Lords Sitting of 4 March 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 Ripon.

Housing Associations: Funding
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will double the annual output of new and rehabilitated houses by housing associations, given their view that local authorities should move away from direct provision of housing for rent (H.L. Debates 29th January 1986, col. 681).
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have no proposals to double the funds available to housing associations. In the present public expenditure climate, restraint is essential for our wider economic policy and there are other pressures on housing public expenditure.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his rather dead-bat reply. Do the Government want to see fewer families in bed and breakfast accommodation, fewer families in care, fewer single homeless people and more building workers employed? If so, the remedy is to their hand.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course we want to see fewer people in bed and breakfast accommodation and more people employed in the building industry, but, as I said in my original Answer, this must be set in the general context of public expenditure restraint. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that for next year, 1986–87, gross provision for capital expenditure on housing has been increased by £200 million. I readily accept that we have a little way to go, but it is at least a start in the right direction.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that housing associations are really the cure for the bulk of our problem on housing, especially housing needed for rented purposes? The reason housing associations are not doing better is that the Housing Corporation, which has control of the funds, just does not have enough money. Is the Minister further aware that there are literally dozens of sites in docklands upon which housing associations could start work tomorrow if only the Housing Corporation could and would find the money for them? I beg the noble Lord to look at this again. If he wants success in housing, give the right people the tools to do the job.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to take the advice of the noble Lord and to look at this again, but, as I said, we have made a small improvement in housing expenditure in our provision
80
for the next financial year. If the housing associations were the sole answer we could take money directly from the local authorities' HIPs, but it is quite obvious that this is not the sole answer.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, if my noble friend is unable to provide additional housing association property, is he aware that year by year the number of tenanted houses is falling and that it is absolutely essential in the public interest to restore them? If he will not take this course will he arrange for those who have money—that is, mutual associations—to build houses for rent without liability for rent control? They will not build houses unless there is freedom from rent control.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the House knows, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction has been looking in recent months at the future of the whole private rented sector. He has still to announce his decisions on that review. But I take my noble friend's point that this is certainly a way forward, and a realistic way forward.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his appeal for more funds for housing associations? But is it not a little dangerous to pin a Question about the future role of local authorities on one sentence extracted from a very informed and long debate on housing? Bearing in mind that local authorities still cater for more than 5 million families in tenanted accommodation, can the Minister give an undertaking that if any further funds are to be made available by the Government for the public housing sector, local authorities will receive their fair and adequate share?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I cannot go as far as that, and the noble Lord well knows why I cannot. With regard to his substantive point on the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton: yes, to a great extent I agree with the noble Lord, but he goes further than the debate. The report of the inquiry into British housing says at page 45 that the role of local authorities should be,
"increasingly as enablers and co-ordinators, as opposed to their role as providers".
So this has a follow-through from the report.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, on that point, the noble Lord knows as well as I do that that will not happen in the foreseeable future.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on the basis that that was a question, I would say that all policies of any government take a certain amount of time to come to fruition.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, arising out of my noble friend's last reply, will he not agree that housing associations are a much better bet than local authorities, especially where rented accommodation is concerned? This is a very serious matter and this view has wide support all over the country and, I think, in all parties.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I would agree with my noble friend as far as he goes, but the solution to the problem does not lie simply in building a lot of new homes. After all, that approach saddled us with the unwanted enormous council estates we have today.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the noble Lord tells us that the Government want us to be much more cost-effective and much more efficient but does he recognise that it is a complete waste of public money to pay out week after week for homeless people to live in appalling bed and breakfast accommodation when the Government could be spending that money on providing them with decent accommodation? I say that in the very kindest way. We are constantly told to be cost-effective, but the government practice is in completely the opposite direction.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that to put homeless families into bed and breakfast accommodation is a policy of absolute last resort. That is why ever since 1979—and I believe under the previous Government, too—local authorities have been encouraged not to use such accommodation unless all other avenues have been totally closed to them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all the evidence shows that the housing problem in this country is now approaching a critical situation? Is he further aware that this House will be pleased that his right honourable friend is conducting a review? Will the Minister tell the House what are the terms of reference of that review and when its findings are likely to be published?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition the answers to his questions. It is an internal review for my right honourable friend's own purposes; it is neither a statutory nor a public review. Nonetheless, when decisions upon it have been reached the House will most certainly know.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether, in view of the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Selkirk just now, it is reasonable to assume that the rent Acts are under consideration with a view to modification, amendment, or repeal?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if I answered my noble friend by saying exactly which aspects the review is examining I would be going further than I should properly go.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that in some parts of the country, such as Buckinghamshire, where I am the MSC area board chairman, there have for months been job vacancies that we are unable to fill because people coming from areas of high unemployment are unable to obtain housing? That matter must be a priority in any
82
housing review. I shall be grateful if the Secretary of State for Employment also will comment on that point.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am answering this Question at the moment. Nonetheless, I certainly take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It only goes to prove that in this, as in any other, area of government priorities must first be identified and then realised.
Noble Lords: Lord Stallard!
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, while I welcome the extra money that the Government are to give, will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what proportion of that money will go towards rented accommodation rather than new building?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend on that; I simply do not know.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lord Stallard!
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have been nine minutes on this Question already. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has been trying to speak for some time. The House may feel that if the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asks his question and my noble friend answers it, we should than push on to the next Question.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Does the Minister not accept that there is widespread acceptance of the proposition set out in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton? Many of us do not see it as an "either or" proposition. It is not a matter of either housing associations or local councils; it is both. Will the Minister, as a witness to some concern about the housing problem, reconsider the Government's decision not to release moneys that local authorities have accumulated from the sale of council houses, so that they may begin again to build houses for renting?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would do so if I could be assured that it would not lead to yet another increase in inflation, which I am assured by those economists who have advised me and my right honourable friend in the past that it most certainly would do.

Long-Term Unemployment
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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, in view of the recent monthly unemployment figures, they now have proposals to reduce long-term unemployment.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, we shall continue to encourage the creation of new job opportunities through our financial and enterprise policies and to direct practical help towards the long-term unemployed through the expanding community programme and our other initiatives.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the unanimous report of the all-party committee of another place that has proposed that £3.3 billion be spent on housing, the National Health Service, and on assistance to industry specifically to assist the long-term unemployed? Will the Minister pass his judgment on that report?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am fully aware of the report of the Select Committee of another place. We are considering that report and in due course we shall give our opinion on it. However, I suspect that in the fullness of time we shall find that there are other ways of helping the long-term unemployed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the sorry consequences of the efforts of previous governments to spend their way out of unemployment?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. Also your Lordships' House should be reminded that unemployment is not merely a domestic problem. Much as we regret unemployment in this country, and the fact that since 1981 it has increased by 30 per cent.—and no one regrets that more than I—unemployment has increased more in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Ireland, Spain, France and Germany. All those countries show greater increases in unemployment after 1981.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: What about Monte Carlo, my Lords?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if noble Lords say we should go back to 1979, I would tell them that the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany show greater increases. When one considers the sorry state of the economy that this Government inherited, ours is indeed a remarkable achievement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: What about Liechtenstein, my Lords?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are concerned about what happens in this country, particularly when one bears in mind that this country has the record high for unemployment within the industrial world? Has the noble Lord seen the TUC's document Budget for Jobs, which calls for higher research and development in industry; higher spending on the infrastructure, including schools, housing, and the health service; and also an increase in benefit? Does the Minister not recognise that that view is supported, in the main, by the CBI and by the Select Committee of another place? When there is such a confluence of opinion as that, does it not occur to the noble Lord that they are right and that he and the Government are wrong?
Lord Young of Grafffham: No, my Lords, not in the slightest. Indeed, I remember full well, as many of your Lordships may remember, when the counsels of the TUC weighed loud and long in Government—and look at the sorry state that brought us to! No, my Lords; in this country we elect a Government to govern, and that Government will govern.
I wish to correct one other statement. We do not—I repeat, not—have the highest level of unemployment among the industrialised nations. Certainly Spain has a higher rate than do we, and certainly Ireland has. The important thing is to look at the rate of increase and not at the absolute level.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Lord that when the TUC was taken into consultation there were—
Noble Lords: Order! Question!
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will put his remarks in the form of a question and not in the form of a statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's remarks, does the noble Lord accept that when the TUC was taken fully into the counsels of the nation unemployment stood at 1.2 million instead of 3.2 million, as it is today?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, I recall that when the TUC started unemployment stood at about 600,000 and that it went up in the same proportion as unemployment has gone up in the last few years, but that was in vastly different economic conditions. We should do well to remember that in 1979 there was a change and the western world as a whole went into economic reverse. We are weathering that storm and coming up better than ever before.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords—
Lord Kaldor: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord not concede that in the times when Government and trade unions were busy over-stuffing the economy with unnecessary workers it would have been a miracle indeed if unemployment had gone up? The great miracle today, when the Government are busy making industry leaner and more efficient, is that unemployment has not gone up much more than it has. That is the real miracle we are now looking at.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, this is a misleading way of putting a Question. I am amazed that the noble Lord's Civil Service advisers allowed him to pass it. If he says—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, the question is this. Is the increase in unemployment a proper test of the size of the problem? On that method of reckoning, is it not true that a country which had 0·1 per cent. unemployment for the base period and which ended up with 0·2 per cent. unemployment is in the worst category and not in the best category?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hate to correct the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, but the Question is that of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and I am merely answering it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in his first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, the noble Lord referred to the Government's policies for creating jobs through enterprise. Will the Government provide for the training of long-term unemployed, particularly those aged under 25, under the expanded enterprise allowance scheme?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. At the present time we are conducting nine pilot schemes in nine separate areas of the country, where we are having talks with all the long-term unemployed and offering them a variety of different ways to get back into employment. All I can say is that so far these pilots are proceeding very satisfactorily. We are learning the whole time to deal with problems which are now common to large parts of the industrialised world—how to get back into gainful employment those who have been out of work for some time.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Lord the Minister agree that this question of unemployment is now attacking the moral fibre of millions of families in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that there are youngsters in our great cities who are turning to crime; that there are men trying to eke out a living to feed their families, and who cannot entertain any idea of paying the rent in any way whatever? For example, in the London borough of Ealing there are 200 families who are unemployed and who are living in the backs of motorcars.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: I know that is a joke for people who have very large houses. Will the Minister please understand that this is a grave and serious issue which is afflicting our nation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess to a slight sense of déjà vu. It seems only yesterday that I was answering a similar question put in similar terms by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Indeed, I suggest that what we should actually do is have a hard analytical look at the problem to find ways of curing it, and not, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, raise such emotive issues as 200 people living in cars in the borough of Ealing.
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we are looking at all long-term unemployed in the borough of Ealing, with interesting results. There are 5,000 people in the
86
borough of Ealing who have been out of work for more than a year. We are looking at ways in which we can help them back into work. It is not always as it appears to be, and that we shall have to find out in due course.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the Secretary of State's constant advocacy of Government policy, can he tell the House when Government policy will result in a substantial reduction in unemployment? Will it be in 12 months, three years or five years? It is time the Government predicted when unemployment is to come down.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observation but, as I have continually endeavoured to point out to your Lordships, unemployment is a European problem. In Europe there are many different political systems. We even have (heaven help us!) a socialist government. In France there is a socialist government which tried to conduct the policies advocated by the Labour Party but which failed dismally, and today France has rising unemployment on a shrinking workforce. I would point out that last year the workforce in this country increased by 510,000, and despite that unemployment went up by about 150,000. We shall have to see what the future brings. What I do know is that if we do not follow the policies advocated by this Government the position will be far worse.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the House last week, when he was not here, I made a suggestion whereby the Government could prevent an increase of some hundreds in unemployment in the North-East, where we have up to 40 per cent. unemployment at this very moment? There, the Bates pit in Blyth—the last remaining pit—is being closed with £27 million-worth of mineable coal. It is a profitable pit. It is being closed against the advice of the special review body which was set up deliberately to keep NACODS out of the recent strike. The Coal Board rejected that advice and is closing that pit. It started this week to demolish it. The Government have the power to stop that.
Lord Denham: Question!
Lord Glenamara: It is a question if the Chief Whip will only allow me to ask it.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will sit down.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I am asking a question about unemployment in the North-East of England.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will support me in this.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I am asking a question.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Glenamara: I should be allowed to put my question, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, a great deal of time would have been saved had my noble friend been allowed to pursue his question. I think we are acting contrary to the interests of the House by intervening too much. I am sure that if my noble friend would conclude his question, that will settle the matter.
Lord Denham: My Lords, what I was hoping to say to the House, and to the noble Lord in particular, is that the custom in this House is to ask a question and not to make a statement; and also the Procedure Committee in this House has suggested that every noble Lord should ask a simple question and wait for an answer. We have been 24 minutes on two Questions, and we are not finished yet. The suggestion of the Procedure Committee is that four Questions should last 20 minutes only.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, having been 35 years in one House or the other, I do not need the Chief Whip to tell me about the rules of procedure.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Glenamara: My question to the Secretary of State for Employment is: will the Government now use their powers under the coal mines legislation to prevent the closure of this pit and so save some hundreds of jobs?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I slightly resent the implication that I am not here to answer questions the whole time, as the noble Lord said. If your Lordships look at the record you will find that I am quite assiduous in my attendance in your Lordships' House. In another place attendance for Questions by a Minister is once every three weeks. If your Lordships look at my record I think you will find that I am here more than often enough. I also have responsibilities outside your Lordships' Chamber, and I take both responsibilities seriously. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that. Secondly, although I am not in charge of the Coal Board, my reading of the situation is that, despite the report, there was no way in which that mine could ever be held to be profitable and the review body thought that it should continue in certain circumstances for other reasons. It is not my responsibility, but if the noble Lord wishes to have a Question put down he will find it answered in another place. The question has little to do with unemployment; it has a great deal to do—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Young of Graffham: Oh yes, my Lords, it has a great deal to do with employment elsewhere in the industry. Without an efficient and productive coal industry and efficient energy prices we shall not retain our place in the world.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Secretary of State has called for careful analysis of the problem of the long-term unemployed. Did not the all-party committee, supported by members of all parties in
88
another place, undertake such an analysis over a number of months and reach certain conclusions which are consonant with those reached by the CBI, the TUC and the British Labour Party? Is the noble Lord saying that he knows better than all those bodies and will reject the advice that has come out of careful analysis such as that which he is proposing?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, I am quite capable of speaking for myself. What I am saying is that I shall show respect to a Select Commitee in another place by answering it directly and not in the form of a reply to a question in your Lordships' House.

US Navy Mediterranean Exercises
3.3 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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 the activities of the United States Navy in the Sirte area off the Libyan coast are being undertaken on behalf of NATO; and if not, as SACEUR is also commander-in-chief of United States Forces in the European theatre, how the governments of North Africa and the Middle East can be expected to know this.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the forces involved in the exercises referred to in the noble Lord's Question were under United States national command. We have no reason to believe that the governments in the region thought otherwise.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall watch my grammar. While it was clearly the case 10 or 20 years ago that the political and strategic perceptions and policies of NATO member countries were roughly unanimous, yet now that that is not the case should not NATO as a whole and its member governments pay more attention to distinguishing in the eyes of the world between military activities undertaken by one member government for its own purposes and military activities undertaken by the whole Alliance for its agreed purposes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot see how any misunderstanding could have arisen on this occasion. This was clearly a national exercise, and there was no reason to doubt that.

Terrorism
3.4 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their understanding of international terrorism.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. The definition which is adopted within the United Kingdom is in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, which defines terrorism as:
"the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear".
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord says is correct, but does he agree that that definition probably existed when the Luftwaffe was dropping bombs on London and that those sort of words are not much use? Is there not some justification that animates these loathsome terrorists who slay innocent people on aircraft or at airports; primarily, the occupation of their homeland, whether by the Russians in Afghanistan, others in the Middle East or CIA agents in South America? Is that not the root cause? Great Britain has never indulged in that venal activity, unlike the United States. Does he accept that, even though people who behave in that appalling manner have to punished, at the same time we should try to stop such invasions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a number of questions. If I may just take his last example, he will understand that it is not for me in this House to answer for the alleged activities of any other country. The important point is that we all deplore terrorism wherever it occurs. There are a considerable number of international fora to exchange information and to try to prevent terrorism, and they deserve the full support of all of us.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we know all too little about the fundamental causes of international terrorism and we need to study them in depth, bearing in mind the full range of historical, religious and psychological factors involved?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that every aspect of international terrorism needs studying, but the important thing is to prevent it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do the Government recognise Unita in Angola as a terrorist organisation? It is an organisation which just this week has yet again kidnapped a number of British subjects and other foreigners and which is now openly supported by money from the United States Government.
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords. With respect to the noble Lord, I think that that question is considerably wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is necessary to combat terrorism wherever it exists and even more necessary to try to prevent it, and that it is sometimes born out of frustration at the occupation of the terrorist's homeland?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the best service that the noble Lord could perform for all those who do their best to combat terrorism is to give their efforts his unflinching support.
Lord Taylor: My Lords, in his definition of terrorism did the noble Lord say that it applied only to political violence and not to violence motivated by religious or other factors?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in my original Answer I said that there was no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. What I gave is the definition that is adopted in this country. If the noble Lord reads what I said in the Official Report, I think he will see that that largely meets the point that he makes.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lyell will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the events in Northern Ireland on 3rd March 1986.

Gull Island Protection Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 13,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 14 to 45,

Schedules 3 to 5,

Clause 46.—(Viscount Davidson.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The scourge of drugs misuse, inflicting, as it does, incalculable misery and a tragic waste of young lives, is one of the most serious problems facing our society. That it is a matter of deep concern to all Members of your Lordships' House has been amply demonstrated may times. It is not however a problem which lends itself to quick and simple solutions. If a real impact is to be

91
made, it demands sustained action on many fronts. The Government have developed a coherent and comprehensive strategy for the fight against drugs, at home and abroad. We are actively promoting international efforts to combat production and supply; we have tightened controls on drugs manufactured or prescribed in this country. We have greatly strengthened the capacity of the police and Customs drugs squads with encouraging results. Recent figures show that last year Customs alone made 1,500 arrests and smashed more than 70 drugs rings, and the police, too, are enjoying increasing success. On the demand side, we have launched a major education campaign aimed at young people and their parents—early research indicates that the campaign has hit home very effectively—and provided substantial new funding to improve and expand treatment and rehabilitation centres for drug misusers.
It is against that background of wide-ranging action that the Bill before us must be viewed. It does not pretend to provide the complete answer to the problem; rather, it is another weapon in our armoury, and a particularly vital one. People are drawn into the drugs trade by the prospect of huge profits. By allowing the courts to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking, to ensure that traffickers come out of prison with no part of their ill-gotten gains left to compensate them for their years inside, the Bill will give the traffickers real cause for thought and hit them where it hurts. They will have to reassess the risks, and ask themselves whether the game is any longer worth the candle. And just as important, the confiscated money—money which might otherwise have been used to finance other, bigger deals by the trafficker or his associates—will be taken right away from the drugs trade. By making the drugs trade much less financially attractive, and breaking the cycle whereby the proceeds of one offence can be used to finance others, the Bill will, we hope, have a double impact on the problem of drug misuse.
The Bill was warmly endorsed by all shades of opinion in another place, not uncritically however. Indeed, a number of strengthening improvements were made to the Bill during its passage. Your Lordships will, I know, want to give the detailed provisions equally careful consideration. For their part, the Government will be willing to look at any refinements that your Lordships might wish to suggest. What is important is that we should have a just but effective way of attacking the profits made from increasingly sophisticated and well organised trafficking operations.
To set out the background for today's debate, I should like to show how some of the novel elements in the Bill will contribute to our aim. I want to mention also the careful system of safeguards which has been devised to ensure that, although the provisions must hit the traffickers hard, they will not threaten the rights or welfare of innocent people—indeed, quite the reverse.
The central feature is the new concept of a confiscation order, which is set out in Clauses 1 to 6. Unlike powers of forfeiture, which operate only to deprive the offender of specific property which can be directly linked in some way to his offence, a
92
confiscation order will make the whole of the offender's property liable to confiscation, up to the full value of the proceeds from his illegal activities. The Crown Court will be required by Clause 1 to impose on anyone convicted of a drug trafficking offence a confiscation order to deprive him not simply of his proceeds from that offence, but from his entire trafficking career, in so far as the court is able to determine them in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. This will be in addition to whatever sentence is considered appropriate for the offence. To help the court assess the proceeds of drug trafficking—which will obviously be a far from simple matter in some cases—Clause 2 allows certain assumptions to be made. These are that, except to the extent that the offender can show otherwise, all his property and everything that has passed through his hands in the previous six years represents the proceeds of drug trafficking.
These provisions contain a number of novel features, and perhaps I can deal with some important points in a little more detail. First, I should emphasise that there is no question of reversing the burden of proof as regards conviction. The burden will remain on the prosecution, in the usual way, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offence of which he is charged. Once a person has been convicted of a drug trafficking offence, however, the onus may be placed on him to show which, if any, of his assets were legitimately acquired. If we are really serious about recovering the proceeds of drug trafficking such a provision is essential. It may never be possible for the prosecution to establish with certainty how much of a wealthy trafficker's lifestyle was financed by his criminal activities. To insist on it doing so would inevitably mean that many convicted traffickers would be able to retain most of their illegal gains. Such information is, however, very clearly within the knowledge of the offender, and where he has had some legitimate income it ought not to be too difficult for him to estalish that to the satisfaction of the court.
Second, it would be an obvious loophole if a trafficker were able to avoid the full effects of confiscation himself by putting his assets in the names of his family or friends. We are therefore providing that any property which has been transferred by the offender to a third party for significantly less than full value should also be liable to confiscation, provided that the transfer took place within the previous six years, or the property concerned can be shown to represent the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Concern has been expressed in some quarters that these provisions could have the effect of penalising innocent third parties who acquire property in good faith from a person whom they did not know to be a drug trafficker. The Government are anxious to protect the legitimate interests of such people, and perhaps this is the moment for me to pick out various provisions which have been included in the Bill specifically to that end. First, any payment made for the property will have to be significantly below its true value for these third party provisions to bite; there is no question of confiscating property where the difference in value is slight. Secondly, Clause 13 provides that the High Court must seek to ensure that

93
any third party who has given some consideration for property which subsequently has to be confiscated is able to retain or recover that consideration.
A further safeguard, contained in Clause 11, is that persons holding any interest in property which is liable to confiscation must be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the court before that property can be realised. And, finally, I should point out that the Bill gives the High Court considerable flexibility in exercising its powers to enforce a confiscation order. The court could therefore, if it felt it appropriate, direct that all of the offender's assets, including legitimate ones, should be realised before any action was taken against property in the hands of third parties.
The enforcement provisions of the Bill are set out in Clauses 11 to 13. Enforcement is entrusted to the High Court to make use of its considerable experience in dealing with questions of property. If necessary, a receiver can be appointed to realise any of the offender's assets to satisfy the confiscation order in full. This means that if an offender has spent the proceeds of his trafficking, or salted them away outside the jurisdiction, legitimately acquired assets may be seized instead. If he has placed assets beyond the reach of the courts, and refuses to make them available, then there will be substantially increased periods of imprisonment to be served in default, up to a maximum of 10 years where very large sums are involved. But if, by any chance, the offender should be unable to satisfy the confiscation order through no fault of his own—perhaps because his property failed to realise the amount expected—it would clearly be wrong that he should have to serve a substantial default term regardless. In Clause 14 therefore there is a procedure for him to seek a variation in the amount to be paid under the order in such circumstances.
The new confiscation powers are at the very heart of the Bill. But, by themselves, they will not be enough. They will serve little purpose if nobody knows where the proceeds obtained from drug trafficking are. Accordingly, the Bill provides important powers to assist the police and Customs in tracing those proceeds, and for the courts to freeze them until the defendant has been tried. Although the tracing powers are set out towards the end of the Bill, it may be convenient for your Lordships if I deal with them before the question of restraint, as, in practice, investigation will precede restraint in individual cases.
If we are to crack these complex trafficking operations, and trace the proceeds, it is essential to obtain access at an early stage to information held by banks and other institutions about a suspect's financial affairs. Clauses 20 to 22 of the Bill provide powers for the police or Customs to obtain an order or warrant requiring the disclosure of such information. But this new power, too, is balanced by careful safeguards. An order or warrant can only be granted by a circuit judge, who will have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person under investigation has engaged in or benefited from drug trafficking; that the information sought is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation; and that it is in the public interest that the information should be disclosed.
94
Having traced the assets which are believed to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, it is equally important to ensure that these proceeds are not disposed of before the end of the trial. Here again, we propose to make use of existing expertise in the High Court by developing procedures already well established in civil law.
Clause 8 of the Bill enables the High Court to make a restraint order—similar to a civil Mareva injunction—preventing the transfer or disposal of assets which may be required to satisfy a confiscation order. Once again, the exercise of the power is subject to stringent conditions which are outlined in Clause 7. The purposes of Clauses 9 and 10, as with restraint orders, is to ensure that money is available at the end of the trial to satisfy any confiscation order imposed.
Before I leave the framework of restraint and confiscation orders, I should perhaps draw attention to Clause 15, which provides for the payment of compensation in certain circumstances if substantial losses have been suffered as a result of a restraint order or charging order, or the realisation of property.
The Bill contains two important new offences. The new offence set out in Clause 17, and termed "assisting a trafficker to retain the benefit of drug trafficking", is designed to catch those who help the trafficker and benefit from his crimes by "laundering" the proceeds. We regard this as a very serious offence and are therefore providing that on conviction on indictment an offender should be liable to up to 14 years' imprisonment. And since the offence comes within the Bill's definition of drug trafficking those convicted will be subject to its confiscation procedures.
Clause 24 makes it an offence to rejudice a drug trafficking investigation by "tipping off- the suspect after an order or warrant requiring the disclosure of information has been made or applied for.
The Drug Trafficking Offences Bill applies only to England and Wales in general but I should perhaps say something about enforcement elsewhere in the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced that he intends to introduce equivalent legislation in Scotland at the earliest opportunity. Until then provision has to be made in the present Bill, in Clause 16, to ensure that confiscation orders imposed by courts in England and Wales can be enforced against assets held in Scotland. New clauses are being prepared specifying in some detail the procedures by which the Bill will be enforced in Scotland. I hope we shall be in a position to put these amendments before your Lordships at Committee.
It is aimed to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland by Order-in-Council with appropriate modifications.
Finally, to complete the domestic picture, we are advised by the lieutenant-governors of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man that those islands too are proposing to introduce legislation to provide for confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking, and of course we shall be seeking suitable arrangements for mutual enforcement.
As we discussed last Wednesday, drug trafficking is an international menace and international cooperation is vital to ensure that there can be no safe havens for the trafficker or his assets. I indicated then

95
that the Government have given strong support to proposals for a new United Nations Convention covering all aspects of international drug trafficking, and we have provided a framework in the present Bill in Clause 19 for giving effect to mutual enforcement agreements with other countries. We shall be seeking such arrangements with as many other countries as possible, either in the form of bilateral agreements or by acceding to multilateral conventions.
Before I sit down I should perhaps touch briefly on one other matter which the Bill does not at present address. Reports have come to light within the last few weeks about the sale of cocaine sniffing kits in London and elsewhere. We have been looking urgently at the adequacy of existing law in this area, and it appears that at present there is no means of preventing the sale of such kits. We are therefore proposing, if it is acceptable to your Lordships, to bring forward at Committee provisions creating a new specific offence of supplying or offering to supply a combination of articles which, taken together, the seller knows or believes are likely to be used for the administration of a controlled drug, other than for bona fide medical purposes. I believe your Lordships will agree with me that the open sale of kits which are designed to facilitate illicit drug taking is an intolerable affront to which we must respond immediately and decisively.
The unusual degree of both novelty and complexity which is to be found in our proposals has needed considerable explanation. The Bill has nevertheless commanded almost universal support. Truly effective action is essential if we are to cope with the terrible menace of drugs. This Bill is an essential part of our overall strategy on drugs. If we can get at the enormous profits made by drug traffickers we shall remove the major incentive which draws people into this evil trade. The proposals in the Bill are designed to address every stage in the investigation and prosecution of an alleged trafficker, from the examination of the suspect's financial affairs at the outset of the investigation to the realisation of the convicted offender's assets by the High Court. At every stage not only have we provided powers which are strong enough to bite really hard, but we have also introduced careful safeguards to prevent their abuse and to protect the rights of suspects and third parties alike.
This Bill will provide a major advance in the powers of the police, the Customs and the courts to deal effectively with trafficking and the trafficker. We can leave no stone unturned in our efforts to bring to an end the tragedy and the misery which the brokers of this vile trade encourage. They deserve the full rigour of modern effective legislation. They must be harried, brought to book, and sternly punished and not see a penny of their wretched gains. This Bill can only help. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this House is dealing, not for the first time, with one of the greatest curses of our generation. I could not have put in better words a description of what we are dealing with than did the noble Lord the Minister in his peroration just now. It
96
was in this very House that some time ago we heard the Lord Chief Justice, in a speech in which he spoke of what was being done to our young people, say how many of the accused appearing in our criminal courts had the origins of their downfall in the taking of drugs and how, if Parliament was to do its duty, legislation ought to be passed with regard to these ill-gotten gains which some of the most cowardly and wretched criminals in the world have gotten unto themselves by virtue of this diabolical trade.
We have done various things in Parliament. We have increased the term of imprisonment to one of life for the big dealers—the ones at whom we are trying to get. We have done what we could from these Benches. May I assure the noble Lord the Minister that he has every conceivable support from the official Opposition for all the work that is being done by his very much esteemed colleague, Mr. David Mellor, in this connection. There is no lack of support as I have said.
We have tried to increase it by pressures from various parts of the House. It has not been difficult to administer the pressure and it has been difficult to withstand the pressure, because the Government have in fact increased the number of Customs officers and the number of police officers—whether that is sufficient or not is a matter for debate but steps have been taken in the right direction. Moreover, it is quite obvious that before we ever reach this stage of the legislation we shall of course have to have sufficient knowledgeable and specialised people who can catch the criminals before any of the provisions of this Act take effect. We have done that, and in this Bill we are now endeavouring to see that such ill-gotten gains are confiscated.
Having expressed that complete support, may I from these benches—but I believe it is echoed from every corner of your Lordships' House—pay a tribute to a lady who has featured in today's press. I refer to the Princess of Wales. I read in this morning's Daily Express:
"Diana delights drug addicts—When Princess Diana met Debbie … yesterday"—
I am not going to use the surname even though the paper does—
"the young mothers who crowded round were not talking about their children—but killer drug addiction. And 24-year-old Debbie, who was spending £160 a day on heroin before being admitted to hospital said: 'I think she is doing a marvellous job getting involved with the drugs problem'."
It has been said often in this House and elsewhere how fortunate we are in the members of our Royal Family, and this young princess who is interesting herself in this problem and so actively endeavouring to help deserves our thanks and congratulations.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I move on to the actual provisions of the Bill, with the general principles of which I believe there is unanimity in this House. If I may, and I do it quite humbly, I shall merely sound a word of warning—not in regard to the very special powers taken in this Bill, but against them being carelessly used as a precedent. I say that for good reason. In my judgment this Bill properly does not shift the burden of proof in regard to guilt or innocence, but once guilt is proved it shifts the onus to

97
the person who has been convicted of the offence. The burden shifts to him to prove that his assets do not derive from drug trafficking.
I say that it is a right shift of onus in this particular case. However, it must not be used as a precedent without the greatest care. I observed that at Second Reading in another place there were some alarm bells being sounded, but I must confess that I did not like some of the sounds of the bells that were ringing. When the Secretary of State was introducing this measure in another place, he said:
"The 1984 report of the Howard League committee, chaired by Mr. Justice Hodgson, to which we are indebted for many of the ideas in the Bill, made recommendations—most of which it believed should be generally applied. As a Government, we are committed to the idea of attacking the profits of crime in a way that goes beyond drugs offences, and we shall have to return to the subject. We have, however, judged it best to deal with drugs offences and other offences separately. Perhaps they should also be dealt with differently, but that is a matter for another day. In any case, the Bill has been prepared solely as a basis for dealing with drug traffickers and it should be judged in that light. The Government will want to pause and reconsider before seeking to extend any of the Bill's provisions to other offences".—[Official Report, Commons: 21/1/86; col. 242.]
That statement rang a bell in my mind and, as I said, I was not quite sure of the tune that it was sounding. All I want to do, if I may, and then I shall pass on, is to say that this is a bell to which your Lordships should listen very carefully if it seems to provide a precedent for any other Bill dealing with criminal law which comes before your Lordships.
I say that because it is extremely easy to misunderstand the recommendation of the Hodgson Committee which was in fact set up at the instance of the Howard League for Penal Reform, which is not an organisation known for being harsh toward criminals but one which endeavours to see to it that justice is performed in the treatment of criminals. As I understood it, what Mr. Justice Hodgson was saying was that because of the fact that our prisons are so full and because of the need to offer alternative penalties other than incarceration, if that is possible, many occasions may arise in the courts when confiscation or making monetary amends for what has been done should in fact be available to the courts, and this should be the kind of penalty that in some cases should be exacted.
This Bill was not meant to open a door to the confiscation of property, where onus would be thrown upon a defendant to show that his assets did not in fact originate in crimes which he had committed either then or, if I may say so, within the previous six years.
I should like now to pass rapidly to the other provisions of the Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but it is very important. I do so agree with the noble Lord, but I was not quite sure of the message that he was implying came from this bell that alerted him. In quoting the Minister's speech in another place, did he think that there was a risk that he might retreat from it or was he not going far enough? I did not quite understand the indication that the noble Lord was giving to your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for pointing out to me that I may not have been entirely clear in the message that I was trying to give to the House. This message was that the Secretary of State, in presenting this Bill in another place talked in terms of the possible generalising in our criminal law of the particular penalty and shift of onus which are incorporated in this Bill. I was saying that I give it the fullest support in this Bill for drugs traffickers but I am wary about copying that precedent in other criminal cases.
There is another provision in this Bill to which the noble Lord, the Minister, referred—and here I am not trying to protect any drug traffickers; I am thinking of innocent third parties. The Minister said that where a convicted drug trafficker had parted with his property at less than the proper market price, there was a provision in the Bill which enabled that property still to be confiscated. Unfortunately, he did not quote the provision in the Bill—I believe it is Clause 5—and he used the words "substantially less'. The Bill does not use the words "substantially less". I turn rapidly to Clause 5 of the Bill where, at the top of page 6, it says—and this gives the power to confiscate:
"(b) the property has been held by him at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him and has been transferred by him for less than full value".
The noble Lord the Minister may have used an equivalent word to the word "substantially".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I used the words "significantly below its true value".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful. It just shows what my scribble is like; I read "substantially", having scribbled down "significantly". The word "significantly" does not occur in the Bill. I mention this because again it was a point mentioned in the other place by, I believe, someone on the Government Benches, who said how dreadful it would be if a drug trafficker, thinking that he was likely to be caught or wanting to get out of the kingdom as fast as he could, told an estate agent to sell his house as quickly as possible for whatever price even if it were below the market value, and someone in good faith immediately purchased the house for that figure. It appears that in those circumstances confiscation should take place without there being any provision at all for compensation for the innocent third party.
I know what the Bill means, but at the moment it does not say it and the word "significantly" does not occur. However, perhaps that is a point for the Committee stage. Sometimes at Second Reading it is fair to give the Government notice of some of the points one intends to raise, and with his customary generosity the Minister might come forward with an amendment of his own and save everyone a great deal of time.
When one supports a Bill I do not think it is appropriate to deliver long speeches. The only time one should do that is when one opposes a Bill. As I want so earnestly to support this Bill, I propose to close my remarks and congratulate the Government on following the lead of the Lord Chief Justice and many others and introducing this measure, which I think is very appropriate.

Northern Ireland: Events of 3rd March 1986
3.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the events in Northern Ireland yesterday.
"As the house will be aware, the leaders of the two main Unionist parties had called for a day of action and protest. They invited everybody to stay away from work and stated that it was to be a passive and voluntary demonstration and that there should be no roadblocks or intimidation of those going to work.
"In the event, there was widespread obstruction, intimidation and some violence during the day, culminating in serious disorder in East and North Belfast last night. The first incidents occurred before midnight on Sunday and disturbances continued until the early hours of this morning.
"In spite of these difficulties a very considerable number of people succeeded in getting to work, particularly in the commercial offices and public services, but many factories were seriously affected.
"I pay tribute to the determination of all those who refused to be intimidated and exercised their right to go to work. I also pay tribute to the men of the security forces and particularly the RUC for all the work that they did to seek to keep roads open for people to be able to get to work. However, there have also been a number of complaints when it is alleged that the police did not take action when it was required. The Chief Constable is preparing a full report on all the policing aspects of the past 24 hours. To give the House some indication of the scale of the workload that the RUC faced, on the latest information available there were some 655 roadblocks in the Province over the period, of which 441 were cleared. There were in addition some 80 cavalcades and demonstrations, which caused considerable disruption in a number of towns mainly around midday. There were 57 arrests and the names of 184 people noted to proceed by way of summons. Sixty-five plastic baton rounds were fired, and 47 policemen were injured. Last night there were a number of petrol bombs thrown, and there were over 20 shots fired in three firearm attacks on the police during the disturbances in the loyalist areas.
"The figures listed above give the details of a tragic day for Northern Ireland. Many Members will have seen some of the disgraceful incidents on television last night. These pictures have been shown all over the world and will do great damage to the reputation of the Province. The House will also have seen elected Members of this House making common cause with people in paramilitary dress.
100
"The Government are well aware of the strength of feeling among many Unionists about aspects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The House will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I met the right honourable Member for Lagan Valley and the member for North Antrim last Tuesday. During a long meeting my right honourable friend put forward a number of proposals to help meet their main concerns and agreed to consider positively their suggestions that the Government should call a round table conference to discuss devolution in Northern Ireland. It was agreed that we would all reflect on the various suggestions that had been made and would meet again shortly. The prospects of constructive discussions instead of confrontation were greeted with widespread relief in the Province, only for that to be destroyed by their abrupt repudiation of this course following a meeting in Belfast late that night. They then decided to proceed with the day of protest.
"The whole country can now see how tragic and totally counter-productive yesterday's action has been. It is now urgent that the Unionists' leaders recognise again that the only way in which the concerns of those they seek to represent can be addressed is by constructive discussion and not by threats and violence. The degree of intimidation evident yesterday showed how little confidence many of the organisers had in being able peacefully to persuade their fellow citizens to join their day of protest. I make it quite clear that this Government, this Parliament, will not be intimidated either by the sort of violent actions that took place yesterday. I believe that an increasing number of Unionists, while disliking many aspects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, wish to look for a constructive way forward. The Government have made quite clear our willingness to sit down and discuss seriously the Unionists' concerns. In our parliamentary democracy, in this United Kindom, that can be the only way".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for the content of the Statement and to express our steadfast support for the Statement, amounting as it does to a condemnation of the events of yesterday and also amounting to a clear reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to the implementation of the Anglo-Irish treaty.
We deplore the violence, the injury to life, the damage to property and the intimidation and fear. Indeed, intimidation and fear can possibly be the worst form of violence. We agree with the Statement that yesterday's events will be shown to be counterproductive. However, on the other hand, we would not underestimate the significance of the one-day protest, although we do not know—indeed, there is no means of knowing—how voluntary was yesterday's protest. Nevertheless, it has cast a dark shadow across the Province and we agree with the Government's judgment that it was a tragic day for the Province.

101
One's hope must be that yesterday's protest does not indicate the end of one phase, which has failed, and the beginning of a more sinister phase in the negative campaign to bring down the treaty. Time alone will reveal its true significance.
Arising out of the Statement, there is only one question which I should like to ask the Minister, and it is this: is there any firm evidence implicating named individuals that yesterday's violence and intimidation were planned in advance? If there is such evidence, do the Government propose to institute criminal proceedings against the planners?
We are pleased that the chief constable proposes to hold an inquiry into all aspects of policing during the last 24 hours. It was a difficult exercise, but we are glad that he is holding an inquiry into any complaints that may be made. We are also glad that the Government have again offered to have talks with the leaders of the Unionist parties with a view to agreeing arrangements that would enable them to make their views known to the Government, and to consider how the Province can move towards a devolved government which would be received by the community of Northern Ireland.
Finally, in paying tribute to the bravery of the 34 police officers who were injured yesterday in the course of their duty may I also pay tribute to the bravery of all their colleagues in the RUC and to the members of the public who are exposed to growing intimidation and pressures but who nevertheless have shown their determination to go about their work and their lawful business.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating this Statement about the events which took place in Northern Ireland yesterday. It was a dark day for the Province, and may well be held to pressage tragedy. I am tired of reading in the press references to ugly activities by so-called loyalists. I was glad that at least The Times put the term in inverted commas, for although they may deceive themselves these thugs and hoodlums are loyal to no one.
We on these Benches wholeheartedly supported the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, as of course did the Parliament at Westminster as a whole. It is tragic indeed that the very idea of reconciliation, of attempting to get on better terms with the minority in Ulster and the people of the Republic, seems only to arouse hatred and fear in the minds of some Unionists. The advantages which could accrue are ignored. We support the Government in their determination to stand firm.
There are just two questions I should like to ask the Minister. First, is he in a position to remind the House of what it has cost the taxpayer in Great Britain to support the people of Ulster over, say, the last five years, or whatever figures he has? While I think that there has been general acceptance that the people of the Province have been in exceptional need—and support also from the EEC confirms this—I suspect that the people on this side of the water will be rather less keen to support a people who deliberately make difficulties for themselves. Burning down factories is the work of an irresponsible minority, and is hardly
102
the way to ease the already grave unemployment situation; and much more disruption of everyday business is forecast.
My second question follows the comments of the Statement. I believe that in many situations the RUC behaved with great courage. Who, they may well ask, are our friends? Our sincere thanks and admiration should go out to them. But there have indeed been reports that in some cases they stood passively by while bullying, blockade and general intimidation where fiercely carried out. Discretion may sometimes be the better part of valour, but to remain on the scene even though powerless may appear to give a sign of acceptance of evil deeds. We shall look forward to the results of the inquiry, but can the Minister comment further at present?
As I said earlier, we support the Government in their determination to stand firm. While the outlook is bleak we must support the many good and enlightened Ulstermen behind the scenes. We must make plain to the extremists our contempt and condemnation of their acts. Yesterday was, I believe, a sad and shameful day in the history of the Province. We must not allow its promoters to succeed in a way which can only lead Ulster into a desperate and even more depressed situation. It is vital that the Unionist leaders should in fact return to the conference table.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should first like to thank both noble Lords who have spoken so far for their forthright support for the Government and, indeed, for the Anglo-Irish agreement. If I may try to cover the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, first, we are of course grateful for his reassertion that there can never be any excuse for violence. Secondly, of course he is absolutely right: yesterday was a tragedy for the Province. I pointed out in the Statement made by my right honourable friend that pictures in the media and in the printed form have gone all round the world showing what all of us know to be the unacceptable face of Ulster. However, those of your Lordships who have had the privilege—and have it still—of serving in Ulster know that hopefully that is a false picture. But, of course, there are no winners of any strike or of any events like those of yesterday. The only beneficiaries of yesterday's events were terrorists and the enemies of democracy and, I believe, one more important group—the competitors of Ulster in the commercial and trade world.
The noble Lord asked whether there was any firm evidence about planners of yesterday's events. I understand that a substantial number of people have already been arrested. As I stressed in the Statement, I understand that more have been given notice of summons. Of course, the noble Lord and your Lordships will be aware that decisions to prosecute are a matter, first of all, for the police and ultimately for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is of course independent in the exercise of his reponsibilities. I am sure that all of them, the police and, indeed, the Director of Public Prosecutions, can be relied upon to do their duty, and especially in this aspect. I would wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I think he had a figure of an earlier count of 34 policemen. I am sure he would appreciate that it is 47 policemen who have been treated for injuries.

103
We would also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and his party and supporters for their support for the Anglo-Irish agreement. I understand that the subsidy, or net payment, to Ulster this year—the figure I think he is looking for—is in the region of £1.5 billion. If I may, I shall take note of his question and obtain details and write to him. Once again, I reiterate to the noble Lord that there are no winners in yesterday's events.
The noble Lord had one query about the activities of the RUC yesterday. The scale of the problem which faced the police forces and, indeed, the security forces in Northern Ireland was evident from the figures I gave at the start of the Statement: 655 road blocks, of which 441 were cleared, throughout the Province. The chief constable has made it clear that any incidents of indifferent policing will be thoroughly investigated, and that is in addition to the report that he will be issuing in due course.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, may I first of all, without any reservation, condemn the action of yesterday, which was a disaster for Northern Ireland. I should be pleased if your Lordships would allow me to associate myself in the tribute to the RUC and the army. Their task has been immeasurably difficult. When their conduct is reported on, it will be shown that of the number of incidents that they handled there were very few at which anybody could point a finger.
Will my noble friend agree that yesterday's actions were totally predictable after the folly of the Government having the Anglo-Irish accord? Is my noble friend aware that a month before the signing of that agreement I spoke to my noble friend the Leader of the House and warned him and predicted exactly what would happen? Does he also agree that the accord is the direct result of 14 years of IRA violence and SDLP abstention? Can he understand that this surrender to violence has led to a section of the Unionist Party believing that violence pays and therefore leaving the cause of democracy? Does he also agree that far from the security situation being improved the strain on the security forces has been immeasurably increased by this Anglo-Irish accord? Will he ask the Secretary of State to approach the Dublin Government with a view to our Government and their Government jointly suspending the conference—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No, no, my Lords.
Viscount Brookeborough:—temporarily suspending the conference, thereby enabling talks to take place?
4 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, of course all of us are grateful to have a voice from Northern Ireland, and, if I may say so, a voice from County Fermanagh, speaking in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I am sure that all of us would wish to join my noble friend, who is so involved in life in Northern Ireland, in his tributes to the security forces and to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am afraid that I am not aware of any conversations that my noble friend had with my noble friend the Leader of the House. I am sure that my
104
noble friend the Leader of the House will already have passed on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State any of the points which the noble Viscount wished to raise.
I assure my noble friend Lord Brookeborough that there has been and will be no surrender to violence by this Government or, I trust, by any other. I note the comments that he wishes me to pass on to my right honourable friend, but there is no question of the suspension of the Anglo-Irish agreement. I think that my noble friend will be aware of the statements made both by the right honourable Member for Lagan Valley and by the honourable Member for North Antrim last Tuesday after a meeting of no less than one-and-a-half hours with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Their talks, and the result of them, are borne out in the Statement that I made earlier.
My noble friend will observe that I said then—and I reiterate—that it was agreed at the meeting with my right honourable friend that we would all reflect on the various suggestions that had been made and would meet again shortly. I believe that the whole House will agree that that is more than reasonable. I shall pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State everything that has been said in your Lordships' House. In the Government's view, there is no question that the agreement will be suspended.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the Minister confirm (it was not mentioned in the Statement although it is fairly well known) that the nationalist minority did not initiate or willingly take part in any of the disturbances yesterday? Futhermore, in the light of the fact that the loyalist paramilitary forces now appear to be greater than any others as a threat to the peace and security of the Province, will the Government consider proscribing them?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I said earlier that 184 people had been dealt with by the police and that summonses for proceedings have been taken out against that number. There has been a number of arrests as well. I do not have a break-down. I do not know who all those persons were or what was their persuasion. As to proscribing any organistion, I hope that indications have made clear that we intend to take firm action in relation to any organisation; but the question is not really one that I can answer this afternoon as it is far too complicated.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, may I as one who has for long supported the Unionist cause ask my noble friend whether the Government can do anything to convey to the leaders of the Unionists in Northern Ireland that they are rapidly losing all the goodwill which over many years has been built up on this side of the water?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend's thoughts on our communications with the leaders of the Unionist Party. He could not have put the case better. I certainly could not have put it better. I am grateful to him for putting it just in this way. I am sure that he and your Lordships will agree that the main question is to try to re-establish

105
communications with the leaders of the Unionist Party. We have made the offer and we hope that the offer still remains on the table.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I very much appreciate the content and the temper of the Statement that has been made. We are in a struggle to detach people from traditional loyalties, which is extremely difficult. Ministerial statements are made, but what additional steps are being taken by the Government to make clear to the population of Northern Ireland the extent of the damage that is being done economically to the Province? Are they being made aware of the impact of this in international competition for inward investment? Are they being made aware of the fact that people on this side of the water are becoming a little unhappy about continued subsidy to a country which shows little response? Has the experience of the withdrawal of United States subsidy from the Philippines and its consequences for the regime in that country any relevance in this situation, in so far as any indication is being given to the people of Northern Ireland that they are endangering the continued subsidy from the United Kingdom Government by behaviour of this type?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are grateful for the interest in this matter shown by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. His point has been reiterated, as I have stressed, and stress again, that the beneficiaries of yesterday's events were terrorists, enemies of democracy, and Ulster's commercial competitors. During the past week I have been seeing reports. I am sure that everybody in Northern Ireland cannot have been unaware of appeals from bodies such as the IDB and the chairman of Harland and Wolff and Shorts that events such as those which took place yesterday can only be of benefit to the commercial competitors of Northern Ireland and in the long run do immeasurable damage to job prospects in Northern Ireland. I am sure that everybody in Northern Ireland is aware of that. We just hope that they will take cognisance of it.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if by any chance, which God forbid (because we must all hope that the Protestants will eventually see reason and accept the Anglo-Irish agreement), there would be what would amount to a rebellion in Northern Ireland, would the Government in the last resort and if necessary—I repeat, in the last resort and if necessary—be prepared to overcome such a rebellion by what would amount to the force of arms?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord is so much more experienced in the ways of diplomacy and in your Lordships' House than I am. I learnt, probably from the noble Lord, not to try to bet on a hypothesis. We take note of the strong feeling in your Lordships' House and of what the noble Lord said, but I should not want to comment on that today. I am grateful to him for the additional lesson.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is my noble friend prepared on behalf of Her Majesty's
106
Government to forswear totally the use of the word "loyalist" as though it was synonymous with "Unionist"?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think it is hardly within my province to forswear this. It is what people wish to call themselves. Perhaps it is a label. May we discuss this at a later stage with my noble friend? I shall certainly convey it to my right honourable friend, but I suspect that this label may be with us for a number of years yet.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, very warm tributes have been paid to the men of the Royal Ulster Constabulary by the noble Lord's honourable friend in his Statement, and those tributes have been echoed on all sides of your Lordships' House. I hope that it will be acceptable if, after a long connection with the RUC, I add my personal voice to those tributes to them in their immensely dangerous and difficult job.
In his Statement the noble Lord referred to the security forces and, in particular, to the RUC, which implies—and I think that the Minister said the same—that other security forces were also involved, presumably the army. Would he care to say to what extent the army was used, whether regular British units posted to Northern Ireland in support of the civil power or the locally-raised forces, the Ulster Defence Regiment, or both; to what extent they might, when the inquiry proceeds, have filled in and done some of the overload of work raised by the disorders yesterday; and whether there have been any complaints against the security forces, the army and the UDR?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his continuing interest in Northern Ireland, and we are especially grateful after all that he has done over the years. As far as I am aware, there have been no complaints. I do not know of any. I am not able to differentiate between any formal complaints against the RUC, the army or the Ulster Defence Regiment. I do not know. The only point that I have been able to confirm to your Lordships (and would confirm again to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt) is that the chief constable will be issuing a full report. I reiterate that the chief constable is prepared to consider and will fully consider any incident of what I have called indifferent policing, and will make a very full investigation of any such incident.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be aware, as your Lordships will be aware, that the army and the Ulster Defence Regiment act in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If I am able to elicit any detailed information of the type requested by the noble Lord, I shall of course let him have it. He will accept that I am not able to give him much this afternoon.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether he considers that the so-called leaders of the Unionist parties are leading or are following extreme elements in their parties?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should have to leave that to the two gentlemen who had a meeting with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last Tuesday. I am not exactly aware of what was said or where it was

107
said, or when opinions, thoughts, words and statements changed from the somewhat more optimistic and somewhat brighter statements that have been made here in London. Who is leading and who is taking part, and what part various Unionist political leaders are taking in Northern Ireland, I think we shall have to leave to them.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I, too, should like unreservedly to condemn the violence and intimidation yesterday. The yobbo element is sadly increasingly in evidence in our society, and not just in Northern Ireland. I should like to say a brief word about the underlying problem, because there seems to me to be a rather frightening gulf between the general opinion in your Lordships' House and the opinion of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
When we discussed the Hillsborough agreement on 26th November I was critical of it but I accepted that it must be judged on results. The results so far give no cause for optimism. I said then that Mr. Paisley put people off but that we had been landed with him because we had cut the ground from under the feet of his predecessors. Now it looks as though he himself may be losing control, because he came to a provisional agreement with the Government and his colleagues perhaps feared that he might go down the road travelled earlier by Bishop Muzorewa. The noble Viscount explained to us in November why the Government had thought it right to conclude this agreement. He put the case very clearly and firmly; and it was clearly right to try to get on better terms with Dublin, especially on security.
But I still believe that the fundamental error was, after a lengthy negotiation conducted in secret and without any consultation with those affected, to conclude an unprecedented agreement giving a foreign power a consultative role in the running of a part of the United Kingdom; and, despite the wretched violence yesterday, it is clear enough that the agreement is passionately opposed by a large majority in Northern Ireland. The Government seem to take the line that they know best—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am merely making a brief comment, which I am allowed to do. The Government seem to take the line that they know best: that they decide and the people concerned must lump it. That seems to me, with respect, an odd way to run a democracy. It is a style of government associated with Charles I, who claimed the sanction of divine right. But it is not, I believe, a style suited to open government today. I believe that the Government ought to think very carefully about what they do now, and, in particular, I have real doubts about the wisdom of devolution because that seems to me to open the door to the break-up of the United Kingdom, which I believe would be a profound mistake. I ask them, with great respect, to think again.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord was present on 26th November last year. He will have heard all the
108
comments, as indeed I did, and I well remember his caveat and his thoughts on that day. He would accept, as indeed your Lordships would accept, that the majority in Northern Ireland still have difficulties and do not accept and do not agree with the agreement. The Government's position is that we shall keep trying and do our very best to persuade everybody in Northern Ireland that this agreement will be ultimately to their benefit.
The noble Lord spoke of results. Just one minor thought is that there have been massive arms finds in Sligo and Roscommon, which I believe should be put down to the credit of—and we are grateful for the joint co-operation with—the Gardai Siochana. I believe that three months is a very short time. I am careful when mentioning history as regards Ulster, but I think that those of your Lordships who have taken an interest in the problems of Ireland and Northern Ireland over the centuries would certainly agree that three months is a very short while.
The noble Lord also mentioned the question of democracy. Tactfully, I would remind the noble Lord that the agreement was endorsed, I believe nemine dissentiente in your Lordships' House and by an overwhelming majority in another place. Let us not forget that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister not agree, in view of the vital importance of maintaining the sympathy and understanding of the people on this island with what is happening in the Province, that the responsibility of the press and media in the following weeks and months is of very great importance—not only to report the tragic and dramatic but also to report the very serious work that is going on among the communities in the vast majority of Northern Ireland? Would the Minister not agree that every encouragement should be given to the BBC and to our press to do that?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for that very helpful suggestion. Certainly I will do everything I can to suggest to all my friends in the media that they should see the acceptable and wonderful face of Ulster that I have learned to know and which the noble Baroness and, indeed, all your Lordships know. We do take note of the kind and helpful suggestion of the noble Baroness. I shall certainly pass it on to my right honourable friend and my colleagues. I am sure that her remarks will bear fruit.

Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
4.20 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, on Northern Ireland the Government were asked to think carefully about their next step. I hope and trust that the Government think carefully about their next step on every issue including the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill with which we are now concerned. It is very easy for people to use their rhetoric to describe the abominations of drug trafficking. It is a very difficult trade with which to

109
deal, in the main because it is organised internationally. The main perpetrators put themselves outside the scope of the law in that they are either geographically outside the scope of our law or they have sufficient men between them, and actual fieldmen who carry out their dirty trade, to make themselves virtually outside the scope of our law.
In our political life over the past few years we have heard a great deal about supply and demand and the efficacy of market forces in relation to legitimate trades. The efficacy of market forces applies equally to an illegitimate trade such as drugs. There are two aspects of the drug trade—quite apart from the international connotations to which I have already adverted—and they are supply and demand. I happen to believe that the reduction of demand is much more important in the long run. I believe that this country must spend a great deal more on education and publicity than it does at present.
I have considerable admiration for the Minister of State at the Home Office, and his efforts to deal with the drug problem. We have an enormous problem with our younger population, in particular, in the schools. In a debate last week I adverted to the fact that, on the one hand, we have a very important profession—the police—which should have access to our schools when dealing with the problem, but, on the other hand, we have a demoralised teaching profession which has as important a part to play. Although it is not directly related to the Bill, I regard the demand side of the trade as very important.
In the Bill we are, of course, dealing with the supply side of the trade. Equally important as reducing demand is containing supply. We should not be under any illusions that while the demand exists there will always be supplies coming into this country. The most that we can hope for is to blunt the supply and make it very difficult. All of us in the legal profession, at least, are aware that it is terribly difficult for the law to put its hands on the main manipulators and perpetrators of this difficult trade. At most one can hope to catch the second and third tiers, but usually, I suspect, we are catching the fourth and fifth tiers. We must bear that very much in mind.
With that background, we who on these Benches have a great tradition of being concerned with civil liberties realise that the Bill contains draconian measures. When the noble Lord the Minister said that we were dealing with novel measures, he was using a euphemism to describe what are really draconian measures. We should not be contemplating such measures to deal with a normal trade. We are contemplating draconian measures because of the sinister implications and our total abomination of the trade. We on these Benches are prepared to go along with the proposals because we believe that it is important that we recognise the tremendous duty that we owe to the younger generation, in particular, to ensure that the trade is contained and reduced within this country.
Having said that, I think it is important to recognise that, just as with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 we recognised highly unusual circumstances, so with this Bill we are dealing with exceptional circumstances. There is a
110
duty upon your Lordships' House to ensure that the powers are no greater than necessary and that we include in the Bill as many safeguards as possible.
While giving general support to the Bill's principle, I wish to sound a few doubts and express a few fears because it is important that your Lordships' House should do that. First, I think that the Bill is too widely drawn. We paint as a scenario and justification for the Bill what I established in my preamble—the terrible consequences and the terrible profits that are made from the trade.
We have in our minds—do we not?—a picture of tremendous, international drug traffickers controlling the trade from a distance in a large way. We can see the consequences for the young people of this country. Those consequences lead to a living death, or often death itself. That is the picture that justifies exceptional measures. And yet when we consider the Bill we should realise that most of those traffickers will never be brought before the court unless there is effective international action, nor will their profits or proceeds be confiscated.
What I have in mind on that point—I give this only as an example of the matters at which your Lordships' House should be looking when we consider the Bill—is Clause 26:
"In section 116(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences that are always serious) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) any of the offences mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of 'drug trafficking offence' in section 28 (1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986' ".
What does that mean? It means that in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which went through your Lordships' House less than two years ago, we provided certain exceptional powers for the police in certain circumstances—for serious arrestable offences. Within a very short time those powers have been extended in the Bill by a sidewind, as it were, so that if, for example, a school boy who was taking cannabis had a small amount of cannabis in his possession and admitted in an interview with the police that he was going to share it with other boys, all the powers available in the Bill could be used in relation to that offence.
That is not what the House has in mind. It is not what the other place had in mind. All I am suggesting to honourable Members—I mean, to noble Lords' I forgot my forum for a moment—is that we should take care to ensure that the Bill's provisions are suitably circumscribed. We want to ensure that, whenever we deal with hard drugs, the Bill applies but that when we deal with cannabis, for example, there should be a limit relating to the weight or the value of the drug.
I make it clear to your Lordships that I have no sympathy for those who argue that the use of cannabis should be legalised. I am completely against that. I have not known anyone who has gone on to hard drugs who did not graduate from cannabis. But there is a considerable difference between the use of hard drugs and the use of cannabis; we must recognise that fact. No one would try to justify the powers contained in the Bill if they related to cannabis alone. I suggest that in Committee we should see whether it is possible to circumscribe some of the Bill's provisions.

111
The second fear that I should like to express is that the Bill fails to provide sufficiently for the exercise of judicial discretion. I am a great believer in allowing the judge a good deal of judicial discretion. He can, as it were, spot the difference between the wolf and the sheep. It is necessary with this Bill, which contains mandatory powers in so many of its provisions, to allow a great deal more judicial discretion than applies as it is now drafted.
The third fear I wish to express has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is that the Bill fails to provide adequate protection for the innocent third party. It was in fact my colleague and successor as Member for Montgomery in another place, Alex Carlile, who actually raised the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred—and he would be horrified to be described as a supporter of the Government! However, that does not make any difference to the power of his point, which is that if one goes back over five or six years, or whatever the provision is, one can have the case of a totally innocent person who has bought a property. The example was given of somebody who sold in a hurry and who sold the property for much less than its value. The innocent purchaser is then faced with the prospect, perhaps, of long litigation to try to maintain his bona fide purchase. I do not think the provisions in this Bill are adequate to protect an innocent third party under the present provisions of Clause 5.
The fourth doubt or fear that I want to express is that the evidential provisions of this Bill are not sufficiently tightly drawn. There are many of them. There is the reversal of the onus of proof in certain respects. I am not at all convinced that this particular reversal of the onus of proof in Clause 2 does not offend against Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because whereas the point has been made that under the provisions of this Bill we are not concerned with proving guilt or innocence but with the consequence of a finding of guilt, nevertheless I do not think that the criminality that is involved in the confiscation provisions is necessarily the same as the criminality involved in the actual charge on which the man has been found guilty. It may be, therefore, that this would offend against Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There are many other things to look at within this Bill. In particular, I think we need to look at the "laundering" offence, which the Minister suggested in another place should be looked at more closely when the Bill came here, and at the external orders that could be made. This situation demands unusual and tough measures, and we are prepared to accept them provided that this House has done all it can to make sure that we have provided every reasonable safeguard for the innocent and that the Bill is scrutinised in such a way—and the onus upon us is an extremely heavy one—as to ensure that its draconian powers are properly circumscribed.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on bringing forward this important Bill and my noble friend Lord Glenarthur on the way he has expounded it. I would have no
112
hesitations or doubts. I would not call it draconian: I do not like that word at all. I would like to call it a strong and determined effort to deal with one of the biggest menaces to our society in our time. It is very welcome to see that the real people who are behind it—the drug traffickers—are not only caught but are deprived of all their ill-gotten gains.
How different it was before this Bill. Perhaps I may tell your Lordships the background. In 1978 there was an operation called Operation Julie and three men were convicted at Bristol Crown Court before Mr. Justice Park of conspiring together against the Misuse of Drugs Act. In fact, they used to manufacture and sell LSD and it was proved before the judge, and traced to them, that they had amassed themselves three-quarters of a million pounds. They had salted it away in cash, deposits of money and securities in unnumbered accounts in Switzerland and France.
The judge thought he had power, and he made an order under the Misuse of Drugs Act to confiscate that three-quarters of a million pounds. The Court of Appeal upheld his decision but unfortunately this House in Queen v. Cuthbertson in 1981, Appeal Cases 470, said that the judge in the Court of Appeal had no power to do it. The power under the Act was only power to confiscate for an offence under this Act, whereas the men had been charged with conspiracy to break the law. I am afraid the House went by the technical wording, Lord Diplock saying that you had to go strictly by the words of the statute and you could not extend it so far.
That was the position, and it was that failure to confiscate the three-quarters of a million pounds which led to the hardening of penal reform and the request to Mr. Justice Hodgson and with him Mr. Justice Staughton—two judges and a good committee—to look into the law about the profits of crime and their recovery. And what a good report it is. In spite of what my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, I think a lot of it may well be applied not only to all these drug trafficking moneys but to all the millions which are obtained by bank robbers, bullion robbers and the like. The thing is to get hold of them. You punish a man when you get hold of the money he has amassed. He does not mind spending a few years in prison so long as he can keep his ill-gotten gains. That is what this Bill—
Lord Mishcson: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will forgive me. Are his remarks, which are always listened to with such deep respect, meant to mean that in those cases and in others he would want the onus of proof shifted? It is not a question of whether the funds are confiscated but of whether the onus of proof should be shifted.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am coming to that in a minute or two. I have given the background. Let me just follow up what my noble friend said about the Daily Express this morning. I have the news item from The Times and, quite rightly, it says:
"A young mother who used to spend up to £160 a day on heroin yesterday praised the Princess of Wales, who had spoken to her.She said, 'The Princess was very courageous coming to a place like this'—
that is, a hospital for drug addicts.
'A lot of people would rather forget about people like us'."

113
I want to re-emphasise the £160 a day that young woman was spending. The Lord Chief Justice estimated £20 a day, but if you go up to £160 a day and if you trace that money through there will be treasury notes, bank notes, and they go to a dealer. No doubt the peddler gets his bit out of it. And then from there they go to the wholesaler and then to the importer. You have the usual mercantile train of buyer and seller all the way through, each taking his cut out of it. What happens to the £160? It is put together with a lot of other £160s in a suitcase and is perhaps taken to the bank, if you please, or to other places. Perhaps it is taken across to France or other countries, because you want to get rid of it if you can.
Then—and this is a new phrase in our law—it is "laundered". An attempt is made to make that dirty money clean by passing it through innocent hands so that it comes out in some foreign bank account apparently clean. It is laundered by a whole lot of intermediaries so that it can never be discovered. That is the evil. Of course, in regard to stolen goods it was always said that if there were no receivers there would be no thieves. And so if there were no drug traffickers I venture to think there would be very few addicts because they would not be able to get their drugs. We must strike at the drug addicts.
What are the main provisions of this Bill? First, after the man is convicted his proceeds can be confiscated—not only what he has in his hand at the moment of sentence but also what has passed through his hands in the previous six years. He may have transferred assets to his wife. Anything he has transferred at less than the full value can be traced and got at. Then the judge can say, "There it is. I am going to assume that all your fortune which we have traced is the product of your drug trafficking".
The Bill says so, but then gives him this get-out. If he can prove that that is not correct he does not have to pay it at all. When a drug trafficker is before the court and is being sentenced, and is found to have acquired masses of money, why should you not say, "It's up to you to prove that you have acquired it all correctly"? I would say that, although it is unusual in our law, it is a very good thing to have this burden of proof put on the drug trafficker himself. That is the case of the confiscation after the man has been convicted.
But the Bill has to deal with another matter. So many of these people, if they get to know that the police or others are on their track, will shift their money from the bank account abroad or whatever it may be. Then this Bill draws in aid a procedure which we started in the civil courts of the Court of Appeal in 1975. It is what we call a Mareva injunction. My first case, the Nippon case, involved the big Japanese shipowners who were owed some money for the hire of their ship by some Greek brothers. The Greek brothers did not pay their hire. They disappeared to New York and so forth. The Japanese owners came to us and said, "These people have a lot of money in the bank in England. Won't you give us an order to restrain them from using that bank?" The argument was put to us that it had never been done before and that no English Court had ever given such an order before judgment was obtained.
114
So in 1975 we started what is called the Mareva injunction, one of the most important decisions of our civil law, whereby if a debtor has money or owes money and he has it in the bank or wherever it may be, before we even get judgment against him, we can go to the judge before the debtor has had any notice of it—we go what is called ex parte—and say, "This man has all that money in the bank. He is going to abscond. If he takes this money away his creditors will never see a penny of it". So before the man is even given any notice the court can make an order against him, and the bank is told and the bank obeys it—if the bank disobeyed it would be guilty of contempt of court. So the Mareva injunction has been most important to our commercial community in the City of London. We do not let debtors get away with their money by taking it overseas and the like if we can stop them in time.
That civil procedure has been adopted in the Bill by the Government taking it into criminal cases where it did not apply before. You go to a High Court judge; you do not go to a Crown Court. You apply to a High Court judge for a restraint order to stop the drug trafficker from moving his proceeds away. You go to the judge before you tell him anything about it; you get your order from the judge and then you notify the bank. It is a very good thing. One gets this restraint order which stops him from moving his assets away. You can get a charging order and you can get a receiver. That second machinery, what I call the Mareva injunction machinery, is an excellent new introduction in this Bill, from the civil law into our criminal law, to stop the drug trafficker making away with his proceeds.
The other important position which is quite near is to do with the launderers. These people—it may be in regard to the bank—help the drug trafficker by assisting him to shift his money from one place to another, from one bank to another or from one suitcase to another, and to get it overseas if he can and get it away from England so that others cannot get at it. Those people launder the dirty money and pretend it is clean. All the launderers—all those who assist—are going to be equally guilty of a drug offence. Is it not a good thing too!
The last thing I would mention is in a way another good thing. Supposing you want to know whether one of these drug traffickers has money at the bank in the name of this person or that person. How are you going to find out? Is the bank bound to answer your questions? There is an obligation of confidence between the bank and its customer. It is not allowed as a rule to disclose anything about a customer's accounts. Thank goodness that under this Bill the police officers can get an order. They can go to a circuit judge and get an order to get the necessary information.
I see in a note in The Times today that the bankers are a little worried about this. If they have a suspicion that one of the people who bank at their premises is a drug trafficker, are they to keep quiet about it? I would say, regardless of anything in the Bill at the moment, that our law says there is no confidence against the disclosure of iniquity. If funds are obtained iniquitously, or there is a reasonable suspicion of it, I see no reason whatever why the bank should not tell the authorities—in fact it might be wise to do so—that

115
it thinks that the funds are probably the proceeds of drug trafficking. That again concerns this matter of disclosure.
I have traced through for your Lordships the main provisions of the Bill. It is a very important Bill. In some of these cases, as in the case of a man who has laundered the money, the burden of proof is on the accused to show that he knew nothing about it. The usual burden of proof is reversed here. But if we are going to stop this trafficking, these are very desirable, strong, determined measures, and I would support the Bill wholeheartedly in all that it proposes.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, perhaps I may start by expressing my diffidence at having to follow no fewer than three noble and learned Lords. That is a rather daunting task. I have not had the same experience as other noble Lords of very frequently standing on my feet addressing the House. But I am confident that this Bill will receive the same degree of support in your Lordships' House as it did in another place. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State on this Bill and also to commend the speed with which it has been brought before Parliament following the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I was honoured to have been instrumental in bringing before your Lordships' House last year the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Bill. The Bill before us today is just another brick in the wall against traffickers. Nobody seriously contends that these two Bills will halt the trafficking of drugs, but surely anything that can be done to make the task of these traders in misery more difficult and less rewarding is worth doing. As my noble friend the Minister has said, in 1985 some £107 million of drugs were seized and some 70 drug rings were uncovered. One may say that those figures are imposing, and I understand that they show a considerable increase over 1984. However, my Lords, are we winning the battle? Unfortunately, all the indications say no. The purity of heroin is as high as ever. The price of heroin is stable and may even have fallen slightly. What was once primarily a London problem is now a country-wide problem.
The interception of drugs may be increasing but I fear that imports are increasing at an ever-greater rate. I make those observations not in any way as a form of criticism but to stress the importance of any measures that we can take to combat the situation. Regrettably, as long as there is a demand for drugs, there will always be criminals willing and able to satisfy that demand. It is therefore essential that hand in hand with efforts to control supplies must go efforts to reduce the demand. I find myself agreeing totally with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, on that question of demand. Of the two, I personally believe that probably the more important is the latter. If there is no demand for the product, be it drugs or popcorn, then the supply will dry up.
The Government, through advertising, television documentaries, leaflets for parents and schools, and through many other promotional efforts, have made strides to bring home to the public the seriousness of the situation. However, in the end it is the public themselves—you and I, my Lords—who must
116
implement and support a national campaign to convince particularly young people that drug abuse is self-destructive and brings no rewards.
If I may return to the Bill itself, I have said already that it is just one more brick in the wall against traffickers. One hopes that it will serve as a disincentive to habitual criminals from turning to drug dealing. There have been some indications that that is happening because the rewards are very substantial and the risks of apprehension are comparatively small. It is to be hoped that with the threat of long prison sentences plus sequestration of assets, at least some criminals will think twice before entering the field of drug trafficking.
I am sure that all noble Lords who have read the Bill and have studied the speeches in another place realise that the Bill's prime target is the large operators—the Mr. Bigs, as some people call them. They are the people we are really after. Many of them are probably foreign nationals who may not even live in this country—which goes to emphasise the international nature of the problem and the need for close co-operation between governments.
If the seizure of the assets of such criminals is to be effective, it is essential that seizure orders enacted in this country can be enforced overseas. I am certain that we were all reassured to hear that Her Majesty's Government are already holding talks with certain overseas countries with a view to establishing bilateral agreements—and that in addition, the United Nations is seeking to establish a convention on drug trafficking. In fact, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary recently stated that if such a convention was not forthcoming from the United Nations, then the Council of Europe would consider establishing its own convention for its members.
As I have said, the prime target of this Bill is the large international operators. However, there are also the smaller intermediary pushers and the user-dealers, who are part of the overall drug scene. Those two categories are, for the most part, based in this country and are thus somewhat easier to apprehend. Nonetheless, they are contributors to an evil trade.
There is a certain sympathy for the user-dealer. I have even heard the opinion expressed that the user-dealer should not be subject to this Bill. Here I come to my diffidence on the legal question that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, covered to some extent. I had understood that the courts would have discretionary powers. If that is not the case then I agree with the noble Lord that this is a matter that should be dealt with at the Committee stage. I hope that it is unlikely that a small time user-dealer would be rendered destitute by the strict application of the Bill. I may add that I have always been of the opinion that drug abusers should be treated as sick people and not as criminals; and that they should be compelled to attend rehabilitation centres rather than be put in prison.
There has been no overall opposition to this Bill, except perhaps from the drug traffickers themselves—but, happily, they do not have a voice in Parliament.
Lord Mishcon: One hopes not, my Lords!
Lord Rodney: My Lords, possibly the only element of the Bill that has caused some disquiet is that of reversing the onus of proof to the accused to show which of his assets do not derive from drug trafficking. I have heard that some people think that that provision is rather un-British because in this country we are innocent until proved guilty. I feel sure however that I do not need to remind your Lordships of the type of persons with whom we are dealing; wholly without conscience or concern for the suffering they are spreading among the young people of this country, they are vultures growing fat on the misery of others. I suggest that we must do all we can to make the punishment fit the crime. We must ensure that there is no easy hiding place for traffickers, their moneys or their assets. I give this Bill my unreserved support.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, this afternoon I am so very pleased to be placed at the end of the list and to follow my noble friend Lord Rodney, who has done a very great deal behind the scenes to draw to the attention of your Lordships and another place the problems of drugs and drug trafficking. This is a very important Bill. It has been called draconian—quite rightly in my view, because it should be draconian. We face a very serious problem within our country today.
Before starting on my few words, I should like to thank very sincerely my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill to your Lordships' House. It is not an easy Bill to follow, with its many clauses, but he put the end product before your Lordships very helpfully.
In that the Bill is designed to plug loopholes, there are many new offences that needed to be made in the particular area with which we are dealing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, stole a great deal of what I intended to say. I am amazed that I had the temerity to think of the same words as the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord began by mentioning Operation Julie in 1978, when at least three-quarters of a million pounds were salted away. I am so very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking us through what happened to the people concerned.
As a result of the Operation Julie saga, the Hodgson Committee was established, and as a result of that, we are here today debating the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like to thank all its members, including Mr. Justice Hodgson, for the work that they did on this Bill.
Those of us who have tried to do something about drugs have realised that the escalation not only of trafficking but of the taking of drugs in this country is proving very difficult to contain. That is why I feel that this Bill which aims at punishing the traffickers—those who supply and are second only to the actual growers—is to be welcomed. That is the most important part of it. However, we must ask ourselves what does deter. I doubt very much if any of us, let alone Her Majesty's Government, can really say what does deter the trafficker. They are people without our ken in society. Whether they be people from our country or from abroad, they are evil men out to do the greatest possible damage, without thought, to
118
those mostly young people in our society. However, now when they are caught they will forfeit all their ill-gotten gains and if they do not pay the forfeiture they will have a maximum of 10 years in prison.
I am pleased to see that the international aspect is covered by this Bill and that in future an order made in British courts will be enforceable against assets overseas. I think that is the first time that such an order has been made enforceable. It is very important because we realise how quickly some of these people can move their assets—that is, the money they have made—and salt it away overseas. We are only too pleased that the courts will be able to follow them and sequestrate those assets.
The Home Secretary and the Minister have been 100 per cent. behind all the measures which have been encouraged by Private Member's Bills in another place. Until now the penalty for trafficking has been a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment and this will now be life imprisonment. One vaguely wonders whether life imprisonment might now deter some of the traffickers. Surely in our society the fear of being caught is one of the greatest deterrents. Therefore, when caught traffickers might fear losing their liberty for life and losing all their money, and I hope that that will have a long term impact on the drug scene. As a result of the Bill one hopes that fewer traffickers will operate, and therefore that fewer young people in our society will be maimed, probably permanently, or, as often happens, lose their lives from taking drugs.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, like everyone who has spoken in this debate, I welcome this Bill. It is an appropriate course of action for the Government to have taken following the decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House on the Operation Julie case to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred.
At the time of the conviction of those involved in that particular series of grave offences I was a Minister of State in the Home Office, responsible for the police. At the end of that complicated criminal investigation which had brought together a large number of police officers from different forces in the South and West of England and Wales, I went with the then Chief Inspector of Constabulary to the headquarters of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary to congratulate the team of investigating officers who had brought these dangerous criminals to justice. On that occasion I read to them, at his request, a letter from a retired senior Air Force officer about what had happened to two of his children who had consumed LSD. One of those boys had jumped out of a window believing, given the condition he was in, that he would bounce back again. He killed himself. Tragically, not long afterwards, the second boy did exactly the same thing.
After episodes of that kind it would be ridiculous for us to have any, not just sympathy, but sentimental feelings, about people who are responsible for organising the traffic of LSD and now, the even more worrying problem which has grown alarmingly over the past six years, that of heroin and cocaine. Therefore, I give this Bill an unreserved welcome in so far as it deals with the issue thrown up by the decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House.

119
However, I am bound to say that I think the Bill will have, at best only fairly limited effects. I propose to explain why that is so. First, it deals only with drug traffickers. Many will say, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would say and my noble friend Lord Hooson, and many others might do, how right it is that this should be so and that this is a special type of crime and that it should be treated quite differently from any others. I wonder whether that is going to be possible. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, read out a very interesting passage from the Home Secretary's speech in another place. I think that it will be increasingly difficult in future years—not immediately, but ever the next five or 10 years—to put a ringed fence around drug offenders and treat them differently to any others. We should be aware of this now rather than in the future.
The people who are involved in major criminal conspiracies of this kind do not simply specialise in one type of crime. They do not deal just with heroin or just with cocaine. They move in and out of both and in and out of forgery, long-term fraud, and armed robbery. That is the reality of the issue and that is what the House should recognise when discussing this Bill.
Secondly, I believe that the Bill is far too limited. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about money laundering. It is absolutely central to the issue which we are debating today but, bluntly, this Bill does not deal even remotely adequately with it. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will not be surprised to hear me ask today—as I asked him when speaking on the gracious Speech—why we do not have an obligation, as they do in the United States, for financial institutions to report major cash transactions over the bank counter.
I am bound to say to the noble Lord—and I realise that he does not carry the day-to-day responsibility for this area of Home Office work—that I did not find his reply altogether convincing. I think we have to look at a country that has similar legal traditions to our own and which has a great deal of experience with this problem; namely, the United States.
In its report in October 1984 to the President and the United States Attorney-General the President's Commission on Organised Crime says:
"The principal tool now utilised to detect, measure and punish money laundering is the Bank Secrecy Act".
That Act requires that a currency transaction report must be filed by a financial institution whenever a currency transaction takes place involving more than 10,000 United States dollars. As the House will probably be aware, under the terms of that Act there have been a substantial number of criminal prosecutions brought against some of the largest banks in the United States over the past two or three years because of their failure to obey that legislation.
I should like to give an illustration of what I mean by that. I quote again from the report of the President's Commission on Organised Crime which gives this particular example:
"In the Great American Bank case officers and employees of the bank received a fee for processing large amounts of cash without filing the required CTRs"—
120
that is, the currency transaction reports to which I have already referred—
"More than 94 million dollars was laundered by the Bank from December 1982 through April 1984 for the depositors—three narcotics organisations".
That is just one illustration of the size of this market—one American bank and over 90 million dollars involved over a period of less than two years.
Yet that framework of legislation, which is regarded as absolutely essential by the United States Government, is totally ignored so far as this piece of legislation is concerned. I think we are entitled to ask why. There will be increasing concern about this particular matter, all the more so because we have to recognise that large sums of money are now swimming around in this country as a result of the traffic in narcotics.
In the debate which we had last week I gave some figures, which were not challenged by anybody, which indicated that in 1984 (the last year for which we have complete figures) heroin with a street value of probably somewhere in the region of £350 million was imported illegally into the United Kingdom. The figure is even greater for last year, 1985. Quite apart from that, as we know there is a growing traffic in cocaine because the American market has now been deluged with cocaine, primarily from Colombia and other countries in South America. As a result of that the criminal entrepreneurs who are responsible for this traffic have now identified Western Europe as their next objective.
In the light of that situation and the evidence which exists that some unusally large cash sums have been crossing bank counters in London without at any stage being reported to the police, it seems to me to be a matter of considerable seriousness as to whether this situation should not be dealt with at this time when we are considering this piece of legislation.
Finally, perhaps I may just conclude the matter by quoting the views of the present Attorney-General of the United States, Mr. Edwin Meese. When announcing that the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury were seeking a new comprehensive money laundering Bill which would strengthen still further the existing powers of the Bank Secrecy Act he said:
"Professional money launderers play a key role for any criminal enterprise, whether it is an organised crime family or a narcotics ring. They are functionally equal to a fence used by a burglar. They provide a service to the thieves to hide or conceal illegal money. It takes a professional, a lawyer, an accountant, or a banker, with all the trappings of respectability, to manipulate these sophisticated schemes".
That is the position as described by the Attorney-General of the United States and directly concerns the issue which we are now discussing.
As I have indicated, I find it deeply disappointing that there is no recognition within this Bill of the central importance of this particular issue. I do not suggest for one moment that by itself, or if we introduce similar provisions in this Bill, it would deal overnight with the whole of the heroin and cocaine problem. Of course it would not. But in my view it would add very substantially to the powers which are available to the authorities for dealing with this extremely important problem.

121
I do not wish again to embark on issues which we discussed only on Wednesday last week—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will agree with me at least on this point—but I think it is only right to say that I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said at the conclusion of his speech. We have to recognise two things. First, this problem is the most serious single problem facing us at the moment in the area of criminal justice policy. There is widespread public anxiety, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred last week. More and more members of the public are filled with concern that their children may be infected by either heroin or cocaine. Desirable though this legislation certainly is, we must ask ourselves whether at the moment we have deployed anything approaching adequate resources to deal with this problem.
At the beginning of his speech the noble Lord said that he hoped that as a result of this legislation some of the drug traffickers would think better of whether they would continue with their unlawful conduct. I very much hope that some of them will think better of it; but I am a little sceptical whether in fact that is a likely scenario. We must recognise the fact that many of them never come within range of our jurisdiction. Many of them are operating in Bolivia, Colombia or the United States. Nevertheless, while this is not in any way a complaint about the character of the Bill, it demonstrates the reality of the problems which face us. We have to ask ourselves whether in fact we are deploying adequate resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that we were not doing too badly and that we had strengthened our Customs squads—I think that is the phrase he used. That is a truth. It is not the whole truth, as he will be aware. In fact what has happened is that there has indeed been an increase in the number of plain clothes officers of Customs and Excise who are targeted to deal with the drug situation. But of course there has actually been an overall reduction in the number of Customs officers and not an increase during the lifetime of the present Government, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a sevenfold increase in the seriousness of the heroin situation in the United Kingdom. Ministers constantly go around saying, "Look how wonderfully we are doing. We have cut the number of civil servants". Unfortunately, some of the civil servants whom they have cut happened to work for Customs and Excise. There has been a reduction in the uniformed branch of Customs of over 20 per cent; there has been an increase in the plain-clothes investigation branch, but an absolute and significant net reduction in the overall strength of the Customs and Excise. That is a great pity. I hope that that policy will be put into reverse.
Secondly, as I indicated last week, it is now necessary to have a quick statement from the Home Secretary on what he proposes to do about the situation which is probably at its worst in London. As my noble friends and I said last week, it is urgently necessary to have an increase in the establishment of the Metropolitan Police. They are dangerously under-provided for. The noble Lord was right in saying last week that there has been an increase of over 4,000 in strength, but he did not tell us that as a result of
122
overtime restrictions introduced by the present Government there has been an effective reduction of 3,200 within the overall figure. The gravity of the issue has been constantly stated in reports by the commissioner of police for the metropolis and by many others, and I hope that the Government can give us an early indication that action will be taken.
I repeat that I believe that in many homes in this country there is real fear about what is happening. Illegal drug importation is increasing, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, indicated. Unless as a society we provide adequate resources to deal with it, the price that we shall have to pay will be very high indeed.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have had an interesting and useful debate. Two things have emerged clearly from all the speeches. First, there is concern on all sides of the House about the problems of drug misuse, and towards the end of the debate my noble friends Lady Macleod and Lord Rodney dwelt on that. Secondly, there is the determination of your Lordships to support whatever steps can reasonably be set in hand to tackle the problem. We all seem to be agreed on the need for urgent and effective action on all aspects of drug misuse, and an essential part of that strategy is a comprehensive attack on those who engage in the illegal trafficking of drugs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hams, tempts me to go further than the debate on this Bill by referring to the question of Customs officers and police resources. I hope that he will understand that, although I cannot accept all that he said, it would be wrong of me to widen the scope of the debate to a general debate on drugs.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; I have no objection. But does he realise that he raised the question of the strength of the Customs and Excise and not I?
Lord Glenarthur: In that case, my Lords, perhaps I may say that the Customs is concentrating in a big way on detecting drug smuggling. It is a top priority. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the use of risk assessment, intelligence and information, as he suggested, both in supplying routine controls and in carrying out special exercises. Since 1979 we have more than doubled the number of specialist drug investigators. I could go on, but I shall let the noble Lord have further information in writing.
I share many of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about the demand side of the drug issue. I assure him that considerable effort is spent on education, training and rehabilitation. Indeed, I referred to many of those in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, last week. But it is a theme which is again somewhat wide of the scope of the Bill.
In saying that, I do not intend to detract from its importance. The reduction of the demand for drugs is a key part of our overall strategy against drug misuse. Up to £8 million has been set aside for our national publicity campaign and prevention initiatives in schools in every education authority in the country. Our publicity campaign, which involves TV

123
advertising, posters and leaflets, is being independently evaluated. The initial results have been encouraging. They suggest that the campaign has hardened young people's attitudes to heroin and other drugs and increased awareness of their harmful effects. It has done that without encouraging experimentation. We intend that our action in schools should be similarly effective.
One theme that was concentrated on, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hooson, was safeguards, particularly for third parties. Although the powers contained in the Bill are intentionally designed to hit the trafficker hard, we have also built in a system of safeguards to ensure that the rights of innocent individuals will not be jeopardised. The new powers of tracing, restraint and confiscation all require the authorisation of senior judges. They will have to be satisfied that the stringent conditions set out in the Bill are met.
In the case of orders and warrants requiring the disclosure of information by banks and others, the circuit judge will have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the person being investigated of involvement in drug trafficking, that the information sought is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation and that it is in the public interest that the information should be disclosed. There is therefore no question of that power being used to justify what are commonly called "fishing expeditions", and the circuit judge will ensure that normal rules of confidentiality are breached only when the circumstances warrant it.
The power to order the restraint of assets is subject to equally stringent safeguards. Clause 7 provides that an application for a restraint order can be made only after proceedings have been instituted against a person for a drug trafficking offence or where the High Court is satisfied that proceedings are to be instituted and where there is reasonable cause to believe that the person concerned has benefited from drug trafficking. If it wishes, the High Court will be able to specify conditions or exceptions, for example, to allow the defendant reasonable living expenses, and to appoint a receiver to manage the restrained property; and there is specific provision for the holder of restrained property, whether the defendant himself or a third party, to apply to the High Court if he wishes the order discharged or varied.
When it comes to enforcing a confiscation order, the Bill provides that the High Court and the receiver must exercise their powers with a view to ensuring that third parties who gave some consideration for property which is liable to confiscation are allowed to retain or recover that consideration. Specific provision is also made for persons holding an interest in property which is liable to confiscation to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court before that property can be realised. I think that those are substantial safeguards, but I shall certainly read carefully what both noble Lords have said.
Let me now answer a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the words "significantly less" in Clause 5. If he looks at Clause 28(7) he will see that the definition that I think he looks for, in words which I must confess were rather unusual to me, meets the
124
concern that he expressed, particularly paragraph (b). I agree that it is a Committee point, and he may wish to return to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked whether the confiscation powers should apply where someone was charged with an offence involving only a small amount of cannabis. We have limited confiscation powers to the Crown Court which tries the more serious drug offences. People charged with dealing in small amounts may well be tried by the magistrates' courts, which will not have those powers available. That provides a limitation in practice of the sort that the noble Lord seeks, I believe.
The noble Lord also referred to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We do not want the Bill to fall foul of the safeguards provided in the convention. The convention provides that no one should be subject to a more severe penalty than would have been available at the time he committed the offence. We do not believe that as a result of the Bill we shall be. The offender's sentence will be determined by the judge in the normal way. Confiscation is not an additional or alternative penalty but merely a means to ensure that the offender does not continue to enjoy the benefit of money that he ought never to have had. But if the noble Lord has any other worries about the convention I shall certainly be ready to look at them.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for dealing with this point. What worries me is the provision of a penalty if the confiscation is not fulfilled. It is up to 10 years, as the noble Lord pointed out. It seems to me that the European Court might interpret this as an additional penalty.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly study that point with great care. As to Clause 26 and serious arrestable offences, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson also referred, that clause provides that most drug trafficking offences are to be regarded as serious offences for the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The 1984 Act contains certain special powers that are available only in relation to the investigation of serious arrestable offences. The purpose of Clause 26 is to ensure, for the avoidance of doubt, that these powers are always available in drugs cases. In fact, many drug trafficking offences would already be brought within the definition of serious arrestable offences, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, by reason of the likelihood that they will result in substantial financial gain. Here, I am referring, of course, to Section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was particularly concerned about the reversing of the burden of proof, if I may so summarise it. I should emphasise that there is no question of a person accused of a drug trafficking offence having to prove his innocence. The burden will remain on the prosecution in the usual way, as I said at the beginning, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Only after conviction will the onus be placed on the offender to show which, if any, of his assets were legitimately acquired. There was unanimous agreement at all stages in another place that a provision of this sort is essential if we are serious

125
about depriving a convicted trafficker of the proceeds of his crime. In many cases, it will never be possible for the prosecution to establish with certainty how much of a wealthy trafficker's life-style was financed by his criminal activities. To insist on doing so would frequently allow the trafficker to retain much of his illegal gains. The offender is the only person who knows exactly what his legitimate income has been, if any, and which of his assets were legitimately acquired. It is right that the burden should be upon him to establish these facts to the satisfaction of the court.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the Minister, if only in order to make my position abundantly clear, will allow me to intervene. I emphasised the points about the onus in regard to innocence or guilt. I said that this did not apply, obviously. I also said that I was in favour of the provision in this Bill for the change of onus on penalties. I merely sounded a warning note, having regard to his right honourable friend's comments in the other place on Second Reading, that this is not to be deemed a precedent. We have regarded this as a very exceptional case, and rightly so.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is a point upon which I was about to comment. I realise the force of the noble Lord's argument. The whole question of reversing the burden of proof in this instance is important and goes slightly wider perhaps than Lord Mishcon's comments. I recognise the noble Lord's concern about the issue to which he has again referred.
I should perhaps point out that the statute book already contains several examples of criminal offences which place the burden of proof on the defendant in relation to an ingredient of the offence with which he is charged. This goes well beyond the limited extent to which, in this Bill, we propose to place the onus of proof on the convicted offender. Among examples of such offences are the presumption of corruption where a public servant accepts any money or gift from a person seeking to obtain a public contract and the burden placed upon a person in possession of an offensive weapon to establish lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
The provisions in this Bill apply only to the proceeds of drug trafficking. And not all of the powers necessary in this context may be appropriate in relation to other offences. I must say, however, that we are anxious to strengthen the powers of the courts to deprive convicted offenders of the proceeds of crime generally, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would have liked us to have done, if I have the drift of his remarks correctly. That seemed to me also to cover some of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. We are hoping to extend similar powers, with any appropriate modification, to other profitable offences such as fraud and organised crime in future legislation. In considering exactly what powers are necessary and in relation to which offences, we will be taking careful stock of the views expressed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. So, to that extent, we are wary, to use Lord Mishcon's expression, too. Our minds are very much open on this point. We are by no means wedded to the provisions in this
126
present Bill for use elsewhere. The provisions in this Bill are devised specifically in relation to drug trafficking offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, raised the question of bank reporting requirements. I accept the concern that he expressed in a forceful manner. I have to say, however, that we do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a requirement on banks and other financial institutions to report large cash transactions. A great many legitimate transactions involve the transfer of large sums at irregular intervals and frequently in cash. A reporting requirement would impose a substantial burden on some branches. It would also be difficult or impossible for whoever had to process the information to isolate transactions attributable to criminal activities. In the United States—the noble Lord dwelt particularly on experience there—reporting requirements have been patchily observed and offenders have managed to evade them by making a series of deposits, each just under the level at which reporting is required. We would not realistically be able to adopt this procedure without good reason for doing so—and what I have said points to the difficulties.
But an important feature of the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill is new powers for the police and Customs to obtain access to information held by banks and other financial institutions at an early stage of a drug trafficking investigation. It is also important to remember, however, that a bank's duty to maintain the confidentiality of its customers' affairs does not prevent it disclosing information when there is a public interest in disclosure—for example, to prevent fraud and crime. This was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Tournier v. The National Provincial Bank of England.
My noble friend Lord Rodney raised the question of user dealers. The Crown Court will be required to impose a confiscation order on any trafficker convicted by that court but small-scale user dealers will often be dealt with by magistrates' courts which will not have confiscation powers. Where, however, a user dealer has trafficked on a sufficiently large scale to warrant trial at the Crown Court, it is right that he should be deprived of the full extent of his proceeds, at least to the extent that he still has them or equivalent assets available.
The growing menace of international drug trafficking has been called the most serious peace-time threat to our national well-being. A recent report by the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place referred to the indescribable despair, terror and squalor caused by the mis-use of hard drugs in the United States. Indeed, adequate words to describe the evil of drugs in any country defeat even the most assiduous browser through Roget's, or any other, thesaurus. In the United States, the drug trafficking industry now ranks in money terms second only to the motor industry. We cannot and dare not be complacent about the threat that the drugs menace poses for the United Kingdom. We must make every possible strong and determined effort, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his powerful speech, to intensify law enforcement against drug traffickers by attacking their profits and by preventing the laundering of those profits. This Bill

127
will give the police, Customs and the courts one more effective mechanism to this end by enabling confiscation to play a central role in our strategy against drugs trafficking. I am delighted that it has your Lordships' support. My Lords, I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Bill
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I beg to move that the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was passed through the other place on the nod at both Second and Third Reading, so up to this moment discussion upon it has not been recorded in Hansard at all. The draft is drawn from the Scottish Law Commission, a Report No. 82. I cannot fail to say how impressed I am with the manner in which they have examined this very delicate subject, the way they have taken careful consultation, and the way they have reached, I should say, a very careful and sensible decision. It is true that the position of children born out of wedlock has been improving in Scotland. But I am bound to say that they had a very long way to improve because they started from an almost absolutely negative position.
The purpose of this Bill is that there should be no difference so far as the law is concerned between a child born in wedlock and one who is not. Whatever anyone may say about the way in which children come to be born—and there are various circumstances from rape upwards—one thing is quite clear. The child itself has no responsibility for what happened. For that reason there should be no slur of background upon the child, and he should be free and encouraged to play a full part as a citizen of this country. That is what this Bill seeks to provide for. We cannot change opinions but we can fix the law so that it makes this quite clear.
This is what the Bill has done in the first clause. It provides that whether the child's parents were married or not,
"shall be left out of account in establishing the legal relationship".
That means that so far as the law is concerned there will be no difference, subject to certain exceptions with which I shall deal. The whole of the rest of the Bill hangs from that declaration. It is hoped—and I believe that it may be successful—that the words "legitimate" and "illegitimate", "lawful" or "unlawful" or "bastard" will fall out of statutory use altogether. The commission does not recommend inventing another word which would say the same thing. That is something where public usage will apply, and they will have to make their own exceptions.
The main object—and it surprises me in a way that it should be necessary—is to give the mother whose child is born out of wedlock parental control. It may seem strange that it should be necessary but up until now she has only had custody of the child. However, she will now have the normal duties as tutor and curator—as it is called in Scotland—which will give
128
her responsibility for education, religion, and I hope that manners and good behaviour may be added at the same time.
On the other hand, the father, where there is no married state, is in a rather different position. He may have disappeared. He may show no interest in the child at all. In those circumstances he can be given parental controls but only by application to the court. This applies to cases where he has shown that he wants to exercise the proper duties of a father.
A principle is laid down which runs through this whole Bill: that it is the court's duty to consider the welfare of the child as of paramount interest. That would be the consideration which the court would apply if it wishes to allow the father to assume parental responsibility.
If we move to Clause 5 the presumption that the husband of the marriage is the father remains as before except that it can be rebutted by a slightly easier presumption: that is, on the "balance of probabilities" instead of "sufficient evidence". Clause 6 provides for taking blood samples in all cases where there may or may not be someone with parental care and in certain circumstances the courts can give such authority itself. Blood sampling is a very advanced study at the present time and it is important in certain cases that it should be available. Clause 7 substantially repeats the existing law with regard to the declarator of parentage where, in this case, it is necessary to provide "sufficient evidence".
I have said that there are certain exceptions to this rule. These are exceptions which cannot be wisely covered by law. The first exception is that it does not apply to deeds or enactments passed before the coming into force of this Bill. This would be retrospective in character, and I think would be undesirable. It does not apply to a situation where deeds deliberately choose between those children born in wedlock and those not born in wedlock. It is perfectly natural to leave a person quite free to make a testamentary settlement as he wishes, just as he can divide boys from girls or one child from another child. This puts him in no different position in that regard.
The Bill does not extend to titles or honours transmissible on death. That is to say, it would not affect anybody in this House.
The practice must remain, I think, that a child born out of wedlock takes the domicile of its mother. Normally a child born in wedlock would take the domicile of its father, but if born out of wedlock this appears inevitable because the mother is the only person known in certain circumstances. This affects to some degree the British Nationality Act because it may be important whether or not he or she is a national of this country. However, I think we must recognise that we have signed a convention in regard to the legal status of children born out of wedlock and this Bill puts us fully in line with our duties under that.
Perhaps the House would be interested if I were to give one or two figures as to what was happening in this field. Over the last 20 years there has been a considerable increase in the number of children born out of wedlock. It now runs at about 17 per cent. of live births, which is an increase of something like threefold as a percentage in the last 20 years. It is,

129
however, significant to note that between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of families where there have been births out of wedlock are living today in stable conditions of cohabitation. That is quite interesting and perhaps I may say a word about that later. It is these families who will particularly benefit from the provisions of this Bill. I believe that this Bill is properly based. I believe that it is desirable. I believe that it is in line with public opinion at the present time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.49 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill, which will do much to remove the slur and stigma which has attached to people whose parents were not married to each other. For too long, as the noble Earl has said, society has put disadvantages and discredits on the child, who could do nothing about his birth, while leaving the father scot-free, usually, and the mother suffering to a lesser extent than the child.
The noble Earl, and particularly the Scottish Law Commission, are to be congratulated on the Bill, which I hope will meet with the approval of the House. As the disadvantages of a child born out of marriage are removed, I would suggest that it becomes more important that the status of marriage itself should be encouraged for the stability it brings to society. I would hope that the Government would recognise this, perhaps in tax changes which would give some advantage to the marriage state. It seems to me to be wholly ridiculous that at certain levels of income it is financially better for a couple to live unmarried than to live together married.
5.50 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I too am very pleased to have this opportunity to declare the Government's support for this Bill. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has already indicated, the main purpose of the Bill is to remove those legal differences between individuals which depend on whether or not their parents are or have been married to each other, without however conferring parental rights automatically on all fathers. The basis for this reform is the view, which I think is now accepted, that it is fundamentally unjust for the law to discriminate against persons on the basis of the absence of the marital status of their parents.
The Bill is, in some senses, within a short compass but it covers an important reform of the law. I would also reiterate the hope which my noble friend expressed, and which I think is to be found in the report of the Scottish Law Commission, that this will pave the way for the gradual disappearance from the statute book of those adjectives which suggest bastardy.
As I have said, these proposals for reform are based upon recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in its report on illegitimacy, and I would just note that we are now legislating upon a report which was issued in November 1983 and published in
130
early 1984. It is very pleasant to think that it has been taken up so quickly. The commission's recommendations were based not only upon a thorough examination of this area of law but, as is custom and practice, upon comments and views invited upon a consultative memorandum.
The results of that consultation confirmed the commission's view that it is anomalous and unjustified for the law to impose handicaps on those who have the misfortune to be born illegitimate. The Government are wholly sympathetic to the principle of the Bill and I have no reservations at all in recommending noble Lords to support these reforms. Therefore, I should like particularly to express my appreciation of my noble friend's commitment to sponsor this humane and worthwhile piece of social reform through your Lordships' House. Having regard to its sponsorship in another place, I suggest that this will be very much a family Act.
I also welcome the support which has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I take note of what he said on what I was going to call a related topic—one which perhaps does not directly arise out of this particular piece of legislation. However, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will observe what has been said.
Like my noble friend, as seems to be entirely appropriate on this occasion, I should also like to pay tribute to the work done by the Scottish Law Commission which has led to the introduction of this Bill. The Law Commission's report follows the admirable tradition of its reports in setting out clearly and comprehensively the present law, the particular nature of the difficulties perceived, and then systematically and purposefully considering the various options for reform. It provides a lucid, detailed and cogent case for the reform of the law, and I would commend it to anyone who wishes to read a clear account of the law in this area. My own reading of the commission's report leaves me in no doubt as to the desirability of supporting this Bill.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for supporting this Bill from the Government Bench. I also agree with the compliment that he has paid the Law Commission, which I believe has done a very great job. I recall that when the commission was first set up, which was when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was Lord Chancellor, I was critical as to how it would be used, but I think that the very best use has been made of it and it is an extremely valuable instrument to assist Parliament.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, very much for his remarks. He has raised an extremely important point. Today we are making it slightly less necessary to be married. I believe that this is a message which I would ask my noble and learned friend to pass on, perhaps to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: it is high time that the advantages of marriage were shown in the taxation system of this country. I am sure many of us know people who say that it would be cheaper to get divorced, and there are also many people who have stable relationships who do not bother to get married. More and more people

131
perceive financial advantages in so doing. In some cases, for a man and a women to get married may cost £1,500 in allowances each year, depending on the man's circumstances. I shall not carry this argument further, but it is not a matter which should be wholly lost sight of when this Bill is being examined in its context. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Nurses and the NHS Reorganisation
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their reaction to the concern expressed by the Royal College of Nursing over the effects of the reorganisation of the National Health Service on patient care and on the nursing profession.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is with great regret that I feel it is necessary to initiate this debate tonight. Would that I could say that I speak more in sorrow than in anger. Unfortunately I speak as a nurse both in sorrow and in anger. However, perhaps I may begin by saying how grateful I am to those Members of your Lordships' House who have shown interest in this Question by putting down their names to speak in this debate. I greatly look forward to their contributions, and I am also grateful to other noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have told me personally of their concern and support but who are unable to take part this evening. I have in mind in particular my noble friend Lady Vickers and the noble Lord, Lord Richardson.
Perhaps I may begin by clarifying the nature of my concern, which is also the concern of the Royal College of Nursing. This concern has different but interrelated facets. First, there is concern about the principles involved in nursing's contribution to policy formation and decision-making in the National Health Service. Secondly, there is acute dismay about recent reorganisations following the Griffiths Report. In particular, there is serious anxiety about the actual and potential effects of some of these reorganisations on the quality of patient and client care. Finally, there is widespread distress, fear and anger in the nursing profession about the treatment meted out to some of its own members and the uncertainty in which many now find themselves, often after numerous years of professional service.
However, before I speak briefly to each of those dimensions of concern, I wish to say a few words about the Royal College of Nursing's original response to the recommendations of the Griffiths Report. The Royal College of Nursing never disputed the need for more cost-effectiveness, and in so far as reorganisation would achieve this the college was willing to co-operate—if the quality of care provided for patients and clients did not suffer. However, the college also made no bones about its fears that situations might develop where greater cost-effectiveness might be attempted at the expense of less care-effectiveness. Some of the college's worst fears seem to be being realised.
What are those fears? First, there are those relating to nursing's contribution to policy formation and to decision-making. Perhaps I may say that when I use the word "nursing" I include of course the related professions of health visiting and midwifery. Health care is an immensely complex and rapidly changing arena of activities and responsibilities. The nursing input is major in terms of resources and manpower. Nursing is responsible for about 50 per cent. of NHS manpower and 45 per cent. of the average district manpower budget. But perhaps even more relevant is the fact that it is the nursing profession which has the most direct continuity of care for patients and clients.
It is nurses who are responsible for round-the-clock care and on whom patients depend for their most fundamental needs. It is also nurses who are significant in creating the environment of care for patients in hospitals, nursing homes, or other kinds of residential institutions. Indeed, for long-stay patients such as the elderly, the mentally handicapped, or the young chronic sick, nurses are in effect their world. Patients in high-dependency units or in intensive care depend entirely on nurses for their very lives. A nurse in an intensive care unit is responsible for maintaining life support systems, and for giving psychological and emotional support to patients and their relatives in situations of ultimate need. Therefore, nurses are uniquely placed to speak with authority on patients' most intimate needs and to evaluate the effects of health care policy as they affect patients most directly.
It was Lord Briggs, in his report on nursing, who called nursing "the major caring profession". This does not imply, and no nurse would ever wish to imply, that other health care professionals do not care about their patients or their own professional responsibilities, but in the sense of direct patient care as well as in terms of resources and numbers nursing justifies Lord Briggs's accolade.
It therefore surely makes sense for nursing to be represented in the decision-making processes which affect the fulfilment of its own professional responsibilities for providing care. It is precisely because some of the developments which have occurred in the reorganisations following the Griffiths Report have not respected this principle of the need for a nursing contribution to the management of the National Health Service, that the Royal College of Nursing is so alarmed.
May I briefly outline some of the developments. In the early days assurances were given that nursing's contribution would be honoured. Mr. Roy Griffiths himself was reported on 18th November 1983 in the Daily Telegraph as saying:
"The proposals don't threaten nurses at all. The nurses are doing a good job and the changes that are being talked about aren't designed to affect them, except beneficially."
Mr. Barney Hayhoe, as recently as 20th November 1985, in a letter to all regional health authority chairmen, wrote:
"… most district management structures provide for medical and nursing membership of the district management board or similar body. Where this is not the case, I believe it is important that alternative arrangements command the confidence and commitment of all the medical and nursing interests locally".
It is the discrepancies between these intentions and the realities of reorganisation which are the burden of

133
our concern. We are not worried in terms of professional self-interest, and in particular we are not worried about the small number of nurses appointed as general managers. I cannot emphasise that point too strongly, because it is a point that seems to have been misunderstood. What we are worried about are the principles and practices which have adverse effects on the provision of care.
Let me illustrate by example. The Royal College of Nursing has been collecting information on the changes which have already taken place. Its survey covers 146 district health authorities in England, which is about 75 per cent. of the total. The findings show how, in many places, the wholesale scrapping of nursing manager posts at the level of director of nursing services has taken place. That is the equivalent of the old-style matron. They have been replaced by a variety of new posts in which the decision-making component has been replaced by a purely advisory role. In a third of these posts even the advisory role is peripheral and may only be used at the behest of the general manager. Thus the principle of enshrining a nursing contribution to the decision-making process has been scrapped.
More specifically, 28 district health authorities in the survey have done away with the former chief nursing officer post. There is no nurse member of the management team, and professional advice to the health authority has been delegated to a director of nursing service of one of the units, or to a director of nurse education, or to the holder of some other post. The Royal College of Nursing argues that this situation is not satisfactory. It does not match up to the assurance given by Mr. Norman Fowler in his letter of November 1984 when he claimed:
"we would expect that authorities will need a nursing adviser, at senior management level, whose main responsibility is the provision of nursing advice to the authority".
How can a nurse with responsibility for her or his own unit (itself an arduous job), or for education (a comparably demanding role), have time or opportunity adequately to represent the professional requirements of a range of colleagues, often in very diverse fields, as well as fulfilling the responsibilities of his or her own post?
Fifty-seven other district health authorities have hybrid posts, sometimes with ghastly titles such as "Quality assurance manager". Would not Florence Nightingale turn in her grave to think of her respected matrons being reduced to that? Such posts retain a chief nursing officer role but they also bring other responsibilities, perhaps such as domestic, catering or laundry services. The Royal College of Nursing can welcome some of these, as such functions impinge directly on patient care and on the ward environment for which nurses are responsible, but others are much more dubious, such as responsibility for the ambulance service or for public relations.
Nursing management is one of the most demanding jobs in any health authority, accounting, as I have already said, for about 50 per cent. of health authority staff. It really seems astonishing, to put it mildly, to expect a chief nurse to perform all these roles and to give top priority to developing and managing the nursing services. However, at least those district health authorities retain a nursing input, but in nine district
134
health authorities the chief nursing officer is not a member of the management team and has a purely advisory role with no direct line management responsibility for nursing. In other words, she or he is totally excluded from decision-making, with a contribution dependent on a grace and favour basis.
However, exclusion of nurses from decision-making bodies, or the awesome accumulation of incompatible responsibilities, is not the end of our tale of woe. One of the most serious and least reported effects of management reviews has been the amalgamation of units in ways which may be detrimental to patient care. In the past it was a well-recognised, even notorious, fact of National Health Service life that certain services were the Cinderellas in terms of resources and facilities. They included, for example, the care of the elderly, the mentally ill, and the mentally handicapped.
One of the reasons for their relative deprivation was the situation where they had to compete for scarce resources with the acute hospital services. In recent years a solution had been sought by arranging for such units to be managed separately so that their resource needs could be considered on their own terms and not in direct competition with other priorities. Now in many reorganisations hasty amalgamations are regrouping such units so that they lose management, autonomy and priority. Nurses in some of these situations are already finding difficulty in competing for resources, say, for the care of the elderly against the demands of a medically oriented acute unit. Moreover, many of these new amalgamated units are very large and geographically dispersed.
It appears that administrative and financial convenience has taken priority Over patient and client group orientation. In theory good management could cope well, without falling into the traps of the past. But the early signs are not propitious in some places.
This leads me into a brief discussion of some examples of the effects of reorganisation on patient and client care. Clearly it is early days, but some examples will illustrate the nature of our concern. Let me begin by reading an extract form a letter from a senior sister which describes the cost in human terms of decisions being made in the interests of cost effectiveness without an input by professionals such as nurses who can see their effects on patient care. I quote:
"The first instance when Griffiths started to affect us was in July 1985. My ward was closed; this was a specially adapted ward for the disabled. The patients were moved to the hurly-burly of surgical wards … which were totally unacceptable in design and equipment … for example, no lifting aids for the bathroom; nurse call buttons and radio controls mounted behind the beds and out of reach of these patients; toilet doors too narrow for wheelchairs; door handles and taps inaccessible … and a general atmosphere not at all conducive to the slow rehabilitation of the disabled".
In another notorious case an administrative decision was made to share a defibrillator between two hospitals. A defibrillator is a piece of equipment which is needed within a matter of minutes if it is to be effective in saving a life. The manager has since defended his judgment by claiming that a nurse was present when the decision was taken. But it should perhaps be noted that the nurse in question had just been axed from her post and was not in the most effective position for arguing any points.
In another district nurses have been asked to undertake laundry duties because of problems with the provision of laundry services. Dirty laundry has been accumulating and nurses, including ward sisters, have been requested to work in the laundries. This is hardly an effective way of using qualified professional staff, even if this is during off duty periods. Staff tired from nursing patients are hardly likely to find appropriate recreation working in hot, steamy laundries. If they are to be paid overtime rates this hardly fulfils the criterion of cost effectiveness.
This misuse of professional nursing staff raises the last concern I wish to discuss. This is the impact of reorganisation on the profession itself. I come to this last because the College's overriding concern is the effect on patient care rather than on the interests of its own members. But the adverse effects on nurses are incalculable. Many senior nurses have just been sacked after years of professional service. One chief nursing officer of a London health authority was summoned by the general manager and the chairman of the unit authority and summarily dismissed. She was told that her post was being abolished, that she would be given eight months' salary and was to be sent on "gardening leave".
The regional nursing officer of another region was told in front of other people, I am informed, that her role was not needed and was to be reduced to a token one day a week. When amalgamations occur literally hundreds of existing directors of nursing services lose their posts and are having to reapply for the newer, fewer posts. The figure may rise to literally thousands when we are thinking of the same situation applying to ward sisters and to charge nurses.
In one unit recently all existing ward sisters and charge nurses have been told that they will have to reapply for their posts. Perhaps even more disturbing, if that is possible, is the proposal from one health authority which recommended the abolition of the post of ward sister and its replacement by managers who might not be nurses. It is not known whether that proposal has been accepted, but that it should have been submitted is surely deeply shocking. If Florence Nightingale would have turned in her grave at the replacement of matrons or their equivalents by non-nurse managers, she would surely return to haunt those responsible for recommending the abolition of ward sisters.
Throughout the nursing service there is now fear: fear for the quality of patient care and for the future of the health service and for the future of nursing. Many nurses had been willing to believe the Government's assurances that the future of the National Health Service is safe in their hands. I think I might find it difficult now to find a nurse who still believes that. But there is also fear for the future of the profession and of each individual in it. Sackings and the wholesale annihilation of posts is poor recompense for a profession that has fulfilled its professional responsibilities consistently, often in very difficult cirumstances and despite poor recompense.
Through that terrible winter of discontent it was nurses who kept the hospitals going. Often nurse managers would finish their days' work, roll up their sleeves and do all the tasks which no one else would
136
do, from serving meals and disposing of dirty laundry to removing the bodies of patients who had died. In one hospital where the strike had affected the mortuary, nurses used their own sitting room for the bodies of deceased patients. I hope we do not have another winter of discontent, because there will not be nurse managers in post to hold the fort again.
Similarly those responsible for nurse education are deeply worried about the effect on students and on recruitment to a profession where prospects have deteriorated and where morale is at rock bottom. Some 20 per cent. of nurses on the wards are students and they are entitled to adequate supervision and support. The syphoning-off of senior nurses will endanger the quality of teaching and back-up which will be available for them. It could also cause real stress to the students and maybe even danger to patients.
Finally, I cannot talk about morale without very brief reference to salaries. The thorny and perennial problem of nurses' pay has been eclipsed by other disputes. But may I remind your Lordships that nurses are still apallingly underpaid. A staff nurse's salary is still only about £6,000, although she is likely to carry responsibility for a ward while sister is off duty.
In more personal terms I shall tell your Lordships about a staff nurse I know well. A fully qualified nurse and a graduate, she recently undertook some agency nursing in a well-known hospital in the Home Counties. She was put in a ward in charge of confused elderly patients and was the only qualified nurse on duty, helped by two excellent auxiliaries. There were 26 very confused and physically dependent patients who needed every kind of care and attention, and who were sometimes, inevitably, unco-operative and aggressive. After carrying the responsibility for their care for a shift which was physically exhausting, professionally demanding and emotionally wearing, her take home pay was £2 an hour.
How long will our country go on treating its dedicated nurses like this? Will the Government take seriously the representations made by the Royal College of Nursing? I have only had time to touch on them very briefly and not to do justice to the full range and extent of examples.
I should like to conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister four questions. First, will she indicate whether the Government will consider issuing a circular with guidelines to ensure that health authorities comply with the assurance given by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State that authorities will have a nursing adviser at senior management level whose main responsibility is the provision of nursing advice to the authority? I am aware that there is a reluctance to issue guidelines but there are precedents, for example, with regard to competitive tendering. I hope that my noble friend will give some assurance on this point.
Secondly, will those responsible for implementing the Griffiths reorganisation be encouraged to respect the principle that there should be nursing management for clinical nursing; in other words, that any nurse who holds a position of responsibility for direct patient care is accountable and answerable to a senior colleague who can evaluate her clinical competence and offer clinical support and advice when necessary? To have

137
situations where front-line nurses responsible for looking after patients only have a non-nurse senior colleague for accountability and support is professionally unacceptable.
Thirdly, can my noble friend give some guidance on the thorny problem of provisions for retirement and pensions for senior nurses who might wish to apply for managerial posts in the new structures? I have been given to understand that one reason why more nurses have not been applying for these posts is that they would lose their right to retire at the age of 55. Were they to be given such a post, they might find themselves in financial difficulties. For example, if their tenure of the post were to expire for any reason they would no longer be entitled to retire at the age at which they could have retired but would have to try to return to some other post in the NHS for an extra five years.
A final question, for interest and clarification, is this. Can my noble friend inform us as to where in the Griffiths Report or in Circular HC 84/13 the authority can be found for such massive and radical reorganisation of the National Health Service, even down to unit or ward level? We realise that managers were to be given considerable autonomy, but the degree of root and branch reorganisation which is occurring in some places appears to have no mandate in the original report. Had this been presaged, the Royal College of Nursing would have made known its representations earlier and would have tried to forestall some of the developments which it perceives as most damaging to patient care and to its own members.
I am grateful for this opportunity to present the concerns of the Royal College of Nursing, which are also my concerns and those of nurses up and down the country. I sincerely hope that the Government will take them very seriously, because what is at stake is inestimably precious: the wellbeing of the National Health Service and the future of nursing as we have known it in this country. As I have already said, the nursing profession has shown outstanding patience and tolerance in the face of abysmal salaries and tough conditions of service. They have set an example to the nation in putting the interests of those whom they serve before their own interests. But if they feel that the interests of those whom they serve are being jeopardised their patience and self-restraint may be strained beyond endurance. It is my earnest hope that the Government will demonstrate their good faith by proving that the National Health Service is safe in their hands by taking seriously the worries expressed by the Royal College of Nursing. I also hope that they will demonstrate their appreciation for a profession which has proven its dedication to that National Health Service but which is now fighting for its professional life.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am desperately sorry that we are not allowed to applaud this House. May I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, first of all for raising the subject of our discussion this evening and also for outlining in such a professional and moving way the problems that face
138
the nursing profession. I had put down a Question similar to that which the noble Baroness has asked today in the category "No Day Named" and I was contemplating at what moment it would be right to raise the subject. I must say that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has chosen the perfect moment. It really is a great tragedy that we should have to have this debate today. I doubt whether Mr. Griffiths realised the upheaval the implementation of his report would cause. I am sure that he did not intend it, and in a way it is rather a pity that he is not a Member of your Lordships' House so that we could hear him personally express his concern at the outcome of the implementation.
I myself supported the idea of a general manager, just as did the Royal College of Nursing, and I supported it particularly at unit level because there, I believe, it is essential that decision-making is done fast and urgently. I have some doubt about its importance at regional and district level, but I never imagined that the introduction of a general manager in the structure of the National Health Service should mean the breaking up of the underlying structure of balanced input from all sections of the immensely complicated body of the NHS.
I had thought in my innocence that a general manager is something in the role of an executive chairman; that he has all the advice that is needed from all sections of the service and that, if there is disagreement, there would of course be occasions when the general manager would have to take the decisions. That is not such a different position in some ways from that which was held by regional chairman and district chairman under consensus management by the officers of the authority. It happened quite often that the officers were not in agreement and that the chairman of the authority had to be the arbiter. In my innocence I thought that, apart from an input of urgency by the general manager, that was basically the way the problems of the health service would be treated.
However, it appears that I was wrong. I should like to go back a little in history. I have been connected with the health service since long before the 1974 reorganisation. I was a member of a board of governors and I was chairman of another board of governors. In those days we did not have the problems that we seem to be facing now. All your Lordships must have read many letters and articles in the press about the desire to have the matron back. I must say that if you look back to pre-1974 it was the matron and the hospital secretary or house governor who were the two people who ran the hospital. But we must also remember that in those days they were running a hospital service and not the National Health Service as we know it now.
It was purely a hospital service. In those days, a house governor or a secretary to the board who had the courage to ignore the matron's point of view was really a very courageous man and he did it, I would assume, very rarely except when for some financial reasons he had to override what the matron wanted to achieve. Then we had the reorganisation of 1974 and the health service became to a very large extent what it is now, taking in the community services, and as we know it today. That was really the first time that nurses were

139
put on an equal footing in the management teams of region, district and area. I admired enormously in 1974 the way the nurses accepted that challenge. It was an unusual position for them. They had not experienced that kind of management before. We all know that nurses—it does not apply to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—are a little diffident in relation to the medical profession. They tend to whisper a little instead of clearly stating their point of view.
I have watched the development of district, regional and area nursing officers in my region. Although they started by being fairly diffident it soon became obvious that they were invaluable members of the team. In many cases the nurse became the chairman of the team. Whenever a nurse was the chairman, the meetings were run more efficiently because a nurse tended to talk less than the men when chairman. Nurses took on a tremendous responsibility.
In the 1982 reorganisation, that position for nurses was retained. They have worked at creating a position for themselves. They were listened to in planning matters. Most members of the other professions at team level have accepted that the contribution nurses have made to the development of the National Health Service, as we see it now, has been enormous. That did not change in 1982.
We then had Griffiths and the whole picture changed. It did not change because nurses failed in the managerial positions they had achieved. It changed because there is a desire to have financial control over the National Health Service to ensure that no money is wasted. I also believe in that. I am sure that every Member of your Lordship's House believes in that, but it does not mean cutting out the nursing input.
I am an enormous supporter of the Royal College of Nursing's present campaign. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I am becoming very worried about what will happen to the National Health Service because the importance of nursing advice is not recognised.
The noble Baroness referred to the district health authorities and gave various figures. I also have those figures. She mentioned the problem of not having proper nurse representation. Perhaps one of the most appalling examples she gave was that of the nine district health authorities where the nurse has a purely advisory position and is not a member of the team or of the day-to-day management. In other words, she is there should the general manager feel like calling on her. If she is unhappy about what is happening within her district she has the right to go to the health authority, but that is like appealing to a tribunal against a sentence that you have already been given and where there is no chance to state your case or defend your point of view among your peers in the service. I believe that is a desperately dangerous position
There are 46 district health authorities where the adviser to the health authority is the director of nurse education. How can someone, however eminent a director of nurse education, be responsible at the same time for all aspects of nursing within the district—nursing in the hospital and the community? It is not physically possible for someone to do that as well as be the director of nurse education.
140
We come to unit level which is where I believe a general manager appointment would probably be a good idea. If the unit has no nurse with the appropriate level of authority, the unit and the patients in it are in great danger. It is proposed that in some units the ward sister should be the adviser to the general manager. No one has greater admiration for ward sisters than I have—they are a dedicated part of the service—but in the modern National Health Service, with its shortage of staff, they are desperately busy. They are more than overworked merely running their own wards. It is essential that the wards be run properly. I do not believe that a ward sister can take into account all the problems of the other wards and the community services and serve her own ward adequately. That is probably one of the most dangerous developments in the health service at the moment.
How will a nurse who is doing her own full-time job and who is asked to act as an adviser to the authority keep up to date with all the problems of the service? I fear that the nurse appointed to represent all the specialties within the National Health Service is likely to be the nurse in charge of the acute wards because she happens to be in the hospital near the central office. What will happen to the Cinderella services for which for many years we have fought so hard to be given a fair share of the National Health Service cake?
We cannot blame the nurse in charge of the acute wards wanting the best for her side. Obviously acute wards are terribly important. I fear that if we do not have a director of nursing services responsible solely for the running of the nursing service within each unit and district patient care will further deteriorate. That is what frightens me about the present problem.
Letters from the department and discussions with the Secretary of State and the various Ministers for Health, as they have changed, have always claimed that the whole idea of Griffiths was that each unit should have greater freedom of decision-making and that the Department of Health and Social Security did not want to be involved. I wonder how logical that is. Why is it necessary for regions and districts to submit not just their management structures to the DHSS for approval but all the advisers that they propose to appoint?
I know we do not want circulars. I was in the service long enough to know that I was buried in circulars in those days. Things have improved in the DHSS, but we do not want just letters from Ministers to chairmen of authorities which say, "The Ministry would expect" or "The Ministry hopes". What we want, whether it is in a letter or a circular, is something saying, "The management structures must include a nurse representative". I think the authorities need firmer guidelines from the DHSS, even at the risk of another circular. I believe, therefore, that every unit in this country must retain a head of nursing services working with the manager. Clinical nurses would then be managed by trained nurses, which in my view is the only way to safeguard the interests of the patients.
6.41 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for providing an opportunity for your Lordships' House to discuss this matter of very grave concern to nurses and to all

141
those who I believe have the standards of patient care in the National Health Service at heart. I would congratulate her on her very eloquent presentation of facts, with which I should like to align myself.
In rising to speak, I feel I should apologise to your Lordships' House for the fact that I am not able to be here as frequently as I would wish. That is because I hold a full-time teaching appointment in the University of Manchester. I am a nurse and a professor of nursing, so that I have the welfare of students very much at heart, together with the learning environment in which they learn to nurse and also the job satisfaction in their future career opportunities. With that I would align the job satisfaction and career opportunities of many National Health Service colleagues. But most of all I am concerned for the quality of patient care. I believe that, as one who is slightly outside the health service but is daily visiting and having contact, going into the wards, the departments and the community with students, I have some insight into what is going on and maybe I can see it a little more objectively than perhaps someone who is in the heat of the situation.
It is my experience that young people come into nursing—and increasingly mature people also come into nursing—with a very high degree of motivation to give high-quality care. Nowadays, as the noble Baroness has indicated, that includes competence with intricate machinery and increasingly with computers and with high technology of every kind. It also includes the more elusive and less easily quantifiable aspects of care: making people comfortable who are uncomfortable, preserving human dignity in all sorts of stressful situations and giving psychological and spiritual support in threatening situations. These are the things that are the very essence of nursing.
It is because these are under threat at the present time that I believe the concern of the RCN merits consideration—a concern which I believe is shared by many other professional organisations. Only today, for instance, I was contacted by the Health Visitor Association about the effect of the Griffiths reorganisation in community care. The concern is also shared with the statutuory body for nursing education in England, the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. That is evidenced by a letter recently sent by the chairman of the board to health authorities about the need for student nurse training.
I have to remind your Lordships' House that the Royal College of Nursing is a organisation which has on repeated occasions reaffirmed a "no-strike" policy in the interests of patient care. I would suggest that an organisation which has demonstrated its commitment to care to such an extent really deserves to be heard when it expresses concern for patient care. I would reiterate that the main focus of that concern is not the proportion of nurses who have achieved top management posts—some 10 per cent. in general management posts—so much as the loss of expertise of many senior members of the nursing profession and the effect that has on the quality of patient care.
I think the overall objective of efficient management and the economic use of resources is an objective with which none of us would disagree. Yet we can look at some of the various myths that have grown up about
142
the management of the nursing service and the management of the health service. I had the privilege of serving on the Royal Commission on the National Health Service between 1976 and 1979, and we looked at some of those myths. There was an idea abroad then that the proportion of nurses in management had increased greatly and that many very efficient clinical nurses has been sucked out of the clinical situation into management posts. When we looked at the figures, that was not borne out: there had been no increase in the proportion of nurses in management.
We also looked at consensus management, and many members of the commission came to that discussion with great misgivings about the subject. But we took voluminous evidence and in fact the evidence was that that was working very well after the few years that it had been in position. The delays in decision-making, we found, were delays in passing information up and down between various levels of the National Health Service, between region, area and district. We recommended that one level of management should be lost.
However, I do not wish to enter any particular argument tonight about the virtues or otherwise of consensus management. The only thing I would say is that in a service as intricate as the National Health Service balance between the varying interests and the competition for resources in that service has to be achieved by consensus. One of my great misgivings is that in the present reorganisation the assets, the people who can contribute towards decision-making about the allocation of resources, have been stripped away.
Why has this happened? In 1983 Sir Roy Griffiths said in his report:
"A general manager should be identified within the existing team or elsewhere according to the chairman's view of the local requirement. This is not intended to weaken the professional responsibilities of other chief officers, especially in relation to decisions taken on matters within their own sphere of responsibility".
So the Griffiths Report did not recommend the wholesale restructuring of the National Health Service at local level that we are now seeing; nor the restructuring of professional responsibility which has taken place in the name of Griffiths. The extent to which that has taken place has, I believe, been very amply rehearsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I am concerned, therefore, at the effects on patient care of the rather blind and thoughtless attempts at economic savings that are presently being made.
I wish to look at our methods of measuring efficiency. I suggest that the methods of making savings by the sacrifice of experienced professional posts and cuts in clinical staff in many places are a false form of economy. The measures of efficiency used neglect some of the most important aspects of nursing care. We tend to measure efficiency in quantitative terms, in those rather unfortunate phrases of "patient turnover" and "patient throughput", rather than the quality of care or even the effectiveness of care.
How does less than adequate staffing affect the nursing care given? In a district general hospital on my doorstep a seven-day survey of the pattern of nurse staffing was carried out recently on 114 wards with 2,487 beds. The minimum staffing requirement to give basic care and to carry out the average work of the

143
wards was determined for each of three shifts. Then they looked at what the failure to achieve the minimum staffing ratio resulted in with regard to the pattern of nursing care. A whole lot of essential nursing care had to be reduced. For instance, nurses were unable to turn patients who were bedfast two-hourly, one of the essential features of preventing pressure sores. The frequency of toileting for old people was reduced. Old people were told that they could be toileted only two-hourly. Some patients were prescribed hourly fluids to keep up their fluid balance. Nurses were able to give those fluids less than at hourly intervals.
These were increased mistakes in drug administration. Many of the rehabilitative measures in nursing care were eroded. It is far quicker to dress a patient with a stroke yourself than to encourage that patient to dress himself and therefore to encourage his rehabilitation. When a nurse is in a hurry when the staffing ratios are short, she will dress the patient herself and thus the whole objective of rehabilitation is lost. So we can say, "Oh, yes, the ward was managed with fewer nurses", because in nursing there seems to be a moral virtue of making do, but the measures for prevention of pressure sores, the promotion of continence, the promotion of mobility and the keeping of the patient hydrated were all reduced.
Why was the study carried out? There has been a suggestion that there was an unnecessary overlap of nurses at certain times of the day and that reduction of this overlap not only in this hospital but over the country could achieve tremendous savings nationally. I am old enough in the nursing profession to remember that it was in the 1960s, after a lot of discussion, that a period of overlap of nurses in the afternoon was instituted. It was instituted as an educational measure so that student nurses could learn and could integrate the theory that they were learning in the classroom with the practice that they were getting in the ward. True, by taking away the overlap one could achieve an economy in nurses, but the nursing education would be eroded. But in this study in the district general hospital, if one excluded that overlap period, at other times there was a total deficit of 205 nurses during that week if a minimum staffing ratio was to be maintained. Ninety-seven out of 113 wards were below the minimum staffing ratio. So in a place where there was apparent overlap, where savings were being demanded of the nursing staff and where there had been a cutback of nursing staff because the authority was overspent, the minimum staffing requirements to maintain basic care were not present.
I have spoken of the way in which necessary physical nursing care is eroded by low staffing ratios, but the measures for comfort, for dignity and for psychological and spiritual support are those which are eroded most quickly. There is less time to talk to patients if one is understaffed; less time to talk to relatives; less time as a community nurse to educate the family about how they should care for the patient in the absence of the nurse. Not all this "cruel absence of care", as we could call it, is directly attributable to the Griffiths reorganisation, but these are examples of things that can happen when economies are made—looking at the surface of what is apparent and
144
looking for ways in which staff can be cut without any recourse to the expert nursing advice that needs to be fed into that decision-making.
I know that it will be argued that there has been an overall increase in the numbers of nurses. There is a fascinating account of this from the Centre for Health Economics that indicates just where in the health service these extra nurses are being used and the type of work in which they are being used. But I want to go on and touch briefly on the effects on nursing education.
The learning environment in which students learn to nurse is of supreme importance. In the school the student will learn now of a great deal of research that is going on contributing to many innovations in patient care, some of which I have mentioned. The student then goes on to a ward, where the demands are such that continence and mobility cannot be promoted; the confused cannot be orientated to reality; the anxious cannot be reassured; and the patient who needs teaching about his care cannot be taught. So the school is teaching standards of good patient care, yet we place students in positions of conflict where they cannot carry out the care that they have been taught.
What happens? I believe that the service picks up the cost of poor care. There are studies which show how much the care of bedsores costs the nation; yet we are putting nurses in positions where they cannot give the preventive care that will prevent those bedsores occurring. What a false economy!
I wish to comment not just on the standards of care which we see undergoing an erosion but on the loss of nursing expertise that is taking place. The noble Baroness referred to the erosion of the work of a regional nursing officer. To my way of thinking, she was one of the most innovative nursing managers that this country has seen for a long time. We lose her expertise, and that has a cost attached to it.
The divisional nursing officer for the community in the district next to where I work and the divisional nursing officer for acute care are both taking early retirement. The district nursing officer is now a personnel officer. In the county borough where I am domiciled, the community nursing officer is taking early retirement. Not only are all those people lost to the health service but so too is their expertise lost to the nursing service and to patient care. The lack of their replacement means that any advice on nursing is being pushed further and further down in the level of the nursing service. I know that our colleagues in the community who are now in megaunits are feeling that very keenly.
The concern of the profession is seen in the growing volume of anecdotal evidence that there is about what is happening. Daily I receive stories in my office. One general manager suggested that if staff nurses could relieve ward sisters when they were off duty, then there must be no real need of ward sisters. Some of those gentlemen come from concerns such as the Royal Navy, Tesco's and Woolworth's. I suggest that such would be an interesting principle to apply in other places.
Another general manager demanded that the director of education should cost the meetings that she

145
held with her staff. I suggest that that is a very good idea, and I have adopted it myself. But then there was an edict that the director of education should hold no meetings with her staff; that there should be no communications in the school of nursing. In another place a unit manager is an anaesthetist. I understand that he rushes out between cases and carries out the work that the matron once carried out in managing the nursing service. What a way to run a health service, let alone a nursing service!
Next year I shall celebrate 40 years of association with the nursing service, both pre- and post-National Health Service. I do not believe that I have ever experienced such a time of stress and such a time of wastage of this country's resources.
At the beginning, upon the introduction of the Griffiths proposals, during the course of a short debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I raised certain issues about the effects on nursing and the nursing service. In reply, the noble Baroness the Minister gave assurances. I went away from that debate feeling happy. The noble Baroness said:
"The purpose of the Griffiths recommendation is… to bring the best possible service to patients… At unit and district level the chosen manager could well be a nurse. Even if that is not so, nurses will be managed by nurses".—(Official Report, 9/11/83; col. 913.)
In the light of the concern felt by the Royal College of Nursing, and in the light of so much anecdotal and factual evidence that is being amassed, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give active consideration to what is happening in the National Health Service and that nurses will indeed be managed by nurses.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, after three expert speeches, I can only comment as a consumer and also perhaps as one who fought for the National Health Service long before it came into being. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. In my innocence, I had previously put down a Starred Question for yesterday. However, one morning at breakfast I received my copy of the Minutes of Proceedings and noted that the noble Baroness had put down her own Unstarred Question, and then I realised that it was far more important.
Something else happened that morning at breakfast. I received through the post two very attractive leaflets from my bank which informed me that as an Access cardholder, I could obtain 15 per cent. discount on membership of BUPA. I then picked up the local newspaper, and the headline that greeted me was:
"No money, no nurses, no beds".
It is to that particular situation that I want to refer briefly before making my general points.
That reference in the newspaper refers to the situation at Queen Mary's Hospital in Sidcup—a hospital with which I have been linked for many years since it came into being. Because of illness among nurses at that hospital, 42 beds have been closed to "ensure patient care". The reason for those indefinite closures was that no money was available for agency nurses and staff—and I understand that agency nurses cost at least 25 per cent. more. Nursing recruitment has been restricted and the present nursing staff are
146
already under strength. I say quite emphatically from my own experience that the situation at that hospital is becoming absolutely intolerable.
The action taken at that hospital, including the previous temporary closure of a GP ward (now likely to be permanent), was taken, it is alleged, to maintain patient care under difficult financial circumstances. To illustrate those difficult financial circumstances, that hospital has just had an X-ray tube go "west" and it does not have the money to replace it. Not yet—but we hope to get the money one day. Nevertheless, as a result GPs cannot send their patients to be X-rayed and, at the moment, only people who are in hospital can be X-rayed. In the meantime, and after all that, the lists of people awaiting beds and patient care will get longer and longer and longer.
Faced with a major shortage of cash in the next financial year, the district health authority is confronted by acute problems and has set up a think tank to try to resolve them, as further reductions of services are absolutely in evidence. Bexley Health Authority, faced next year with an overspend of £1·6 million for 1986–87, is already in debt and is desperately trying to cope with providing a service.
The reason for that problem is a strange one. It is that that hospital happens to be successful. It is inundated with patients. The workload—which means more work for nurses—has increased by 15 per cent. but there has been no increase in the nursing staff. Another ridiculous situation is that more consultants have been appointed but nobody has thought to provide adequate nursing staff to cover the work of those consultants—and consultants cannot do their jobs properly without adequate cover and nursing care.
Nursing care, as we have already been told, covers 24 hours each day. The increased high workload has meant increased pressure on nursing staff, which in turn increases illness among them. Consultants rely on nurses for their 24-hour cover, but stress impedes good nursing and patient care. With the increased workload—and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, mentioned nursing strength—student nurses are heavily engaged on duties within their training experience, but (and this is a very important point) it means that nurse training itself suffers because the young student nurses are too busy elsewhere. That in itself is a serious matter.
Anyone who has escorted a person to an outpatients' department, as I have to do fairly frequently, and who has seen the masses of waiting patients, seen the nurses protecting the harassed doctors, and has seen them soothing and calming patients, will wonder how on earth they manage to cope and keep their cool. There must be stress reaction when they are off duty. That is where illness arises. Pay awards are not part of this debate, but health authorities have added to their financial worries because of the system imposed upon them.
There is another point. There are many people who say, "Yes, privatise". They say that we should privatise this and that in the health service to save money. But do not forget that every time you privatise redundancy payments must be made and the health authority has a further financial burden. The situation at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup, is financially

147
criticial because of inadequate funding. Our two Members of Parliament, Mr. Heath and the Member for Bexleyheath, Mr. Townsend, are at present actively chasing the Ministers.
The general position of overwork and, to some extent, chaos as far as nurses are concerned and the facts I have given are not unique to Queen Mary's Hospital. It is widespread throughout the National Health Service. Small wonder that good, trained nurses are being lost to the private sector and to industry.
Some strange things seem to be going on. I understand, for instance, that a chief nursing officer has been sent to British Leyland in order that she should acquaint herself with quality control. Are we to assume that patients are items on a production line? Almost all decisions taken in the National Health Service affect patient care, either directly or indirectly. It is essential that there is an experienced nurse manager at each level of decision-making. The Griffiths Report on the management function clearly stated that nurses will still lead nurses. In each management structure there must be clear lines of professional accountability and leadership.
There is a further point which is extremely important so far as the Health Service is concerned. To maintain and encourage nurses and midwives to be both recruited and retrained within the NHS a recognisable career structure with professional management and expertise needs to be retained, in the interests of nurses and midwives but essentially in the interests of patient care. As I have already indicated, and others have, it is only nurses and midwives who give patient care on a continuous basis over each 24-hour period.
I assume that those of us taking part in this debate have received letters from the BMA and the NAHA. The efforts being made by the BMA to ensure that their members are represented at district and unit management level are most impressive. What strikes me is that in the BMA letter there is no mention whatever of the value of round-the-clock nursing care in ensuring the success of the doctors' skills. The same representation given to doctors under pressure from the BMA should be given to nurses. Nursing is only mentioned incidentally in the opening paragraph in reference to this debate.
However, the letter I received from the director of the National Association of Health Authorities is more like a script from "Yes, Minister". It is quite chauvinistic and it made me extremely angry until I saw the funny side of it. I quote one example:
"No one could possibly disagree that nurses are best placed to make professional decisions about professional nursing matters. But management of the NHS is much more than that. It is about ensuring that, in a multi-million pound enterprise, the most effective decisions are made, thereby ensuring that the service given to patients is of the highest quality".
Tell that to the people in Sidcup and the patients who are on the waiting list for treatment. It is not management; it is downright mismanagement. I quote again:
"The Griffiths Report and its subsequent implementation offer a bright new future for the NHS and its patients. Quicker and better decisions, resulting from more decisive management and stronger leadership, will create an improved service".
148
It continues:
"Managers cannot expect to operate effectively in a climate where they are constantly being told what to do by Whitehall".
Strong and decisive leadership and decisions leading to an improved service can be secured only if backed by adequate financing. As for being told by Whitehall what to do, well, after all, that is where the money comes from via the taxpayer; and do not forget the masses of circulars and directives emanating from the Elephant and Castle.
The management of the NHS at both district and unit level involves two highly skilled professions—doctors and nurses. We are not dealing with a supermarket chain, but an area of professional skills affecting people's lives and welfare. It is an extremely sensitive area. Therefore, it is essential that the skills of both the doctors and the nurses should receive adequate representation to enhance management and certainly give us a better service than we have at present.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am much obliged to my noble friend Lady Cox for tabling this Unstarred Question. It is a natural but regrettable fact of life that when you are in good health you have little that goads you on to consider the lot of the nursing profession, whereas when you are ill, immobilised or elderly perforce you think about the nurses a great deal.
During two recent spells in hospital and a close involvement with an assessment ward and a long-stay ward at a geriatric unit I have been heartened by the high standard of care, the skills and duties of the nurses, and by the warmth of their hearts. In case my last remarks suggest that I am just an aged sentimentalist let me recount a recent piece of hard evidence to support them.
The patients' association of one unit where I was accommodated is trying to raise £1 million in order to move to better and safer accommodation. Knowing the struggle made by their patients to raise the funds the nurses, despite their hard work, organised a sponsored bike ride. They were accompanied by many of their admirers on a 40-mile route from Clapham to Tunbridge Wells. Triumphantly they returned with £1,400 to contribute to the fund. The next day they were on duty again providing their therapeutic brand of hope and happiness, no matter what their own personal problems.
I make a point of this event because it came when the morale of nurses was low. They were dispirited to find that their take-home pay compared unfavourably with that of persons having far less vital responsibilities. Given the present sophisticated machinery and methods used on the wards, lives depend perhaps more than in any other era on the skill and vigilance of the nurse. The remaining portion of the last increased pay award I believe has just been implemented. I only hope that this time it will not, as it usually does, coincide with higher deductions for food, emoluments, insurance and tax, leaving them still with a level of take-home pay that would be sneered at by many industrial workers.
Nurses have said to me that, knowing current Government spending on hospital and community

149
health services stands at £10·4 billion, growing next year to £15·5 billion, they wonder why recognition of the part played by nurses is so far down the line. That is why it is imperative that this year's review body award, when it appears, should be realistic and designed to take account of the greedy clawback at source.
There are nurses who say, generously, that they see their chosen career as rewarding and fulfilling apart from the pay aspect. But they do not and cannot believe that they are seriously expected to work their hearts out for poor pay and uncertain prospects. Some of them try to subsidise their pay by agency nursing in their off-duty hours, and thereby probably undermine their health; others are lured abroad or into other jobs where the work and the environment are less to their liking but where the money seems worth the sacrifice of their training. Those who just cannot make both ends meet, often because of family commitments, leave the profession disillusioned and bereft of their earlier aspirations.
As a layman it seems to me that in the Griffiths reorganisation very close attention should be paid to reducing the hassle that nurses have to undergo. We know that many hospitals are economising hard, and that creates an atmosphere which can stifle good work. There is a difference between that situation and a thrifty routine, which surely is the right balance to be struck. Nurses deserve all the help that they can get on the wards, provided that it can be offered within the limits of sensible housekeeping—and this goes for the provision of up-to-date equipment. It amazed me to find no hoist on the wards of a famous London hospital. This meant that two nurses and the patient were locked in what to me seems an obsolete method of lifting, which puts nurses' backs at great risk and causes patients much anxiety. To someone like me who regularly makes use of a hoist, this struck me as at least very unfortunate.
In order to cope with the current method of discharging cases from hospital into the community as early as possible, it is really important that the domiciliary services should be closely integrated. Social services departments have a very heavy task in providing home helps, who are invaluable and can prevent many a disaster, as is the case with the meals-on-wheels service and, where relevant, the occupational therapists; but the district and community nurses are the closest link with hospital treatment and care.
As a consumer I can vouch for the fact that the district nurses get me up, dress me and put me in my wheelchair every day of the year. The clinic from which my nurses come serves several areas. Almost always it is short-staffed and the nurses are hard-pressed. They come from many homelands, and they wear a blue, green or brown uniform depending on their qualifications. To those of us who so much admire and value their professional services and approach, it is interesting to see how they work over a very wide area and carry considerable responsibilities. Only a few of them drive a car; some bicycle; and the rest cover wide distances on foot. The normal morning case-load appears to be eight or nine visits, some of short duration and others taking up to one and a half hours.
150
In the recent bad weather walking has meant a great deal of trudge and sludge. I sincerely hope that any modernisation of the nursing services will include consideration of this invaluable branch, and of its travelling problems in particular. It is not so bad if the pay is good at the end of it all, but I find it mystifying and alarming that highly-qualified nurses in this service receive a take-home pay which compares unfavourably with that of a secretary or a civil servant whose prime responsibility is not the actual lifeline of a human being, as is the case with nurses.
With society's ever-increasing demands for care in the community, we must realise that domiciliary nurses have a most important role to play. This is a service of which this country can be proud, and we should guard it. Obviously, nurses are best placed to make professional decisions about professional nursing matters. Nevertheless, they are worried at the idea that they could be excluded from management decisions within health authorities, as we have heard. Under the new recommendations it is surely intended that the new managers will obtain the best for everyone out of the improvements that are now taking place in the National Health Service. It will be for management to take the professional advice of the nursing profession. Those of us who are concerned must devoutly hope that every effort will be made on all sides to reach accord.
The object of my intervention is to plead with my noble friend the Minister, and through her to the Secretary of State, that the efficiency, dedication and loyalty of the great nursing service shall never be taken for granted. Then, with its great traditions and with the leadership of such distinguished ladies as my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, the highest quality and standard of nursing will be deservedly honoured and maintained.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us the opportunity of trying to bring to the notice of Her Majesty's Government some of the anxieties felt by the nursing profession due to the most recent reorganisation of the National Health Service, which in turn is having an effect on patient care.
On the way here I was questioned by my taxi driver who wanted to know what I was going to do in your Lordships' House. I told him that we were going to discuss the effects of management reorgnisation of the National Health Service on nurses and patients. He asked: "Is that the Government bringing in businessmen to run the National Health Service?" and he added, "I would not want them looking after me". My imagination drew a picture of Mr. Victor Paige, the general manager at the Department of Health and Social Security, running around a ward with a bedpan.
Who knows best what patients need and how to organise their care? While in hospital, the people who are closest to the patients and in whose care they are 24 hours a day seven days a week, are the nurses on the wards. The Government has said, "The National Health Service is safe in our hands". I would rather they had said, "Patients being treated by the National Health Service are safe in our hands".
The National Health Service is a very large organisation. I am concerned that the further away

151
from the patients that the top management goes, the more the patients will suffer. It is natural that employees at whatever level try to justify their positions. The National Health Service has often been criticised for too much administration and too little direct patient care. Many people agree with the idea of having general managers so that there is an identifiable person who can be singled out to be accountable and responsible for decisions. In the past there has been too much buck-passing and cover-up.
A general manager at the DHSS, at regions and at districts, seemed acceptable but it now appear that there are general managers emerging at every level—more and more managers—and this adds up to yet more administration. The nurses have realised that they may no longer be directed by nurses, perhaps because general managers are trying to justify their own existence. Nurses have been told by the Government that they themselves can apply to be general managers, but most of them do not want to manage other parts of the health service. They have chosen nursing as their vocation and their profession. That is what I think is not fully understood.
Nursing is a caring profession. It also has a highly technical side, with many specialties. If the manager who manages nurses does not fully understand the many aspects of nursing and has to deviate to other aspects of running a hospital, it seems that standards could well drop and many needs of a patient be overlooked. Nurses feel that unless they have a direct line to the district general manager via a director of nursing their many vital requests may be overlooked.
Everyone knows that the National Health Service could be a bottomless pit, with its many demands, and all people who are interested in the NHS should welcome the schemes which have given better value for money. But I have witnessed real concern from some very experienced and dedicated nurses, some who themselves are retired and no longer have a financial interest. They are worried that their profession will be damaged by people who do not fully understand it. It is now easy to witness petty rules being implemented in the name of cost-efficiency savings. It is sometimes the little things in life which can mean a lot.
Some months ago I mentioned the fact that many nurses were concerned and unhappy to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who should personally value the vital need for good nursing care. A few weeks ago I personally witnessed the day that a very experienced sister from the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a London teaching hospital took early retirement. Everyone, especially the doctors, seemed dismayed. She had worked at that hospital for 30 years. The straw which broke the camel's back was that the general manager had made a ruling that staff no longer could have a kettle to make a cup of coffee or tea. Machines, where people pay for a revolting cup of something and which generally get jammed so that they lose their money and get nothing, had been installed. I wonder what would happen in your Lordships' House if, for instance, the hardworking staff in the Whips' Offices could no longer make their cup of coffee.
152
A dedicated and experienced sister who has skills of life gives confidence to patients and trains both nurses and junior doctors. Such people do not leave in the middle of a difficult delivery just because the time has come to go off duty. If the general managers behave in the way I described in that example, the new generation of nurses may well change their attitudes, and heaven help the patients and hospital morale! There must be senior staff to direct and teach juniors. There should also be a worthwhile career structure.
Another example that I heard of only last Wednesday was told to me first-hand by an ex-patient of St. Thomas's Hospital. A journalist from one of the influential women's magazines went in for an operation. The ward sister went off duty and there was no replacement. The ward routine deteriorated and the patient's brother, who is a solicitor, complained to the management that the patients were not receiving adequate care. The hospital responded, but the nurses made life too unpleasant for the patient. She discharged herself early, and will not forget the experience in a hurry. This is the sort of very disturbing incident which happens when staff do not have the direction of a sister and back-up cover. The backlash always lands on the patients.
I have been told by a nursing officer from a nearby health authority to Milton Keynes that Milton Keynes health district may dispense with individual ward sisters and only have a few in charge of a group of wards. That this idea of floating sisters was ever suggested is very worrying. I hope that this is only a rumour, and I think that the idea has now been dropped. But I hope that the Minister can give an assurance tonight that this will never happen in other districts. In some districts recruitment of nurses is not very good. That sort of insecurity would only make it worse. Nurses now seem to prefer to work in the community. Could pressure in hospitals be becoming too great?
The Government must do something to help patients, because it is patients who will suffer. The nurses can at least work elsewhere if things become impossible. They can go abroad or work in the private sector. Many patients are at the mercy of the Government. The patients who cannot afford private health care have no choice. The Government must step in before it is too late. It is no good just saying that it is up to the health districts or regions to do what they think best. It was the Government who approved the appointments of the general managers, as has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. They must surely now see that they do not destroy our much sought after British nursing profession.
Many people up and down the country mourn the disappearance of the matron, the figure who all patients and nurses knew and whose authority they respected. Now we have new and worrying dangers facing the hospital service. Nurses and patients have to cope with several dangerous infections and cross-infections, and nurses have to brace themselves for the increasing violence in accident and emergency departments. The rule in hospitals should not be one of fear and of not having enough equipment and staff to do the job well. It should be one of teamwork and co-operation, with support and guidance from the top, right down to the most junior nurse.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, this is one of the most important debates that this House has had for a long time. It is a great pity that it comes in the form of an Unstarred Question, because it puts my noble friend the Minister, who is dedicated to her department and to the National Health Service, in the difficult position of having had a number of questions and brickbats thrown at her.
I take part in this debate because last July I was a patient in a national health hospital for the first time in 37 years. The time before that was 1947, when I spent two periods in a military hospital during my national service with the British Army in Austria. That hospital had a matron, and, by jove, we knew it! She came from Scotland, which was fortunately the home of my mother and my grandparents and so I got to know her fairly well. But that hospital was run very much by the matron, as those noble Lords who have been in military hospitals will know. Even the commandant went in fear of her. She was wholly dedicated, and if one was seriously ill, as I and a number of my colleagues were for some weeks, the treatment and the nursing were absolutely first class and the whole hospital was extremely well administered.
If ever there was a case for having noble Baronesses in your Lordships' House, this is the day! We have already had several quite outstanding speeches. I am sure that we have at least one more to come.
One of the problems at present is the fact that in hospital one does not know who is the matron. There are area and district nursing officers and principal nursing officers. That makes it difficult, particularly for young nurses who may have a personal problem to know to whom they should apply.
During my time in your Lordships' House, I think that we have had at least seven reorganisations of the NHS. I am bound to say that when the reorganisation came in during the tenure of Sir Keith Joseph (who was again a dedicated Minister of Health) a great deal of damage was done. At that time I was a member of a house committee of a long-stay mental hospital. Many of our Lordships will have known the late Lord Grenfell to whom I have referred previously in your Lordships' House. He was chairman of the hospital management committee of that area. If there was any problem, the hospital management committee, often through the house committee, could get to grips with it. They would not necessarily solve it. If it was very serious it obviously had to go to a much higher authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was very much concerned with that area at the time and gave impressive service.
My experience recently in hospital was one of extremely dedicated nursing. At night there was a shortage of nurses. On many occasions there was not a ward sister. The staff nurses had to take on big responsibilities. But the service given to the patients was quite exemplary, as I believe it always will be. From time to time we hear a great deal about ill-treatment of patients in our hospitals. This cannot, of course, be justified. But if there is a shortage of nurses it may well inevitably happen. This is one of the problems that we have to face at present.
154
I am not necessarily against reorganisation. I am not against managers. I do not believe that the Royal College of Nursing, with which I have had a great deal of contact, is against managers. This late hour is not an appropriate time, at least for someone like myself, to develop that argument, but it will have to be faced in the future. There is much concern throughout the health service over the present rates of pay, as my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, and others, have mentioned, and about extreme shortages in some hospitals and the long hours that nurses often have to work.
This is happening not only in the smaller hospitals. It affects the London teaching hospitals. My younger daughter trained in one of the well-known London teaching hospitals. After a few months' training she was confronted by an elderly man having a very serious heart attack. The two ward sisters had been called to an emergency. She coped as best she could. The man died. This was no fault of the hospital, because clearly he was terminally ill. But how many similar incidents have occurred, not only in teaching hospitals but also in district hospitals and general hospitals? It cannot always be avoided. But with the present state of staff shortages in the health service there is an on-going danger.
I have always been dedicated to the National Health Service. I have always used it. The present Government, I believe, are spending more on the National Health Service than has been done previously. At the same time there is the question of whether more money needs to be spent on the nursing service. We tend to spend, I believe, in our health care too much on administration. Of course, one must have administration. If, however, we are really to have a dedicated nursing team in the future, as we have now, we have to face the realities of what the Royal College of Nursing has said and treat the health service in a much more generous manner.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, this has been a very remarkable debate. All your Lordships are deeply grateful, I believe, to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for opening the debate and for the manner in which she did so. The noble Baroness made a remarkable speech, exemplary in every way. It was, as I believe the noble Baroness who has to reply to the debate will recognise, a damning indictment of the way in which the nursing profession is being treated in the National Health Service today. No one can accuse the noble Baroness of irresponsible talk or of playing party politics with a dedicated profession. She cannot be accused of over-dramatising the situation. And certainly she cannot be accused of talking about a subject of which she does not know very much. She knows much more than I do and much more, with due respect, than most of the men who have spoken in the debate.
It has been a remarkable debate. I was delighted that it brought the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, to us. Even though she is not here as often as we would wish, the noble Baroness has made, and continues to make, an outstanding contribution to nurse education. She speaks, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, with great experience and authority. It was very notable that Lady McFarlane

155
said that after 40 years she had never experienced such stress in the nursing profession as exists now.
I do not believe that anyone would disagree with Lady Lane-Fox who said that nurses are wonderfully caring people. I certainly share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the quality of nursing is still extraordinarily high. But this has been a debate of great criticism in depth. I hope that the message has got home to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. If not, let me go over it again.
Today's argument about management is perhaps unfortunate but probably inevitable. Some of us warned the Government that the business principles that would probably guide the general managers, appointed under the Griffiths reorganisation, were likely to, if not bound to, create conflicts and tensions with the professions such as doctors and nurses. But, as stated by two or three noble Lords, no one thought that the reorganisation would be as fundamental as it has turned out to be.
Let us remind ourselves of the colossal role that nurses fulfil in the whole of our health service and especially the hospitals. They form the largest single part of the workforce, accounting for over 50 per cent. of the staff—around half a million people. It accounts for 40 per cent. of the budget. As my noble friend Lord Wallace said, nursing is the one service that is truly responsible for patients 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all the year round. If anyone asks where the buck stops, the buck stops with the nurse on duty at the time the problem arises.
I should like to quote Mr. Trevor Clay, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing:
"The voice of nursing has to be heard and acted upon every day at every level in the health service, not just once a month at a health authority meeting. That will not work. The nursing voice must carry authority and not simply be advisory".
That was a profoundly wise statement to make. I say to Trevor Clay that his fulfilment of the role of general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing shows a standard of leadership that is worthy of anyone in this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was I believe right to say that the principal concern was not the number of nurses who had been appointed to health authorities. The figures are certainly very disturbing. They are less than 10 per cent. But that is not the principal point. I think we should all have been a little happier if more nurses had been appointed at district level than has been the case. A very small percentage of nurses have been appointed at district level. But what is much more significant and disturbing to the Royal College—and I must say I share their concerns—is what is happening at district level with the role, the effectiveness and the voice of the nurse being heard at the time when decisions are taken.
The Royal College of Nursing conducted a survey and covered 138 district health authorities. I want to give one or two examples. They found 28 district health authorities in which there was no chief nursing officer post at all. In this situation there was no nurse member of the management team at district level and the professional advice to the health authority was delegated either to a director of nursing services from one of the units who could not be expected to
156
understand the needs of all the units—perhaps the director of nursing education, who, if she was concentrating on education could not be expected to understand all the service needs—or the chairman of the professional advisory committee.
The Secretary of State, Mr. Norman Fowler, in a letter which he wrote in November to Trevor Clay—and I am quoting—said:
"In practice … we would expect that the authorities will need a nursing adviser, at senior management level, whose main responsibility is the provision of nursing advice to the authority".
That was an authoritative statement, and it has not happened. Certainly it is the view of the Royal College of Nursing that none of the structures to which I have just referred is satisfactory or matches up to that description. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, placed in such a position a director of nursing services in one unit would find it difficult to have an over-view of the work of all nurses in the whole authority.
If I may take another group, nine district health authorities have a chief nursing officer who is purely advisory. The individual is not a member of the district management team and will have no direct line management responsibility for nursing. They are excluded from participation in day-to-day management which would give them real influence over decisions being taken.
If I may give my third example, 46 district health authorities have a chief nursing officer who is adviser to the health authority but who also has a direct responsibility for the management of nurse education—nurse education having generally been run on an authority-wide basis. This is another post which is essentially advisory, with all the problems that have been outlined.
The scope of an effective chief nurse should encompass the whole authority and all aspects of nursing particularly the practice in the hospitals and the community. The chief nurse who is directly responsible only for nurse education will in time come to focus on education rather than practice and will be seen by the health authority as the voice of nursing on education alone rather than on the whole of nursing practice.
All district management structures have had to be approved by the DHSS. I emphasise this because the whole question comes down to one of responsibility: who is to do what about this situation? First, we know that the decisions about the appointment of all general managers from top to bottom were approved by the Secretary of State. This is an issue which several times has been raised in this House as to why certain managers who had been appointed by their authorities were then turned down by the Secretary of State. However, that is past. All managers are appointed by the Secretary of State.
It is also true, as I have said, that all district management structures have had to be approved by the DHSS. Therefore, if there has been a system within a district or a region which has been unsatisfactory, which has denied to the chief nurse the main opportunity of representing his or her profession and of having the authority that he or she is entitled to have, then that system has been approved by the Secretary of State.

157
One has to say that the situation as we now see it is a very serious one and runs quite contrary to that which was set out in the quotation which I read from Norman Fowler's letter of 16th November, 1984. If one listens to everything that has been said—and I address the noble Baroness—from the beginning of this debate to the end, it all suggests that there is a major problem to be tackled. We have to assume that if the problem of management and the role of the nurse and the voice of the nurse in management is not put right then the morale of nurses within the profession, which, as has been said, is very low, will get lower and we shall see more of those distinguished people who have served the service for 20 or 30 years leaving before retirement age because they are dissatisfied with the structure under which they are forced to work. I therefore say to the noble Baroness who has the responsibility of replying that she must get this message over to the Secretary of State and must do so "pdq", because he has to get this matter straight.
We were talking earlier about circulars. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that she was used to receiving circulars. Some of them were sent to her by me, and I do not regret many of them. Perhaps one or two of them could be shortened—we all expect that. But a new circular is now required. The noble Baroness said that there needs to be from the Government a new circular on nursing which sets down some minimums, such as having a director of nursing services as the head of nursing in every unit; such as ensuring that the first line of accountability for a clinical nurse is to a nurse manager who can fully understand the whole range of complex problems and give professional advice and support. These are principles which should be adhered to by every unit manager.
We also want a statement which emphasises compassion and humanity as being just as important as cost-effectiveness and throughput. I get fed up, I have to say to the noble Baroness, that every time we raise a question in this House we are told that more patients have been pushed through, that more money has been provided; but we are not very certain that a better service is being provided as a result of what is being done.
I often think that patients are being pushed through the health service too quickly and often they have to come back again as new patients because of that. This is not just the fault of the hospital which wants to achieve its turnover, and the general manager who wants to produce his facts and figures to show what a rapid turnover he has, but it is also due to the inadequacy of the services in the community to support the patient who is discharged.
That is what we are asking about. There is no point in saying at this stage that we should scrap the Griffiths Report. The Griffiths Report is here to stay, whether one likes it or not. What we want is that it should work effectively in the interests of the patient; and there is no profession more directly related to the daily interests of the patient than that of nursing.
At the very beginning Lady Cox put four questions to the Minister, I shall not add any new questions because those were the fundamental ones. There was another question put by the noble Baroness, Lady
158
Masham, which makes five. I want the noble Baroness the Minister to reply as best she can, but, more than anything else, I ask her to convey to the Secretary of State, who I think does not yet understand, the extent to which in the nursing profession up and down the country, from responsible organisations like the RCN to the trade union organisations representing nurses, there is now a deep concern about the role of nurses in management at every level, and that this is something which must be put right because otherwise the National Health Service will suffer even more severely than it is suffering now.
8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lady Cox has instigated this debate, if only, I hope, to clear the air. I have listened with considerable interest to what has been said and I shall try to answer all the points that have been raised. I hope at the same time to answer the original Question that my noble friend Lady Cox has asked.
The Government's reaction to the Royal College of Nursing's campaign is to regard it as a sadness that they decided to present their views in this way. It is particularly disappointing in view of the fact that my colleagues and I have always been more than willing to meet with the Royal College of Nursing and discuss any concerns that they may have, and I know that health authority chairmen feel the same way. As my noble friend Lady Cox said, it is early days.
I fully appreciate that change always causes concern for staff; and with 14 regional health authorities, 191 district health authorities and over 600 units all undergoing management change, I am hardly going to pretend that there will be no local hiccups anywhere. There are bound to be a few. As a member of a regional health authority, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, through her experience, will agree with me. I also acknowledge that some nurses feel bruised by the experience of putting in for, hut not getting, general management posts. However, I also believe that the best way forward is through constructive and forward-looking discussion rather than through expensive campaigns in the media. I should like to think that many nurses are looking ahead in anticipation of seeing many more nurses filling management posts as further opportunities arise over the next few years.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, raised the question of economies. I must make clear that economies have not been our principal concern in introducing the concept of general management. Right from the start—and I feel that it is important to stress this point in answer to my noble friend Lady Cox—the key objective in introducing general management to the NHS (as recommended in the Griffiths Report) has been to improve service to patients. Perhaps I may quote from the guidance sent to health authorities in June 1984 which set the ball rolling in the National Health Service:
"The primary objective for health authorities in implementing the Report's recommendations must be to achieve changes at Unit level and below. If there were no observable improvement in services at that level, in the eyes of patients and the community within three to five years, then there would be no point in making changes at District Health Authority level and above".

159
Our primary aim is still to see improvements at the point where the patient receives a service. I remain convinced that this will be achieved by, first, improving the way and the speed with which decisions are made; secondly, by ensuring those decisions are taken as near as possible to the services and patients they affect; and, thirdly, by ensuring doctors and nurses are as fully involved in management as possible.
I must respectfully tell the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, that it is nonsense to suggest that managers who know nothing about nursing are taking over nursing affairs. In the first place, at the important unit level more than three times as many doctors and nurses have been appointed as general managers than people from outside the NHS; and those from outside will have the benefit of first-class medical and nursing advice. Indeed, a senior nurse of my acquaintance said to me last week that any manager who did not consult with nurses is a "damn fool". I can assure your Lordships that we are certainly not in the business of appointing "damn fools" as managers.
In the second place, it has been made clear that professional nursing matters remain the exclusive province of nurses. Nurses will still monitor their own professional standards and make professional day-to-day nursing decisions. That is entirely right. What the Government have done is ensure that the profession is drawn into the mainstream of general NHS management rather than left to wither in glorious isolation.
The RCN is pressing for a centrally-imposed management model at unit level. It wants to see a director of nursing services appointed in every unit. Obviously there are many units where such a model will fit perfectly. Indeed, I gather that some are proposing to use the good old-fashioned term "matron" in this context, a term which I must confess I like very much; and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on that point. However, I must also say that I find it hard to believe that the one model will be appropriate for every single unit. They come in different shapes and sizes. As I said before, there are over 600 units round the country. They range in budget size from just over £1 million to £46 million. Different units serve completely different groups of patients and employ different types of staff. It is surely better at that level to let local health authorities make sure that the system in each unit really does meet local needs rather than for the DHSS to prescribe a model from the centre.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, spoke about the reduction of units. The overall number of units is likely to be reduced from about 850 to around 600. The final number will not be known until the last district has completed its review of management arrangements. I have no doubt that, in reducing the number of units, authorities have sought to reduce the overall costs of administration and management so that more resources can be released for direct patient care. However, I am sure that, in making choices about the structure of units, careful regard has been taken of the need to ensure that the development of mental illness, mental handicap and other services deserving priority is secured. Most authorities have
160
advised us that districts' new unit arrangements will be kept under close review. If this shows that some districts have not got it quite right, perhaps for the reasons to which the noble Baroness referred, they may have to think again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked a question about the approval of structures. This is a matter of lines of accountability. The department approves regional structures; regional health authorities approve district structures after consultation with the DHSS. It is a matter for the health authorities locally to consider and approve local unit structures. Surely it is not suggested that we should adjudicate literally about hundreds of local unit structures from the centre?
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to Milton Keynes and the rumours that ward sisters were being dropped from some wards. As I have said, local arrangements must be worked out at local level. However, I am aware of the point the noble Baroness has raised concerning this particular district, and I am able to confirm that through local consultation the situation that concerned her will not arise.
Some noble Lords expressed concern about nurse career development. The Government share that concern. The vast majority of nursing posts will not be affected. Careers in nurse education and training, and in many places nurse management, will continue as before. For those who do not wish to enter management, there will be careers in the developing clinical nurse specialisms. My noble friend Lady Cox questioned the wisdom of nurses being appointed as directors to their health authorities' management groups in such diverse fields as personnel, quality assurance and consumerism. Clearly it has been important for health authorities to be sure that such nurses have adequate back-up support to discharge those functions in addition to the all-important provision of professional nursing advice. Such arrangements must be kept under review, but my own view is that these roles can provide an ideal training ground for the next generation of nurse general managers.
My noble friends Lady Cox and Lady Lane-Fox referred to nurses' pay. Here I must say that the Government are proud of their record on nurses' pay which has risen, on average, by 111 per cent. since 1979, more than 30 per cent. over and above inflation. During the same period the working week of the nurse was cut as well. For next year we await the recommendations of the independent pay review body. Within the constraints of the interests of the health service and the economy as a whole, I can assure noble Lords that there will be a positive response.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and others stressed the importance of a nursing input into decision making. I agree that this is of crucial importance, and every step has been taken to ensure that it takes place at every level. Every health authority has a member who represents nursing interests, so decisions made at that level will have a nursing input. Every health authority has been required to appoint a single nursing adviser who will not only supplement the advice of the nursing member but will also be charged with providing the authority's general manager with advice for decisions that he will be making. There has been no

161
prescription from the centre about arrangements at unit level, but health authorities have been told that provision must be made for adequate nursing advice.
In a recent letter to all regional health authority chairmen my right honourable friend the Minister for Health reminded them that,
"proper arrangements for the provision of professional advice to authorities and managers are of considerable importance."
He went to to say that it was,
"necessary to take full account of the need for effective professional involvement in management."
I am quoting this to emphasis that we are not washing our hands of arrangements at local level but making absolutely clear to health authority chairmen the vital importance of the proper involvement of nurses and doctors in management.
Furthermore, Health Ministers hold annual review meetings with regional health authority chairmen at which the chairmen are held to account for their performance over the previous year. I can assure noble Lords that the satisfactory implementation of general management throughout the health service certainly does feature when appropriate on the agendas of those meetings.
Only a very small minority of districts have not proposed to have their nursing adviser on their management board, or equivalent officer body. Where this is the case regional chairmen have been asked to ensure that the arrangements command the confidence and commitment of the profession locally. My noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to cases where arrangements have been made for professional advice to be given by a director of nursing services or a director of nurse education. We have made it clear that in such cases the giving of such advice is a substantive role which is district wide, needs proper support, and in respect of which the nurse has direct access, when required, to the health authority itself.
Some local examples where problems had occurred were cited by my noble friend Lady Cox. Such cases are best pursued and resolved locally. Clearly, however, where the process of local discussion and consultation fails of course I would be prepared to look at particular cases. As I have said, there will be local difficulties here and there but these are being raised by the RCN locally, and I am not being made aware that problems are not being discussed through and resolved. I cannot accept that further guidance is needed.
My noble friend Lady Cox concluded her speech with four specific questions. I have covered a number of these points, but let me now address them one by one. The question of nursing management is covered in, we expect, the structure of general management and nurse management in each unit to take account of the need for proper supervision of the work in wards and departments. This is a matter which really must best be left for local decision, taking account of the views of local professional interests.
To turn to radical reorganisation, the Griffiths Report and the circular to which my noble friend Lady Cox referred undoubtedly heralded a completely new approach to management throughout the health service. The change from consensus management to
162
general management with responsibility for decisions being vested in one person had to mean big changes in management. What the Griffiths Report said was that unless this led to real changes at unit level—meaning improved services to patients—the changes would have been to no avail. It was inevitable and necessary that management change penetrated through, indeed even especially, to unit level.
With regard to the question of retirement and pension, I should like to inform my noble friend Lady Cox that the RCN is in correspondence with my right honourable friend the Minister for Health on these very issues. I think I have already answered the fourth question that she asked. If I did not, I shall write to my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about Bexley and Sidcup. He referred to the financial difficulties in the Bexley health authority area. This is of course primarily a matter for the South East Thames Regional Health Authority. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern, however, and I am aware that the regional health authority is discussing these matters with the new general manager of the Bexley district with a view to finding a solution to their difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, of course spoke at the end of the debate, and he charged me to tell my right honourable friend the Secretary of State "pdq". My right honourable friend will of course read this debate and Lord Ennals' golden words. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is in any position to level criticism. The Government's record of expenditure on the National Health Service, to which my noble friend Lord Auckland kindly referred, speaks for itself.
What we have also had the courage to do is grasp the all-important nettle of management in the National Health Service, and dismantle the weaknesses of consensus management, which have so often in the past fostered indecision and delay, and replaced it with a management style which pins responsibility for decisions and actions on individuals, the prime aim of which is to see direct improvement in patient care, and the noble Lord will surely agree with that. As the noble Lord said, I am giving him that message "pdq".
I am glad that my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox drew our attention to the role of community nurses. I pay tribute to their invaluable contribution to health care. In closing, I should like to join with those who have spoken this evening in paying tribute to the excellent and invaluable work carried out by all nurses throughout the National Health Service. They are held in the highest regard by this House and by the public at large, and deservedly so.
Looking ahead, as we progress further down the all-important road of care in the community, I am sure that we all recognise the new challenges that this will increasingly present to our nurses, particularly in the fields of care for the elderly, mentally handicapped, and mentally ill people.
To end on a note of harmony, the Government and the RCN are in broad agreement on two key points: the needs of patients must come first, and more involvement of nursing in management is essential. I trust that I have been able to reasssure this House today of the Government's wholehearted commitment to those important principles.

Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.