is something that BR would wish to know about.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I say that, of course, they have; because the whole of the programme which they are considering is one of contract and you can only have a contract with the knowledge of British Rail. They certainly have been in close consultation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I think that the point of local authority and other support for local lines, takes me on to the question of the heritage and the maintenance of the line, a point made particularly by my noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Clitheroe. If there are parties or bodies interested in making some financial contribution towards the retention of the historic structures on the line, we should be very pleased to know about it. This, again, would be taken into account by my right honourable friend when he comes to make a decision on this matter.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that if British Rail are not prepared to commit themselves to maintaining the structures of the viaduct, and the Government themselves are not prepared to do so, they will actually allow them to crumble?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that my right honourable friend will take all these matters into account. It is too soon to judge the situation. What I was saying is that in such instances as the Cambrian coastline mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, the local authorities are making a contribution. All I was suggesting to my noble friends was that if they knew of local authorities or other bodies who would wish to contribute, we should be delighted to hear about it.
The noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Carmichael, mentioned the public service obligation grant. This grant, which currently stands at over £2 million a day, recognises the social value of railways by enabling BR to provide a level of service throughout the subsidised network which would not be justified on commercial grounds alone. This grant, as Lord Carmichael well knows from his previous experience in the Ministry, is not paid in respect of individual lines or services. It is a grant paid to BR. They allocate it as they see fit.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me about various figures. I can tell them that BR estimate that 250,000 journeys were made in 1985, which represent an average of about 700 a day. We are expecting some updated estimates in the near future on that.
If I may recapitulate on the existing procedures which are of long standing, they were fully considered and enacted by Parliament and they have served well enough in the past in handling other major stretches of route which BR have proposed for closure. One was mentioned: and that was the Waverly closure. Discussions and meetings will certainly continue to take place on this closure proposal. This debate is one example of such opportunities. We have made clear that we should be happy to receive representations at any time before my right honourable friend makes his decision. We have recognised the role that we think local authorities have in commenting on the wider issues. My right honourable friend will consult colleagues in other government departments and may seek whatever expert advice on particular aspects of the proposal or representations made about it that he thinks would be helpful.
I stress that the existing procedure is flexible enough to allow all this to happen and, I believe, to admit the fullest and fairest consideration of all the issues involved, even in a proposal of this size and complexity. Under the existing procedure my right honourable friend will have to take account of all the material points which your Lordships have raised this evening; and we are grateful for them.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past ten o'clock.