Lords Sitting of 22 July 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Lord Knights
Sir Philip Douglas Knights, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Knights, of Edgbaston in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Harris of Greenwich and the Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Havers): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the First President of the Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione to attend the next meeting of Presidents and Procurators General of the Supreme Courts of countries of the European Communities which is to take place in Venice from 21st to 23rd October 1987. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence from Tuesday, 20th October to Thursday, 22nd October.

Inheritance Tax: Works of Art in Lieu
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are proposing to alter the mechanism whereby works of art are accepted in lieu of inheritance tax on the advice of the Museums and Galleries Commission.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have no further plans to alter the arrangements for acceptances in lieu at present. A recent change was made in the Finance Act 1987.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I ask him why the Government did not consult the Board of the Museums and Galleries Commission as a whole over the valuation of Constable's Flatford Mill, which was accepted in lieu for £10 million? It is responsible for providing the Minister with expert advice. That sum of £10 million was over double the price of any other picture by Constable and is considered by experts in the art world to be way above its current market value.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in this House will be aware of substantial increases in the prices of works of art throughout the nation. I remind the noble Baroness that only two weeks after this picture came to the nation Van Gogh's Sunflowers made almost £25 million.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, would the Government consider increasing the tax exemption figure for acceptance in lieu—the so-called douceur—from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the taxable amount, rather than pushing up these works of art to artificially high prices, as happened in the case of the Constable, in order to achieve the same objective?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I certainly do not accept the noble Lord's suggestion on the basis of the price reached by the Constable. However, I am aware that the belief exists that a higher rate of douceur would encourage more offers. An upward change would result in items requiring more funds from the AIL budget. This must be taken into consideration. However, we keep the rate under review, as we do generally all the AIL procedures. Any change in the rate would be administrative and would not require legislation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the principal criterion to be applied here is what the work of art in question would fetch on the open market at the time?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I accept that. That is why I produced the example of Van Gogh's Sunflowers, where there was a substantial increase only a fortnight later. The prices of works of other artists have increased even more dramatically.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that while the in lieu arrangements are highly desirable, if they are to be maintained they must not be abused? Will he take great care, and ask his right honourable friend to take great care, that abuse does not occur, because the system cannot be sustained if it is abused?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord. I assure him that the greatest care is taken.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Van Gogh that was sold a little later. Will he accept that the valuations and prices of different artists vary absolutely enormously and that my Question dealt with the Constable? That painting was taken in lieu at a price far above not only that for any other Constable but for any British artist. Is this not a dangerous precedent, and will the Minister for the Arts make sure that the Board of the Museums and Galleries Commission is not bypassed in this way in the future?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, given the choice between the two pictures I know that I personally should have said no to Van Gogh's Sunflowers.

South Africa
2.50 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 they opposed the desire of the majority of the members of the European Communities to take new and stronger measures to promote the objective of a democratic South Africa, and if so, why.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we and our EC partners are in full agreement that we should do what we can to promote genuine dialogue in South Africa. Our common aim is the establishment by peaceful means of a non-racial, representative system of government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that does not answer my Question. Does the Minister recall that in 1983 at the Heads of Government Conference in New Delhi the Prime Minister signed a communique, Clause 15 of which stated:
"Heads of Government were of the view that only the eradication of apartheid and the establishment of majority rule on the basis of the free and fair exercise of universal adult suffrage by all the people in a united and non-fragmented South Africa can lead to a just and lasting solution of the explosive situation prevailing in Southern Africa".
Does that remain the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that we totally condemn apartheid. We shall continue our efforts in 1987 to work with the 12 other like-minded countries to promote dialogue toward peaceful fundamental change. We reject violence from all sides.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister confirm to the House that under the present Danish presidency new measures are in course of preparation? Can he say first of all whether Her Majesty's Government are engaged in that preparation of new measures and secondly whether they are likely to support them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is a wide spectrum of opinion on South Africa among the 12. There is no majority for a fresh round of restrictive measures. In any case the issue is not at present under serious consideration. The Government's position on punitive sanctions is well known. I do not think that there would be any value in action which would achieve nothing or be counter-productive. At present the most practical step is to aid black South Africans and South Africa's neighbours. Indeed, Britain is actively providing economic and military training assistance to Mozambique. Those are very much the burdens and concerns which underlie the Question of the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make a real effort on this occasion not to be alone against the other 11?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, Britain is not alone in believing that the time is not opportune for a further EC declaration. The Foreign Ministers of the 12 issued a declaration on South Africa as recently as 25th May.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are a great number of educated blacks who do not want one man one vote because they fully realise that it may lead to inter-tribal destruction and the ruination of the economy for everybody? Does he agree that the important step for South Africa is the establishment and growth of a strong middle-class which is capable of taking responsibility and that it is far more important for the world to take action to encourage that development than to try to destroy the country as it is?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that there is much in what my noble friend says but I think that he will also be aware that we are implementing a programme of positive and restrictive measures which have been agreed with the 12 and the Commonwealth. Indeed, I believe that on many occasions my noble friend Lady Young listed the various actions which the Government are taking in order to help.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a case for thinking that this continent, which successively introduced the ideas of Communism, Fascism, Nazi-ism and Phalangism, might have the modesty to keep its ideas at home and leave other continents to manage their own business?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, whatever the views of all those who are interested in this part of the world, I think that the noble Lord will realise that we totally condemn apartheid and that it is important that we work in the ways I have described toward its eventual disappearance.
Lord Walston: My Lords, in view of our past association with South Africa and the fact that Commonwealth countries are now front line states and greatly affected by the situation there, does the Minister agree that in this country we have a special responsibility to take all the initiatives that we can in order to bring the present state of affairs to an end?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, that is why we have taken part in the implementation of many different initiatives.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many people would respect the EC more if it were to become equally zealous about the absence of democracy in scores of other countries throughout the world?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the present Question deals with South Africa. I do not propose to go beyond that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if it is the Government's policy, it does not

1385
matter where an absence of democracy exists? If there is any form of apartheid and no principle of one man one vote, how can he in any way agree with some of the statements that have been made from the Benches behind him, which are in direct contradiction to the central theme of the Government's policy? Ought he not to say that such is not the Government's policy, which is to oppose apartheid and support one man one vote?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that I made myself perfectly plain when I answered my noble friend Lord Gisborough. The noble Lord may have misunderstood me. We regularly set out from this Box our views on the situation concerning South Africa's affairs. I repeat that we totally condemn apartheid and will continue our efforts in 1987 to work with the 12 and other like-minded countries to promote dialogue. In the end, that dialogue is the key to the problem.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to give us an up-to-date report of the effect of sanctions on South Africa? I read in the national press that even Zimbabwe is having second thoughts.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if the noble Lord recalls the recent election in South Africa, he will see that sanctions do not necessarily achieve the ends which so many ascribe to them.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, when the Minister replied to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, he said that he agreed with him. One of the statements made by the noble Lord was that there were a large number of people in South Africa who did not believe in one man one vote. Can the Minister amplify and give the evidence for his agreement with the noble Lord that there is a mass of people not wanting one man one vote in South Africa?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I misunderstood my noble friend but I thought he said that he did not think that there was that particular concern there. I do not think it is useful to speculate further than to say that the Government—as indeed many of your Lordships—hold very sincerely to the principle that the best way to solve the problem in South Africa and to help is by promoting the kind of dialogue that we have regularly advocated from this Box and which we shall continue to encourage.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has said that the Government are vigilant in their opposition to apartheid. Can he tell the House whether one of the measures that the Government are taking to oppose apartheid has been to ask for the withdrawal of a South African military attache from London and, if so, why?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the question of the military attache, the position is that the South African Embassy notified us that the armed forces attache would be relinquishing his post on 17th July—a few days ago. They have also sought to nominate a successor and we shall be informing the Embassy that this is not acceptable.

Telemessages
3.1 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: 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 persuade British Telecom and the Post Office to accept telemessages from the general public at public post offices for delivery by post the following day.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, this is entirely a commercial matter for the boards of British Telecom and the Post Office. I understand that British Telecom has considered the matter carefully and has reached the view that such an arrangement would not be commercially viable.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Do the Government appreciate that, as things stand, the potential use of this valuable service is denied to people who do not possess a telephone number?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think that in the past I have told my noble friend that this service is available from coin boxes to people who do not possess a telephone. Admittedly, it may not be very convenient but it is certainly a good deal more convenient now that call boxes have been introduced which take higher denomination coins.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are dealing here with a simple humanitarian problem, in that, since there is no telegram service, people without a telephone have great difficulty in communicating urgently with others who have no telephone? Is the noble Lord further aware that, since British Telecom is now a privatised monopoly, the Government still have means and ways of persuading British Telecom to give a service which it should be giving on humanitarian grounds, in spite of the fact that it may result in a loss of profits?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I would say that the BT service is a good service. Indeed, if the noble Lord feels otherwise he has every opportunity to complain to BT and, if he is not satisfied, to go to the Director-General of Oftel, which was specifically set up to safeguard the customer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, did not the Minister say a moment ago that the decisions were purely commercial ones?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course they are commercial ones, taken by privatised companies run by a board of directors, not by the Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not rather curious that the Minister should be satisfied with British Telecom, when the complaints about the service provided by British Telecom have increased by 52 per cent. since telecommunications were privatised?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Director-General of Oftel has stated publicly that on the whole he is satisfied with the service that is being given by British Telecom.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while it is perfectly true, as the Minister says, that British Telecom is privatised, albeit it is privatised monopoly, the Post Office is not. If this service could be arranged through the Post Office, over which the Government still have some degree of control, it would give a very great deal of assistance.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the chairmen of both organisations, the Post Office and BT, do from time to time hold discussions and no doubt this has been discussed between them.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that for over 100 years the government of this country and the Post Office assumed the duty of ensuring that people could send life and death messages from various parts of the country? Are we to assume, now that British Telecom is privatised, that the Government and British Telecom have abandoned that duty?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, British Telecom's duty was set out in the Act when it was privatised, and I believe that it is operating its business on those lines.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question? Do the Government not accept any duty now to ensure that the citizens of this country can send life and death messages?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government were satisfied with the legislation at that time.
Lord Peston: My Lords, therefore will the noble Lord confirm what he seems to have said, that there is literally no public interest whatever in this matter? It is an astonishing position if that is what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not saying that there is no government interest in this matter—
Noble Lords: Public interest!
Lord Beaverbrook: I am not saying that the Government have no interest in seeing that messages can or cannot be sent. But I have to say that the Government are satisfied that life and death messages can be sent.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that the exchanges in the House today are drawn to the attention of the chairmen of British Telecom and the Post Office?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords. Of course I am prepared to undertake to do that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I also press the noble Lord to draw to the attention of the Post
1388
Office—which as I understand it, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, is still under government control—that if a commercial transaction is to take place, the Government have the power to make sure that the Post Office pays the commercial rate that British Telecom requires?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as regards the Post Office, the role of the Government is confined to broad issues of general policy and to matters of overall financial control. The day-to-day commercial operations of the Post Office are the responsibility of the Post Office Board.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister be good enough to bring to the attention of Professor Carsberg, who is doing such an excellent job as regulatory head of Oftel, the proceedings that have taken place here this afternoon and the complaints that have been made?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, of course, my Lords.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend said about British Telcom, is he aware that the minimum cost of a telemessage is £4 for 50 words? I have heard from British Telecom that this does not make it viable. Is my noble friend further aware that the personnel who man the minor post offices would welcome this income to help them make ends meet?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the overall cost of having a telephone provided by BT has fallen on the RPI.3 basis. As regards the cost of sending a telemessage, I do not have any figures. It may well be that small post offices, sub-post offices, would welcome some of the income alluded to by my noble friend. However, the equipment required to send those messages could well make them entirely uneconomic.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Lord issue a list of those places where the overall cost has fallen?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that the overall cost of telephone calls in this country has declined by about 14 per cent. over the last three years.

Middle East: Search for a Settlement
3.8 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 approach the European Economic Community and the United Nations in order to achieve the restoration of occupied lands in the Middle East to their original owners, thereby easing tension in the area.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall continue to work to ease tension in the Middle East and for a just and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very encouraging reply. Does he not agree that the Middle East has been destabilised by the Israeli-Arab conflict and that one of the most appalling features is what is known as the terrible territorial dimension whereby, if one power occupies another power's land, killing and maiming can go on from one generation to another? That can only exacerbate the situation. Should not the Government try to increase the efforts they have already undertaken and make this point clear to all those involved in the Middle East dispute?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that both the United Kingdom and the EC are committed to search for a peaceful settlement along the lines of the basic principles which the noble Lord will know. Perhaps the most practical way forward is an international conference along the lines of that which, as the noble Lord will know, has been suggested. That is, I believe, the most promising way forward.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that it is quite impossible to decide which tribe or which nation is the original owner of land in the Middle East? Is it not an exercise in futility to pursue that line? Surely one should be prevailing upon those who resort to terrorism as a first line to reflect very much before they proceed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, the matter of terrorism is in any dimension a very serious one. The question of the noble Lord tempts me into a historical minefield which it may not be profitable for me to follow.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it not a fact that the land gained by Israel was the result of a war waged against it in order to destroy its state? Syria—where there is no threat—has occupied land in the adjoining Arab country of Lebanon. Is not the answer to my noble friend's Question really that all genuine peace-loving countries should accept the recent decision of the Security Council of the United Nations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the important thing is to search for a peaceful settlement. I agree entirely with that. There is, of course, Security Council Resolution 242 which is very much the basis for where things stand at the moment. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I believe that perhaps one of the best ways forward would be through the international conference which has been suggested.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am fascinated to know who my noble friend had in mind when he spoke of the original owners. We start with the Phoenicians. Then we come to the Philistines, the Macedonians, the Greeks and the Romans; then the Franks and the Turks. The only people who have never owned or ruled Palestine at any time are the Arabs.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that was precisely why I suggested that it would not necessarily be sensible for me to get involved in the history of it all.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, after a meeting in February the EC Foreign Ministers called for an international conference on the Middle East. Will the noble Lord say what progress has been made on that? Following the recent Security Council meeting, the results of which we welcomed yesterday, it seems that the USSR is prepared to take part in an international conference about the Middle East and certainly about the Iran-Iraq war. What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to that and does the United States agree?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the latter point it is not necessarily wise to draw absolute parallels between the two issues. They are distinct and I cannot go further than I did yesterday when I repeated the Statement in relation to the Iran-Iraq conflict. As regards progress towards the international conference, we support an international conference as a framework for negotiations between parties who are directly concerned. The EC ministerial statement on 23rd February was re-affirmed on 13th July. We remain active in encouraging and assisting parties to reach an essential measure of common ground which will be necessary if the conference is to have a real chance of success. We stand ready to play an appropriate role in whatever arrangements the parties work out.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. But does he not agree that in order to achieve a final solution any conference should include both the United States and the Soviet Union as well as Great Britain and other countries?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we certainly have no objection if the parties can agree that Soviet involvement in the conference is appropriate and we welcome recent signs of improvement in Israeli-Soviet relations, such as the current Soviet consular mission to Israel.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, while associating myself very largely with what some of my colleagues on this side of the House have said, I should like to ask the Government whether they agree that if the approach recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, was successful it would presumably mean the fusion of Armenians living in Turkey with Armenians in the Soviet Republic; a similar fusion of Azerbaijanis in Iran with co-nationals to the north; the creation of a large Kurdish state against the will of Iran, Turkey and Iraq; and the possible secession of Khusistan from Persia? If so, does the noble Lord suppose that all that would diminish tension in the Middle East?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord's question certainly points to all the difficulties in trying to resolve this issue.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I wish to put down the following question. The British Foreign Secretary made recently in my judgment a superb speech on international action to try and resolve the problem. He did not rule out the possibility of involvement with the super powers. Is the Minister not aware that

1391
we have to take full cognisance of what the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, has said? There are certain boundaries which must not be invaded. The boundaries of the state of Israel were created by the United Nations. Does not the noble Lord therefore agree that the words of Sir Geoffrey Howe should receive our support and that we should wish him well in his endeavours even if that means involving super powers' activity?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I am grateful to him for what he says about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that I need go any further than that.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after the end of the short debate on family courts and before the short debate on the report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on polytechnics and inner London.
I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is customary in short debates, for the mover to be allowed approximately 15 minutes, and for the Minister to rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes. I wish to point out that when the figure 11 appears on the clock the time limit has already been exceeded. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I know that the House will appreciate it if the noble Lords keep the length of their speeches within limits that are compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

British Railways Bill
3.17 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Criminal Justice Bill
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, 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 Criminal Justice Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
1392

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 26,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 27 to 61,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 62 to 92,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 93 to 97,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 98 to 113,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 114 to 117,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 118 and 119,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 120 to 136,

Schedules 10 and 11,

Clauses 137 to 139.

—(Lord Hesketh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Courts
3.19 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris rose to call attention to proposals for the estabishment of family courts; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my good fortune to speak to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. During this debate we shall hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on a subject in which he has recently been reported in the press to be "deeply interested" and anxious to secure a much more sympathetic way of dealing with all the problems affecting children. It is also the good fortune of your Lordships that this afternoon we shall hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyth.
The concept of family courts has a short history in England. Perhaps the earliest systematic proposal came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he was leader of the Divorce Bar and submitted a detailed plan to the Morton Commission in 1952. At that time there were three systems of family law. One provided for those who could afford access to the High Court. Another gave a restricted jurisdiction to magistrates to deal with the family troubles of those who could not utilise the jurisdiction of the superior court which gave licences to marry again.
The third system of family law had been embedded in the poor law for three and a half centuries and survived in the hands of the National Assistance Board and then in those of the Supplementary Benefits Commission which, after Beveridge, dealt with the dependent poor whose subsistence came from the taxpayer.
Accordingly, family law was principally a regime of discriminate justice for different social classes, even as late as 1969 when the Finer Committee on one-parent families was appointed. That committee urged the establishment of a family court as the institutional counterpart of the social and financial

1393
reforms which it recommended. There was nothing sentimental, romantic or thaumaturgic in its concept. In the first place, the committee wanted to ensure that all citizens should have the same remedies in the same courts with the aim not only of terminating:
"a state of disorder which does no credit to a judicial system, but, more particularly (of terminating) arrangements which, whatever the theory may be, ostentatiously cater on a second-class basis for poor people".
The committee also attached high importance to removing the criminal taint from the administration of family law by magistrates. In that, it followed the Gorell Commission of 1912, which reported that:
"there was a serious objection to a Court, whose main duties are of a criminal character, entertaining applications which are of a civil nature concerning the domestic relations of men, women and their children".
One essential basis of the proposed family court was therefore the abolition of the summary jurisdiction. Unhappily, that recommendation has frequently been taken by magistrates as a criticism of them. However, that is wide of the mark. What the committee concluded in its report was that:
"It is probable … that only the care which so many magistrates have devoted to this task has saved the jurisdiction from floundering long ago under the weight of its inherent defects".
The report emphasised:
"The continuing need for the services of the lay magistracy … as an indispensable source of lay experience and outlook".
The family court would permit:
"greater flexibility in the association of lay and professional judges".
In the second place, the committee sought to bring the private law of family maintenance into a new relationship with the public law of social security. Research demonstrated that the great majority of wives, mothers and their children who in theory receive maintenance from court orders were in reality dependent on supplementary benefit because the orders were mostly paid irregularly or not at all. By the end of the 1970s (the last period for which information is available) maintenance orders produced no more than 12 per cent. of the income of divorced and separated women on supplementary benefit. The commission provided the remainder.
Moreover, even if orders had been paid regularly and in full, recipients would still have been on supplementary benefit, as the orders were invariably for amounts which were less, and often substantially less, than their entitlements to minimum rates of benefit. One remarkable feature of that situation was that magistrates assessed amounts of orders, made variation orders and remitted arrears without reference to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which alone possessed the information, experience and knowledge to make reliable assessments of income, need and ability to pay.
On the crucial issue of what deserted women and their children were to live on, realism and reason alike required that the courts and the social security authorities should be brought into an intimate working relationship instead of operating as if they had no connection with one another. Thus, fundamentally, the Finer Committee recommended a family court in order to replace family laws for the different social classes by a single family law for the whole community in a civil court and to bring the
1394
private law of family maintenance into a realistic relationship with the law of social security.
The Finer Committee defined rigorously the criteria which its family court had to satisfy. The court had to be an impartial judicial institution, applying to all citizens a uniform set of legal rules derived from a single moral standard and doing justice according to law. The committee said:
"The court must see (those) with whom it is concerned as 'clients' still less as patients for whom the court process is one form of, or a preliminary to 'treatment'".
The family court should provide the best possible facilities for conciliation, which I think was carefully distinguished from reconciliation for the first time in the report. Moreover, it should be assisted by a professional staff which would also be available to parties in all matters requiring social work services and advice.
The committee said:
"The aim must be to make adjudication and welfare march hand in hand. But there should be no blurring of the edges, either in principle or in administration".
In its desire to remove all criminal associations from the family court, the committee recommended that the juvenile court should continue with its jurisdiction unchanged. The committee set its face against a specialist bench. It wished the county court judge to be the focus of the court, with the Family Division of the High Court as the top tier and as its link with the rest of the higher judicial system.
The committee saw the family court as a prerequisite for its proposals to ameliorate the severity of the burdens and disadvantages which family breakdown inflicts upon the very large numbers of dependent children involved. The importance of that task should not be underestimated. Today one in eight of all families is a one-parent family.
How far the Finer Committee's major recommendations still remain to be acted upon may be judged against the findings of the newly published report, The Overlapping Family Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts and County Courts, by Mr. Mervyn Murch and his colleagues at the Socio-legal Centre for Family Studies of the Faculty of Law of the University of Bristol. That was undertaken for the Inter-departmental Review of Family and Domestic Jurisdiction, which provided a consultation paper for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack some 14 months ago.
The research shows that the magistrates' jurisdiction, preserved by the backward-looking Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, still serves to meet the needs largely of working-class litigants. Fifty-nine per cent. of the sample who went to the magistrates' court resented the criminal associations to which they were exposed, though some of those going to the county courts made similar complaints. Mr. Murch observes that:
"litigants react badly to … poor reception facilities … over-crowded waiting rooms and corridors, aggravated by a combination of poor listing practices and lack of appointment systems".
Further, many litigants felt that the environment and condition of the courts seriously infringed the privacy in which their family affairs ought to have

1395
been treated. It is not difficult to understand why most solicitors and litigants prefer to take the civil route through the county court.
There have been very few studies of maintenance in England, although the results of the survey commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Office from OPCS are awaited. However, nothing has changed since the English Law Commission, with a candour rare in official papers, said in the Financial Consequences of Divorce in 1981:
"one of the most serious difficulties encountered in examining any proposal for law reform in this area is that … very little reliable up-to-date information is available".
We carry on legislating in this branch of the administration of justice without data and by hunch and guesswork.
We still know very little about the social and financial consequences of family breakdown in a society in which between one-third and one-quarter of all marriages are breaking down. Sadly, however, we know that supplementary benefit maintains 92 per cent. of separated mothers and 40 per cent. of divorced mothers, with more than half of all the one-parent families on supplementary benefit and a further 10 per cent. living on less than the scale rates.
I have stressed the Finer Committee's jurisdiction and model of a family court in part because it has shaped discussion ever since its report was published. However, what was then very much a minority interest is now capturing the attention of almost everyone concerned with family law and social policy. Many of the individuals, and most of the 45 legal and social welfare organisations which constitute the Family Courts Campaign established two years ago, accept the Finer Committee's recommendations as their starting point. The weight and vigour of this new body suggest that the cause of family courts is at last acquiring a political cutting edge.
So far the recurring theme in governmental comment has been the issue of cost. When Mrs. Barbara Castle, as Secretary of State for Social Services, rejected the main recommendations of the report in 1975 she referred to the, "grim realities of public expenditure".The Review of Family and Domestic Jurisdiction, to which I have already referred, sets out possible options for change in the structure and business of the courts concerned with family jurisdiction.
However, one of the several disappointing features of the review is its insistence upon the importance of the likely costs of family courts and its failure to give any guidance as to how these might be measured. There is no reference in the review to the important pioneering paper by Her Honour Judge Jean Graham Hall and Douglas Martin, towards A Unified Court—The Cost Factor. The review ignores the gaps in and limitations of court records which prevent,
"any clear comparative statistical picture of the way the courts work",
being drawn.
The review itself is driven to say:
"We have not been able to assess the costs incurred in the family and domestic jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts".
1396
If this cannot be done, how are the costs of a family court to be estimated, especially in circumstances in which they fall across different departments and include the cost of administering supplementary benefit, which itself may offer possible large savings which could accrue from more efficient or cheaper methods of extracting money from liable relatives?
Naturally, most proponents of family courts recognise the significance of the costs involved, but nobody really knows what these would be or how to calculate them. The assumption of the review that any change must be more expensive is not acceptable. Indeed, Her Honour Judge Graham Hall and Mr. Douglas Martin showed how something of the order of £20 million per year could be saved by taking steps towards a unified family court. Is it not essential at this stage to undertake a technical study of how to estimate the costs of the administration of family jurisdiction? This would have to involve not only lawyers and practitioners but statisticians, economists and those skilled in cost benefit analysis. But even if we could estimate accurately what the costs may be, there would still remain the question of priority. There will be no family courts, be their costs light or heavy, until a government make this non-party issue a first priority of legal administration. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may be able to give some indication that this has become a political possibility.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, on having selected as his subject for this short debate a matter of very considerable importance to those who wish to see an improvement in our legal system. I was, and still am, looking forward to hearing the maiden speech from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating him on his assumption of this exacting office and to offer him my very best wishes. However, should I be driven away from the end of this debate by a confusion of engagements, I hope the House will acquit me of discourtesy. I shall stay every moment as long as I can.
It seems a very long time ago since, as a member of the Heath administration and Lord Chancellor, I was instrumental in appointing the Finer Committee on single parent families. Since then there have been a very great number of different reviews, including a current investigation by Newcastle on the advantages of conciliation. There have been the Booth Committee on Matrimonial Procedures and the interdepartmental committee which I was responsible for initiating and to which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has drawn attention. It was carried on in conjunction with but independent of the Civil Justice Review.
I am quite clear about one matter; namely that we cannot go on indefinitely as we are. We must make progress in this field. My noble and learned friend knows that I made an attempt before the general election to secure in our election manifesto a commitment to the principle of family courts. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, indicated I failed on the grounds that I was unable to estimate the expense of

1397
such a commitment. I make no complaint about that fact. There are numerous variables to be taken into account and, with all the parameters to be inserted into the calculation, it is not possible to make a precise estimate at the present time. It is plain that the conflicts and complication of jurisdiction involved in the field of important social litigation are not such that they can be tolerated indefinitely.
We have been waiting a very long time for progress in this field and I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would take the same view; though how, to what extent and by what steps the advances are to be made are obviously matters of contention.
My conviction, for what it is worth, is that we must build on the existing structure. I do not think there is any other way forward. One must bear in mind what we mean by a court. I know that the enthusiasts for a so-called family court would be satisfied with nothing short of a separate set of buildings with a different judiciary, a wholly distinct supporting staff and probably a distinct core of advocates to practise in front of them. I believe that to be impracticable, quite apart from any other consideration. Even so I would regard it as a regressive step. In fact, it would interfere with the general march of the progress of law reform which has been almost uniformly in favour of concurrent jurisdiction with a single structure of courts and a comprehensive and, so far as possible, simple pyramid of appeals leading upwards.
The point is what we must get going. What do we mean by a court? What do we mean, for instance, by the commercial court, the divorce court, the companies court, the bankruptcy court? We do not mean a separate set of buildings for every jurisdiction, but we do mean a specialist list with a competent series of properly specialised judges in charge in each case. We do not necessarily mean that we should erect a separate set of buildings. After what the Lord Chief Justice said last night, it is very clear that the shortage of court buildings is one of the practical and material causes of delay in litigation generally. To put the family court into the field of those who are competing with other jurisdictions for a separate set of buildings would be to create administrative chaos.
I do not believe that the Finer Report was altogether fair to the magistrates' jurisdiction. It is true, of course, that the physical place to which litigants have recourse is the same building as that which carries a criminal jurisdiction, but the magistrates are selected from a specially trained and suitable panel. By and large, people do not have to go to that court to get justice. They go there because they want to. My impression is that the magistrates provide a cheap, informal and fairly rapid system of justice. For the immediate future, at any rate, I do not think that it would be possible to eliminate their jurisdiction, though I would personally like to see whether it is possible for them to deal with any question involving status, such as adoption.
I feel quite sure that there must be a gradual amalgamation in this field in spite of what the Lord Chief Justice said yesterday, at least between the county court and the High Court. I think that the
1398
present structure is unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome. As county court judges habitually sit as deputy High Court judges and registrars habitually are treating with the same types of cases between High Court and county court jurisdictions, I believe that it is by now purely an anomaly that the two sets of courts should have a separate jurisdiction and should live, as it were, in distinct worlds. We must recognise facts. There has been regular progress towards unification and I believe that that should go further.
People talk about costs. It is quite clear that if part of the magistrates' jurisdiction were to be eliminated, which would be the consequence of something that I have said, the legal profession itself would tend to demand payment under legal aid—of course, we are talking in the main about legal aid cases—on the scale of the county court or High Court and not on the scale of the magistrates' court. Be that as it may, it would cost a significant amount of money; but if we were to progress along the lines that I have indicated it would be perfectly possible to contain any increase in expenditure within the limits of the legal aid budget as it at present exists. I may be wrong, but that is the conclusion which I form.
Having said that, I leave the matter to the much greater wisdom of other speakers who are taking part in this interesting little debate. I am sure that we cannot stay as we are. I believe that we must progress forward by steps or we shall not progress at all. I have tried to indicate the lines upon which I think progress is possible.
3.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, in 1984 the Board for Social Responsibility, one of the main advisory boards of the General Synod of the Church of England, gave evidence to the Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Department on Matrimonial Causes Procedure. In the course of their evidence its members made a general point which I believe is of equal importance in considering this more recent report from the same source on family and domestic jurisdiction. It was that procedures have an important effect on people's understanding of the nature and importance of marriage and family life. They said;
"The attitude of the State to marriage as an institution is established as much in the procedure as in the substance of the law affecting these issues. We … believe that good procedures will help couples whose marriages are in crisis to come to terms with all the personal and material information they need to face in making decisions about the dissolution of their marriage".
The board's members went on to say that they believed that there had been:
"a considerable erosion in this respect over the last 10 years. We believe … that the concept of irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce requires an inquisitorial method of procedure and encourages the process to take the possibility of reconciliation seriously and make adequate provision for it".
In this regard the board expressed the strong hope that conciliation as opposed to reconciliation procedures would also be developed both in court and out of court; procedures which are not helped by an adversarial approach, particularly in the early stages.

1399
One of the strongest arguments for a family court is that it will shift the emphasis towards helping families to understand what is going on, and so gain their confidence in the procedure as one which is there to help everyone concerned in the matter under dispute. All the evidence I have been able to gather from such bodies as the Church of England Children's Society and the Mothers' Union, as well as from the director of Welcare in my own diocese of Southwark, is united on this point. One of their main points of criticism is that this report does not sufficiently address the needs of children—a lack which may reflect the fact that its authors are all officers of the Lord Chancellor's Department or civil servants. No social workers, doctors or nurses, for instance, seem to have had any direct say.
Children are frequently involved in domestic proceedings of various kinds as well as in criminal cases in the juvenile court. As it was put to me by the director of Welcare:
"A system must be found which allows people space and time to work through their differences. We should not gear our court system in a way which focuses concentration on past grievances, but rather one which allows some planning for the future needs of children".
It follows that a system of family courts will only be effective, especially where children are concerned, if it has its own welfare staff and is itself responsible for organising conciliation services. These, I suggest, are essential ingredients in producing the right mix of adjudication and care, and they will cost money. Set against this extra cost, and the possible extra cost of additional judges and magistrates, are the considerable savings in social costs that may arise as a result of the improved arrangements.
I should like here to underline strongly the clear and telling comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, about the question of cost and the difficulties caused by the absence of adequate information about this in the report. I also noted with interest what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said about the undesirability of separate buildings, quite apart from the general question of costs.
Members of your Lordships' House may have seen the figures put forward by the family courts campaign suggesting that a 10 per cent. reduction in matrimonial care orders and a 1 per cent. reduction in care orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 would alone produce possible savings of approximately £80 million. It is essential that a comprehensive assessment is made of the indirect benefits as well as the legal costs and that we are not subjected once again to one of those narrow accounting processes which, for example, do not allow one to make connections between the lack of preventive medicine and the soaring cost of hospital treatment or between the decline of our inner cities and the ever-mounting costs of policing, insurance and civil disturbances.
The consultation paper states in paragraph 1.6:
"Successive governments have taken the view that a family court would require additional public resources which could not be found within prevailing levels and priorities for public expenditure. These questions of resource availability and allocation of priorities remain central to this issue".
1400
If it does nothing else I hope that the debate and the degree of concern that I am sure will be expressed, and has already been expressed, about what is happening already to so many families and children will ensure that there is a vigorous argument about which "additional public resources" we are talking about. To perpetuate the present arrangements more or less on the grounds of economy and then to spend more and more on legal aid, social security payments and the treatment of ill health and so is not true economy at all and compounds many problems for the next generation.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I have chosen to make my maiden speech today for a number of reasons, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for introducing the subject. I had intended to make my speech earlier but the general election interfered with my plans. The prospect of speaking at all cast a mild nervous terror over me every time I considered it. Making it today had the advantage of there being only one more sitting day; by October I felt that it would hopefully be forgotten.
I decided that I must make a maiden speech during 1987 because the title that I hold was created in 1907. I am the fourth holder. The 80th year seemed to me to be appropriate since during that 80 years no holder of the title has ever spoken in this noble House. In the course of the next few minutes your Lordships may well regret that I have broken that 80-year silence.
Before going on to the matter in hand, I should like to say a word of thanks to the many noble Members and servants of the House whom I have found at all times to be extremely kind and helpful to a newcomer, and I appreciate it.
It is with some trepidation that I address the House on a subject of family law courts. I am not in any way connected with the law and I speak as a layman.
The family as a unit has come under increasing pressure in the past few decades. There is no reason to assume that this pressure will do anything other than increase. The breaking up of families, whether the parents are married or not, is a daily occurrence. Surely the best way of picking up the pieces is to have specialised courts. A parent who is frequently more interested at the time that the family breaks up in attempting to hurt either financially or otherwise the person he or she considers to be the errant partner is not the best judge of what is best for the children.
I have always found that in personal matters it is a good idea to ask oneself exactly what one is trying to do. In the matter that we are debating today, this is surely to make the best possible provisions both for the children and for the weaker partner in the relationship. It is very important that at times of great stress and anxiety people should be subject to as little added burden as possible. Most people appear very infrequently in front of a court and when they do there is an element of fear that needs to be reduced to a minimum. I think that this could be done better in some family type of court. Shattered lives need careful handling.
I wonder also whether consideration could not be given to bringing first time possessors of drugs under

1401
a family court. I do not mean dealers or pushers. Drug addiction is one of the biggest problems of the age among the young, and it certainly comes within the definition of being a family matter. Parents on drugs affect their children and children on drugs affect their parents, brothers and sisters. A young person—in that category I include people certainly up to the age of 25—in possession of drugs for his or her own use in my opinion should not be criminalised. The greatest possible steps should be taken to try to assist those who want to come back into normal society. They are frequently not able to do so on their own. Drug addiction is another problem that will probably continue to grow.
The idea of family courts is to me an attractive one, but I am certainly not qualified on the make-up or procedure. However, I feel that sympathetic lay people should form part of the decision-making process; we should never forget that people's lives and happiness are involved and decisions taken will affect them for the rest of their lives.
Finally, I confess that now and again when I am reading newspapers certain of them seem to open at page three. This morning happily one of them opened also at page 20, where under my stars of the day I read:
"The planetary set-up is perfect to arrange meetings and air your opinions and, although certain individuals have turned a deaf ear recently, you should he delighted by the response you receive".
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on a very interesting and entertaining speech. I hope that we shall have the opportunity of listening to him many times. I am sure that his contributions will be greatly appreciated. I congratulate him very much.
The debate comes at a very appropriate moment. Everyone interested in child care and the ways in which it is operating will be concerned about the reports of cases particularly from Cleveland. As such cases can occur elsewhere, something must be done to help. I am not an authority on what operates here in England, but I have long experience of what we try to do in Scotland in cases similar to those reported in Cleveland.
I should like for a short moment to talk about Scotland. I was for many years chairman of the children's committee and the social work committee on my county council in Roxburghshire. I was also the chairman of the advisory committee on child care for Scotland. That gave one a deep insight into what was going on. But it was a while ago and the position has changed. We are now doing something different. It is that which I should like to describe.
In Scotland we have a system of children's hearings. There is appointed to the children's panel a reporter who is an independent officer of experience in child care and who has legal knowledge. The reporter has statutory discretion in all referrals made to him as to whether or not a child's case should be considered by a child hearing. That is a lay tribunal which has replaced the juvenile court and has power to impose compulsory measures of care if the reporter considers this necessary.
1402
The best interests of the child is the basic principle upon which the system works. However, the rights of both children and parents are protected. A matter of disputed fact, or any decision made by the reporter, is open to challenge by referral on application or appeal to a private hearing before a sheriff.
If the Cleveland type of situation had taken place in Scotland, the procedure would have been as follows. First, the local authority in a non-emergency situation would have to be satisfied that some form of compulsory supervision was likely in the child's best interest. The local authority would have a statutory duty to refer the child to the reporter. The reporter would study the case and decide whether there was a prima facie case for compulsory measures. He would then arrange a hearing. On the other hand, if he thought he could arrange some informal social work supervision with the parent's help and consent, he could do so and avoid a special hearing.
However, in an emergency where the child has been taken to hospital or to a place of safety under orders, the reporter is obliged to arrange a hearing on the first lawful day after the discovery, and not later than seven days at the outside. From then on he can be legal protector for the child and also of the legal rights for the parents to have a right of appeal.
This system has worked well. With the introduction of an independent prosecution system for adults in England and Wales and from the descriptions which we have heard I suggest that the Scottish model might well be considered—an independent official to whom all children in need of compulsory measures of care may be referred.
As I see it, the decision to refer the matter is not taken by the police or the local authority but by an independent officer—the reporter to the children's hearing. In this way many of the conflicts of interest that exist in England are eliminated in Scotland. I suggest to the English authorities that this system might be considered as it has worked very well in Scotland. I think that it is worth trying.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Blyth on his modest and unassuming speech. Although he is the first of his line to speak in this House for 80 years, I hope we may often hear him again.
Family courts have been under consideration by me for over 40 years. Over 40 years ago I was chairman of a committee on the procedure in matrimonial causes. At that time we could do little other than not allow all cases to be heard in the High Court but allow many of them to be heard in the county court. For many years I was also the president of the National Marriage Guidance Council. From that experience I soon learnt the importance to the whole community of an advisory and conciliation service with regard to marriage and all its consequences.
Let me put these thoughts together. First, our substantive law has changed beyond recognition in those 40 years but our procedural law remains embedded in the past—a hotch-potch of courts and procedures which have never been brought up to

1403
date. Perhaps I may say a little on the background. The institution of marriage, I have always thought, is the foundation of our civilised society, with the bringing up of children in the home and with loving parents putting them along the right path. In the old days it was well buttressed by the law. There was no divorce until 1867; then for years there was divorce on proof of a matrimonial offence. Since 1969 there has been divorce on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But under the procedure of our courts that has now become divorce by consent; divorce by post. Therefore, that first buttress has broken down altogether.
The other buttress was that children of a non marriage were illegitimate; they were bastards. In Victorian times the daughter who sinned, as it was called, was turned out of the home, or the son was cut off without a shilling. That was the stigma of illegitimacy, the stigma of bastardy, which, unpleasant as it was, was a buttress of marriage. That has all gone. We are not allowed to speak of a child being illegitimate or a bastard. A "one-parent family" is the only acceptable phrase. That stigma has therefore gone. Furthermore, the man who is living with his mistress is no longer described as living with his mistress but with his common-law wife, or they are co-habitees. Most distressing of all is the number of young people now setting up home and living together without being married. Those are some of the failures of our society today. I do not need to go further into them.
However, on procedure—because these matters come so often before the courts for solution—perhaps I may suggest first that there should be an advisory and conciliation service, if need be sponsored by the state, whereby one or other of a couple in difficulty can go to that service and hopefully get conciliation, or advice if it means going to law. I therefore suggest, first, the setting up of an advisory and conciliation service. Then if the matter is bound to go to law, let there be a first tier. For what I might call the smaller cases I welcome magistrates taking on this extended jurisdiction. I have always had the greatest regard for our magistrates. They might be assisted by a probation or welfare officer. The first tier might consider such matters as the custody of children, access to children and even maintenance. Let such matters go before the magistrates, with a possible appeal.
I would put a second tier of higher courts on the rank of our county courts, with recorders and perhaps laymen to consider property cases and so on, cases of great difficulty and importance. That would form a new simplified structure of family courts. I suggest that that is the right course.
I am quite unacquainted with the financial resources available to the Government, but to get our procedural law equal to the developments in the substantive law we ought to have a new set of family courts, models taken from the past a great deal but dealing with the problems of the future. I suggest an advisory and conciliation service to start with; a first tier court consisting mainly of magistrates; and a second tier of higher courts for the higher and more important cases, rather like our Crown Courts,
1404
staffed by Crown Court judges, recorders or even High Court judges. There is room for, and with imagination and effort we can and I hope soon will have, a system of family courts.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am happy to be speaking in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lora McGregor of Durris. I am sure that your Lordships will also be very happy that I shall not speak for long. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on his excellent maiden speech. I hope that it will not be another 80 years before he speaks again.
I am speaking as a member of a largely silent and often maligned majority, the parents. It may sound a platitude, but I believe that some people may sometimes forget that if there were no parents there would not be children either.
Parents may not always be perfect. In fact sometimes they are very much less than perfect. I remember at the school sports of my youngest son we had a mothers' egg and spoon race with a cricket ball; the spoon was a real egg spoon and very small. Some mothers, suitably attired in gym shoes, with steady hands and twinkling feet, were runaway winners. Shamingly my cricket ball fell off, I could not pick it up with the egg spoon and my feet were just plodding along. However, I said to my son, who was a bit embarrassed, "Never mind, you may not have a mother who wins, but at least you have a mother". My husband of course is very nearly perfect. He always won the fathers' race at all schools and in style. Even if parents are not perfect, they are the only parents children have. That is why I believe that parents should be involved in family courts with the children as well as everybody else.
If a marriage breaks up, or for some other reason children are taken into custody, in the present system there are five different courts which can all deal with the same situation. In Scotland, as my noble friend Lady Elliot said, we have a children's hearing involving the children, which is very much nearer to the family court system. But in England, and Wales too, there is the High Court, the juvenile court, the county court, the magistrates' court and the domestic court, not to speak of the three higher courts: the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court. If I am a little confused about this now, how much worse must it be for parents already upset and in an emotional state.
I give an example which will demonstrate the confusion. This occurred in the Cleveland area when the local authority applied to the magistrates' court for a place of safety order. When the parents appealed against that in the magistrates' court, the local authority sought to make the children wards of court. After the case had started it was transferred to the High Court and was heard by Lord Justice Watkins, the senior presiding judge. How confusing and upsetting this must have been for parents already confused and upset; indeed for all those involved in the case—social workers, doctors and the police. If there had been one family court to deal with the whole matter the pain and confusion might have been considerably less.

1405
In New Zealand and Canada the system of family courts worked so well that in New Zealand 58 per cent. reach agreement after a family court hearing and in Toronto the figure was 79 per cent. This must surely show the success of the system when applied.
Let us not forget that a happy and secure family life is the basis of our civilisation and the secure and happy upbringing of our children within that framework is our hope for the future.
4.16 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, in his advocacy of family courts. I should like to add my very warm congratulations to those expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on his splendid maiden speech.
I am not a lawyer and I am most hesitant to give tongue in the company of so many distinguished lawyers, but I strongly support any initiative which tends to bolster up the influence of the family and family life in general. I say this particularly in view of the present moral climate which has been referred to by other speakers, a climate where traditional moral standards are all too often blown away like straws in the wind and the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are spreading unchecked in so many areas. I am sorry to say that it is considered quite normal for a Wimbledon champion to have an illegitimate child. In such circumstances, surely is it not the family which can act as a bulwark against such processes? Here I refer to the family as a life-giving and unifying element, a seed-bed where children are nurtured and developed and where the basic human qualities of commitment, compassion and caring can best be inculcated and fostered.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the various organisations with which I am associated which are now working to promote the family: in particular the National Campaign for the Family, Family and Youth Concern, the Conservative Family Campaign and Familybase. However—and this is the main point I want to make, unpopular though I feel sure it will be—one must bear in mind that in Britain there are at the moment about 2 million Moslems. Estimates vary between 1½ and 2 million, but there may be as many as 2 million. There is no doubt that there are more Moslems than Methodists. The Union of Muslim Organisations, which represents their interests, hopes to secure the application of Moslem family law (which Moslems consider to be of divine origin) to British Moslems. I fully realise that this is likely to be a non-starter, but I make the plea at least that wherever possible Moslems, well versed in all aspects of Moslem family law, should be on the Bench whenever either party is a Moslem.
I make this recommendation because as I see it Moslem family law principles could be incorporated into the family court procedure in the following ways. Perhaps I may give as an example, wardship. Here I must emphasise once more that I speak with great temerity in an area in which I am not in any way well-informed. It seems to me and to others who have studied this matter that, in deciding on the custody, education and upbringing of children who are
1406
declared wards of court, the children born of Moslem parents or in mixed marriages where the father is a Moslem should be brought up as Moslems. Surely there is nothing very difficult about that. Local Moslem organisations or the Union of Muslim Organisations could surely be contacted to provide suitable facilities to the authorities in such cases.
I turn to the questions of divorce, nullity and judicial separation. As I see it, if both parties are Moslems, or one of them is a Moslem, a conciliation procedure should be deemed mandatory. Reference can be made to a Moslem leader or some Moslem organisation to whose meditation both parties would agree. Secondly, a Moslem divorce could be granted only when all attempts at reconciliation had failed. Thirdly, the upbringing of children as practising Moslems should be strictly enforced. Surely there is nothing very difficult about that. For the purposes of evidence of marriage it should be sufficient if the parties produce the certificate of the Islamic marriage, as is recommended by the Law Commission (Cmnd. 9595).
I emphasise once more that these proposals will run counter to current thinking but perhaps I may make the final plea that wherever possible—I should have thought there are cases where it would be possible—due concern should be taken of the religious susceptibilities of the many Moslems in our land.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and indeed all other noble Lords who have spoken in their pleas to Her Majesty's Government to set up family courts in this country. May I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on his speech which we all so much enjoyed.
I am the last Back Bench speaker and every point that I have in my paper has been ably made. I still propose to make them again. First, on the question of history, it is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, more than 40 years since family courts were first discussed. There were discussed also, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said, in 1952 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his report to the Morton Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke in your Lordships' House in 1969 of the harmful consequences and the hurt to human feelings of family breakdowns.
In 1971 the Law Commission set up a working party to look into the structure by which family matters should be dealt with. Finally, in 1974, the Finer Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was a notable member, recommended the setting up of family courts. For 40 years people have been asking for a change in family courts.
Perhaps I may take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Strange about the feelings of the parents who are perforce the consumers of the legal system which covers divorce, wardship, judicial separation, adoptions and custody under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. The Family Courts Campaign reports that there are in the region of 670,000

1407
petitions and applications in domestic courts each year. That means approximately two million men, women and children come into contact with the legal system in connection with domestic issues or other family proceedings. I make a plea on the part of all those involved for the court structure to be simplified and made understandable to those who must use it.
There are 185 county courts dealing with divorce, 83 other courts dealing with guardianship and domestic violence and 700 magistrates' courts dealing with juvenile justice and domestic jurisdiction. And, of course, there is the High Court. Each court has its own particular welfare service. I believe that the best people to resolve the question of the needs of children and the equitable distribution of joint assets are often the parents themselves. But it is surely reasonable that the state should offer machinery which encourages them to do that and prevents wherever possible the recourse to the ultimate judicial forum for decision.
My second point deals with the form which family courts should take; and here we are in choppy waters. There is the school of thought which considers that the juvenile justice system should come into the family courts. This may happen in the distant future but at the moment it is unacceptable to many who want no element of criminality in the family courts, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. The juvenile justice system in this country, despite the outstanding work done by magistrates, probation officers and social workers, requires overhauling. I fully support my noble friend Lady Elliot in all she said about the panel system. I hope one day that this may be introduced into England and Wales. It was said that we do not take notice of Scotland. My Lords, we do, particularly in this area.
I would, however, say that these varying views are no reason for doing nothing. In the disappointing inter-departmental review of family and domestic jurisdiction it was stated that the consensus of support for family courts was more apparent than real. The Family Courts Campaign, of which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is a member—I am, too, as are several Members of your Lordships' House—is also made up of 45 organisations, Members of another place, at least 15 Members of your Lordships' House, academics from all parts of the country and various departments of faculties of universities and polytechnics. I was going to refer to the recently published report from Bristol to which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred. I should like to refer to a book just published by Mr. Peter Reeves, a lawyer and lecturer, in which he said:
"Family law is an area which suffers through a lack of coherence".
There is at present no coherent pattern of welfare services. I believe that welfare and conciliation services are an essential precondition for the establishment of a family court. A conciliation service is a vital component for a successful family court. There is not the time to give the statistics of other countries such as New Zealand which has demonstrated how valuable is the national conciliation service.
We come to the question of resources. It was a disappointment that no political party had in its
1408
manifesto the recommendation for the setting up of family courts. As many noble Lords have said, this has never been properly costed. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that the recommendation for family courts was turned down because the estimated cost was £40 million.
In the Civil Justice Quarterly of July 1983, Judge Jean Graham Hall published an article costing family courts, and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has referred to this matter. Time did not allow the noble Lord, and it certainly does not allow me, to go into the details. However, Judge Jean Graham Hall finishes her report by saying that cost need not be an obstacle or a cause for delaying the setting up of family courts.
The Family Courts Campaign has made some, admittedly crude, estimates which suggest, for example, that each year £40 million could be saved by a 10 per cent. reduction in matrimonial care orders, a further £40 million by a 1 per cent. reduction in care orders under the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act, and nearly £60 million by a 10 per cent. saving on relevant supplementary benefit payments as the result of streamlined enforcement of maintenance orders through a single court organisation.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor how the Government and the Treasury costed family courts. Did they take into account the hidden savings that could be made on the family courts system? It would be interesting to know how the Treasury, if it was the Treasury, came to make the statement that they were too expensive to set up.
Those of us who have worked with families where there has been separation or divorce and with children whose families have broken up realise that there is a figure which can never be quantified in terms of happiness, security and stability. The happiness, security and stability of children are the seed corn of the future.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord McGregor for his perseverance and ultimate success in securing a debate on this topic. The Motion has been awaiting the ballot for debate for such a long time that it encourages one to hang on to one's premium bonds.
I have spent much of my working life over the past 14 years in the family courts of today, and I have the privilege of being a member of the committee of the Family Law Bar Association. As such I wish to dispel a number of misunderstandings. The first is the idea that the Bar is somehow entrenched against the family court. The fact that those of us who deal with the consumers and are involved in the daily practice of the law have not suspended our critical faculties when the phrase "family court" is uttered does not mean that we are against the idea.
The Family Law Bar Association and some of our colleagues on the Northern circuit made thorough and constructive responses to the consultation paper. Our experience does not lead us to think that lay magistrates have a monopoly of common sense or that social workers have a monopoly of expertise. We

1409
say that if we are to have a family court then we must have the best. Whatever may be second best is unlikely to be better than the present system.
The second misconception is that the present system suffers badly from undue formality, or legalism, or lack of welfare guidance. Much of our work is in chambers, unrobed, sitting around a table using affidavit evidence. Our methods of litigation have something to teach other areas of the law which are being scrutinised by the civil justice review.
The third misconception is that lawyers invariably introduce an aggressive or adversarial element. A great deal of our time—and I am not just speaking personally—is getting the parties to settle their differences and trying to get them to look beyond the unhappiness which has brought them to the divorce court. A great deal of our time is spent in trying to spare them the bitterness and the costs of litigation, pointing out to them that the size of the financial cake, which was small enough when the family was together, should not be made smaller when the family is separated.
Another misconception is that litigation is necessarily harmful as a process. We shall still need an efficient mechanism for deciding facts and resolving issues. The case in Cleveland presents such an example. In all litigation the interests of the children are paramount, but one can only assess what is best for the future by a careful judgment of the past.
Another fact about which we must remind ourselves in this debate is that the matter involves not only children. Questions of maintenance and capital adjustment under modern legislation require a thorough assessment of means and a skilful balance of a number of discretionary factors past, present and future; income, capital earning capacity, pension rights, needs and practicalities. Furthermore, we must retain effective procedures to investigate and compel disclosure of finances and compliance with orders, and to restrain domestic violence.
I have said that we want the best; but we do not want to lose the expertise of our existing judiciary. It is essential that we should not lose the expertise of the existing judges of the Family Division, nor of the circuit judges who specialise in these matters, nor of the registrars in Somerset House and elsewhere in the country. I suggest that much of this debate turns on retaining and maintaining reliable judges, lawyers and social workers, and on retaining the calibre of those people. The lower the calibre of the lower tiers, the more important it is that we retain the calibre of the higher tiers. We do not want expenditure on the lower tiers of the family court to create a temptation to cut costs at the top.
We do not want conciliation to become a substitute for the resolution of family problems. In a law-based system conciliation can complement but it cannot be a substitute for the legal process. There must be informed conciliation but we must remember that, following the breakdown of their marriage, the parties are vulnerable. We must not have a system of conciliation which pushes the weaker party into premature and ill-considered decisions which will govern the rest of their lives.
1410
As an example of how conciliation can work, and work well, I point to. the system in operation under the registrars at Somerset House. It is a mistake to think that conciliation alone can melt away the bitterness or the financial evasions which follow marital breakdown. It is comforting to know that the Government are to seek the guidance of the conciliation unit at Newcastle University.
The one major benefit of the introduction of a family court is that we can shed the involvement of the lay magistrates and their anomalous procedures. The temptation to retain the lay involvement should be overcome; it will not enhance the process nor the results. My noble friend Lord McGregor pointed to the range of criticism made over the years of magistrates' involvement, from the Gorell Commission in the early part of the century to Bristol University last month.
We must not allow ourselves to fall into a system of crude arbitration. We have often heard —we have heard in this debate—of the example of New Zealand. Across the water in Australia they have a Family Court. It does not seem to command much respect. Large quantitites of maintenance are not paid. And according to the Sunday Times on 27th April last year, there have been three bombings, the fatal shooting of a judge, the murder of another judge's wife, three women murdered by husbands who blamed Family Court decisions and criticism from men who argue that their children have been legally stolen and from women who say that the judges are sexist. In other words, the family court must have authority and it must command respect.
The importance of the work is such that the expertise and the authority must be maintained. There are few more important or difficult decisions than whether a child should be taken, perhaps irrevocably, from his or her parents and few more important functions for the courts than to safeguard parents and children against either the inertia of local authorities or the misjudgments of inexperienced social workers.
Lastly, of course, we must have the resources, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has to say. According to an account in Mrs. Barbara Castle's published diaries, she discussed the matter with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when he was Lord Chancellor. She noted in her diary:
"Elwyn was as charming as usual and convinced me that the elaborate new machinery Finer proposes is just not on".
The lawyers would be the first to admit that there are anomalies and weaknesses in the existing system. There have been improvements and changes in the system since Finer but there is still room for a more rational allocation of work. Further evolution can take place and the Booth Committee gives us further opportunity. However, we should be careful of thinking of the family court as a panacea. We must have a clear idea of what we want. One sometimes has the feeling that a dozen different people all have a dozen different ideas of what a family court is.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, talked about the problem of a separate set of buildings. Clearly, if we are going to have a family

1411
court we must do more than simply change the labels outside the existing buildings. That would benefit no-one except the signwriters. But if resources are limited and if they are too limited to allow of having the best family court, then I suggest that resources should be diverted elsewhere and possibly towards the overhaul of child care law.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I begin by joining with noble Lords who have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on his delightful maiden speech. It is good that he has broken the resistance of his family over 80 years to holding forth in your Lordships' House.
What has been a common seam in this most interesting debate has been the feeling and knowledge that dissatisfaction with our current courts system for families is widespread, and indeed has been so for many years. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that we cannot go on indefinitely as we are. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that our procedural law is embodied in the past. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, referred to the multiplicity of courts to which those seeking justice have to turn. She made the charming observation that if there are no parents, there are no children. It brought to my mind the famous answer of Mark Twain to the question, "What would men be like in a world without women?"—"Scarce, mighty scarce". That is an addition to the noble Baroness's collection of such observations.
The complexity of the court scene affecting the family has been grotesque over a very long period. For some purposes, such as adoption, the applicant can choose to which of several courts he can apply. In other cases (for example, in care proceedings) only the juvenile court is available. Yet in other situations (for example, in regard to custody) the court in which the family finds itself might be limited in its powers by detailed legislation within its jurisdiction. There is this chaos and complexity, owing perhaps to piecemeal legislation as time has gone by.
I heard with interest the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. We should consider the Scottish scene. I believe that we have much to learn from Scotland about procedures there and particularly about children's hearings.
Into this confusing situation the family court has gone with great vigour and has drawn attention to the absence in England and Wales of a legal system which focuses, as it should, on the needs of children and their families. In that task, if I may say so, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has been quite outstanding. The fact ought to be acknowledged by your Lordships in the course of this debate.
So also, if he will allow me to say so—and he cannot stop me—has been the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. We are grateful to him for initiating this debate and also for the fascinating article he wrote in the Civil Justice Quarterly, which, however, ended on what was for him a highly pessimistic note. He said:
1412
"I joined the Family Courts Campaign in a lackadaisical and depressed mood. I am so pessimistic about the possibility of achieving anything worthwhile in the foreseeable future that I now feel that a campaign to secure a ministry of justice would be the best way to promote a Finer-type family court".
If that was a cri de coeur it was also a cry of despair. But that pessimism was not reflected today in the light of what has recently been happening and the attribution to the noble and learned Lord of leaks from that distinguished department over which he presides, which makes us look forward with eagerness to the concluding part of the debate.
The major work on the family court system, as has been stated, was done by the committee which was chaired by Morris Finer, whose early death we all lamented. It was shipwrecked largely on the ground of excessive public expenditure; and, while I will not confirm every word in the diary of my noble friend, Lady Castle—but I must not anticipate events so recklessly—and while it is quite true that I found myself also faced with the Treasury argument that the Finer proposals were grotesquely extravagant and unachievable, I am afraid that problem still remains.
However, there is hope to be gained from the experience in other countries that the processes we have in mind for the family courts are not bankrupting. Indeed it is good that the studies of Judge Graham Hall in this field have been referred to. Last year I had the pleasure of co-chairing, with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, a conference of the National Children's Bureau on the subject, Family Courts: the Need for Action. The need remains but we still await the remedy.
Two days before that conference the Lord Chancellor's Department released a long awaited report from the review committee that was established by the department, but I am bound to say that it created much disappointment because of its lack of direction. It asked a multitude of questions but gave very few answers. That became apparent in the address given by the spokesman of the department. It was indeed an unenviable task that he was given. In his speech to us he said:
"It did not prove possible to cost the options and various possible components of a family court because the number of imponderables and variables of which account would have to be taken at the present stage would make such an exercise fruitless. Our task will then be to advise the Minister and we envisage we shall be in a position to do this in early 1987".
Therefore we now wait with hope for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to tell us what has emerged from all those detailed inquiries in the intervening period. In a way it is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord is to speak at the end of the debate. He might have saved us from a great deal of anxiety and worry about the future prospect. In any event we greatly look forward to hearing what in effect will be his maiden speech from the Woolsack—apart, that is, from some of the preliminary reconnaissances at Question Time which we have all enjoyed.
However, there is one aspect of what went on in the family courts conference to which I referred which I should like to develop further. There was a powerful speech made by the New Zealand judge who pioneered family courts in that country. Judge Peter Trapski spoke with enthusiasm of the successful New

1413
Zealand experience of family courts and emphasised the value of conciliation as an essential component of family law, as indeed has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
Judge Trapski said that the result of their family court procedures was a dramatic reduction in the number of custody cases which actually proceed through to the "traditional bloodletting of a court hearing"—I like that phrase. He said that, in those that do get there there is almost an absence of the custody dispute which grinds on destructively beyond a two-day hearing; and that:
"There has been a dramatic almost overnight acceptance of the need to change traditional approaches by judges, administrators and the legal profession".
With respect, I ask the noble and learned Lord what study has been made of the experience in New Zealand and what enlightenment we can receive from it for our own future progress? Similarly, Canada and Australia have had success with family courts. In the light of those experiences and in the confident expectation of good news to come, I happily now give way to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
4.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak of my noble and learned predecessor. I think that after three Parliaments as Lord Chancellor he will go down in history as one of the great reforming Lord Chancellors of the century. I have now inherited from him two very important proposed reforms. Those are the civil justice review and the family court. As I think your Lordships know, both are close to my heart, particularly reform in the family court field. My noble and learned predecessor initiated those reforms and carried them forward. Now I have the responsibility, with the help of my colleagues, for deciding what is the best and most viable course that we can find.
I first met the noble and learned Lord on a Saturday morning at Ipswich Quarter Sessions. He appeared with his wig, as always, on the back of his head but half over his right ear. He achieved there the most incredible result, just by the wit and skill that he used in his display of advocacy, because his case had no merit at all. He has always been ready to support me in what have been difficult times. I shall never forget him. I am so pleased to see him sitting in his place this afternoon. Great warrior, I salute you, and wish you well in what some may say is your too early retirement. I wish you every happiness and success.
Noble Lords who have already spoken have expressed their gratitude, as I do, to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for initiating this debate. It was helpful of him to give us a foretaste of his contribution in his learned article on family courts which appeared in the January edition of Civil Justice Quarterly. It is well known that the noble Lord was an active and influential member of the Finer Committee whose report recommended in 1974 the establishment of a family court. Indeed, I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about
1414
his problems after the Finer Report. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is. President of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, an organisation which is probably more familiar than any other with the whole range of problems faced by citizens and their families.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, not only on making a record but on making a very good maiden speech in which he eloquently pleaded, as have all the speakers today, for the establishment of a family court or at the very least, of some reform. I, with everybody else, hope that he will continue to contribute to the debates in this House.
Since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, talks about the situation 40 years ago, I cannot resist reminding him of the first occasion on which we met. In 1946 I was a young lieutenant in the RNVR and judge's marshall to the noble and learned Lord. That is where I first heard that beautiful voice. Perhaps I may also make a personal reference to my noble friend Lady Strange, with whom I was associated a couple of years ago when I was the attorney appearing in her claim, before your Lordships' Privileges Committee. I am very pleased that it was successful.
My Lords I should like to recall to mind—as have many noble Lords—the name of Morris Finer. I remember him as a friend and as a lawyer who had the unusual distinction of being invited by the late Richard Crossman to preside over that major inquiry. I think it was the particular genius of Morris Finer as a lawyer that he was able to analyse with such perception the relationship between the problems of one-parent families and the institutions affecting those families, as well as the courts.
There is no point in pretending that consideration as to whether and how to move forwards toward a family court has been anything but measured, and I believe that I detected an element of disappointment about that in some of the speeches of noble Lords. We therefore owe a notable debt to my predecessor for having re-opened ministerial and official consideration of the matter in 1983. He established the committee of officials which produced the consultation paper that was published last year. For my part I do not share the disappointment about that paper which has been expressed in some quarters. To my mind if fully rehearsed the issues and stimulated a degree of consensus. In the light of the views received, officials from my department, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Security, are considering the full range of policy options and their implications. I am sure the noble and learned Lord would agree that this task cannot be handled in a superficial way, and I can assure the House that officials are still heavily engaged on it.
I do not think that it would be right for me to say at this stage, with any degree of finality or detail, which of the main options for the reform of family justice is likely to be adopted; nor do I believe that it would be very helpful to enter upon a detailed analysis of the responses to the consultation paper. But in very broad terms, it is right to say that there

1415
does now appear to be a broad consensus among those who have responded in favour of the establishment of a family court. This consensus includes the legal profession, the judiciary, social work and welfare organisations, and the Magistrates' Association, though not all individual magistrates. When I say "consensus", I mean of course that there are degrees of variation in the responses. Within this consensus, a majority favour a family court based on the county court rather than the setting up of a new independent system of family courts.
There has, I sense, been general agreement this afternoon as to the nature of the problems and of the objectives that we should be adopting. As the incidence of marriage breakdown and associated problems have increased, questions have naturally been posed as to whether the existing arrangements for dealing with family business can be improved. This means improving the effectiveness of the courts in handling family business, including—and I still think it of great importance—most particularly the handling of cases relating to children, who are so often the innocent victims of the family's circumstances. We all agree, I am sure, as to the objective of seeing all matters concerning children dealt with in the best possible way by our courts. The improvements we seek relate to the quality of the decisions the courts are able to make, the appro-priateness of court procedures and the general quality of the service provided for families in trouble. As I said, in all these matters the welfare of children must be paramount.
At the same time, there is a proper concern to maximise the flexible and efficient deployment of judicial and other resources available to handle family cases and to ensure that all the resources engaged are well used. At this point, I should like to emphasise that it is our objective to ensure that changes, if there are to be changes, are sufficient to meet the well-founded criticisms of the present system. I need not rehearse these criticisms which were so well exposed in the Finer Report.
Reference has been made, too, during the course of the debate to the fact that the consultation paper did not examine the costs of the three options which it canvassed. There has been some criticism of that. The position is this. Considerable work on this point has been completed but has not reached a sufficiently final stage for me to make any comments which would be other than misleading. The problem which my noble and learned predecessor had, and which his noble and learned predecessor also had, is the problem associated with all Ministers. You have to persuade the Treasury that something is good, viable and cost-worthy and we need to have the proper accurate figures for it. As I am sure all your Lordships know, it is very difficult indeed to cost.
Having said that, there are, I believe, a number of matters on which I can be of some assistance to your Lordships. For example, it now seems fairly clear, without quoting figures, that the option of setting up a new, separate family court with its own accommodation, staff and judiciary is not one which any government would consider affordable.
1416
At the other end of the scale, reforms limited to the magistrates' courts and to the overlap between those courts and the county courts seem likely to offer the least expensive solution. That leaves aside, of course, the question whether changes in that form are likely by themselves to provide worthwhile benefits and lasting improvements in the handling of cases concerning children.
If we turn to the option of a family court based in the county court a whole series of very difficult questions arise. I shall put them to your Lordships' House. What are to be the tiers of judiciary? Is it right to assume that there will be magistrates, registrars, circuit judges and High Court judges? What should be the place of lay magistrates in a unified family court? A Times leader last week compared the role of magistrates with that of medical and social work experts. The balance there will surely not change. Will it be right and sensible, at least for some cases, to have mixed benches made up from more than one tier? How are cases to be classified and allocated between tiers? How can we best combine fair procedure with arrangements which enable those who appear before the court to give of their best and to accept the decisions of the court as being for the best? In family cases above all, the court's decision is the first stage in creating fair arrangements and solutions, and it seems to me to be vital that all concerned should be able to accept that decision and then go forward.
Then there are some serious practical problems. A transfer of family work—and this has been said on several occasions today, based on the Graham Hall report that there would be savings—from the magistrates' courts to the county courts would increase the workload of the county courts but would not, in itself, provide the resources of staff, cash, judicial manpower and accommodation which will be required. Can savings be made in the magistrates' courts to provide these resources? In theory, of course, this should be possible, but I have been told, and I accept it, that there will be some magistrates' courts in which, for example, members of staff are engaged only partially on family work. Can we expect magistrates' courts committees to surrender to the county courts all the resources currently engaged on family work in the magistrates' courts even at the price of unavoidable local inconvenience, to the extent even of a possible reduction in the standard of service provided? Putting the matter another way, may we have to limit the scope of the family court in the face of this difficult problem?
Reform cannot be achieved at any price. Changes in procedures, forum and administrative arrangements must be feasible, cost-effective and capable of persuading Treasury Ministers. At present the total cost of family business—and I think this may surprise some of your Lordships—is some £150 million a year. Out of this £87 million is spent on legal aid; £18 million is the cost of conducting family business in the magistrates' courts; £25 million is the cost of family business in the county courts and the other higher courts; and about £20 million is spent on probation officers and social services. That is a very high base to start from.

1417
The Government's efforts in the next few months will be directed at examining the details of changes necessary to achieve reform, and I hope will include firm costings of these changes. This will entail looking at the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of moving judicial business between the courts. It will also mean looking at payments for legal aid. The Government's starting point on the family court must be the need to keep expenditure as a whole close to current levels.
The White Paper on Legal Aid set out two principles that the Government will be adopting generally in respect of legal aid remuneration. The first is that the Government will continue to have regard for the principle of fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done. The second principle is that the Government must also have regard to other claims on public funds. But as well we have to be fair to the taxpayer who, in the end, provides the funds. If there is to be a family court it will have to offer fairness to the taxpayer in relation to legal aid as well as to other costs.
Reference has been made to an article by Judge Jean Graham Hall and Mr. Douglas Martin. They propose that in a family court there should be radical changes directed to achieving affordability, with higher court fees and even changes in the scope of legal aid. I can assure your Lordships that we are certainly looking closely at what they wrote, as indeed we are at everything with which we have been provided and which has been referred to today.
A wide range of options has to be considered affecting various aspects of these court proposals. At the same time, I am anxious to identify and stick to the main theme.
As your Lordships will appreciate, the matter is one to which I have thought it right to give a good deal of attention in the short time that I have been in office. There is one central point which has struck me and which I feel should be emphasised. The leading purpose of a family court, if there were to be one—and I hope that your Lordships will notice the qualification that I insist on making—would be to improve the standard of adjudication, in particular in cases where children are involved.
From what I have heard today I believe that that is the point which must concern your Lordships and also the country at large. With that objective in mind it remains to be seen which other aspects of family business, if any, would need to be reorganised. Now I pose, if I may, another problem. For example it does not seem to me that the work which magistrates' courts do in recording and enforcing maintenance payments would have to be made the subject of a major reorganisation. It may be that that work can be severed from the judicial handling of other family work by magistrates and that we should concentrate on improving the handling of children's cases.
I have spoken about the newspaper articles, but those that appeared after the general election suggested that plans for a family court had been shelved. I do not know how that situation arose because we are still in the middle and on station for a decision by the end of the year. But as this debate has illustrated it is not an easy problem to resolve
1418
and, as I have said, the Government are not yet in a position to commit themselves to any particular decision nor to a precise date for a decision.
I think that the public now realise the importance of this reform. We have to choose the option which will create the best sympathetic atmosphere or climate for those involved in the turbulence of a breakdown of a marriage and, most important of all, for those innocent children who through no fault of their own become involved in that turmoil.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, whose kinsmen it seems fell silent around the time the Gorell Commission published its report, but I hope that we may take the charming maiden speach of the noble Lord as an omen.
The debate has been a formidable experience for a layman who is foolhardy enough to enter legal ground and then discovers on the list of speakers not only the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack but two of his predecessors.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to his disappointment at a statement that I had made in a piece that I wrote. I now think that that observation penned a year ago was foolish. It was particularly foolish coming from someone who spends time reading the history of our legal institutions during the last two centuries. The outstanding impression that that history leaves is not one of speed of change. So I am neither disappointed nor elated by what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said. However, I am encouraged that he, his department and the Government have the issue of family courts under active consideration. We shall all look forward to the results of that in the next few months. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Measures on Polytechnics, Inner London
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can now repeat a Statement on polytechnics and inner London which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"In our White Paper on higher education we gave a notice of our intention to legislate to re-establish the polytechnics and certain local authority maintained colleges as freestanding corporate bodies outside local authority control. The White Paper indicated that the new funding arrangements would also apply to certain institutions assisted by local education authorities. We expressed confidence that the local authorities would in the intervening period before the legislation was enacted continue to act responsibly in the funding of the institutions due for transfer and the upkeep of their plant. I remain confident that the great majority of authorities will act responsibly, but it has come to my attention that a

1419
small number of local authorities are planning or taking steps which would either deprive the polytechnic or college concerned of assets which it needs for effective operation or would seriously encumber those assets.
"Regrettably this makes it necessary for me to take action to protect these institutions. I am not prepared to allow the interests of present and future students to be put at risk in this way. It is neither in the local nor the national interest that damage should be done to the education those institutions do and will continue to provide. I therefore propose to seek Parliament's approval in the forthcoming legislation to a measure whereby my specific consent will be required for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of those institutions. Those are the ones which I intend to be freestanding corporate bodies together with those institutions which are presently assisted by local education authorities and which I intend should become funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The names of the institutions are set out in my separate Written Answer to my honourable friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.
"The disposals of land or interests in land requiring my consent will include outright sale, granting or otherwise disposing of any leasehold or other interest in land, direct sale and leaseback, and any mortgage or other charge designed to raise capital on the security of the land. It will also include any disposal which is made in return for the supply of goods or services. In referring to disposals I include entering into any binding obligation to make a disposal of the kind in question.
"Similarly in relation to our proposals to allow inner London authorities to apply to take over from the Inner London Education Authority the responsibilities of the local education authority for their areas, the Government have decided to include provisions within the legislation requiring ILEA to obtain my consent in advance to the following actions. The first is any disposal of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with their education functions. Disposals will be as in the case of polytechnics and colleges. The second, is any contract for a consideration having a value in excess of £15,000.
"In considering whether to give my consent I may seek the views of parties affected, including any inner London authority with a potential interest in the transaction. I shall seek Parliament's approval to the provisions both for the polytechnics and colleges and for ILEA having effect from midnight tonight. This Statement does not affect enforceable obligations entered into before midnight tonight.
"I shall also seek Parliament's approval for certain sanctions where my consent has not been obtained in advance. For the disposal of land or
1420
interests in land without my consent there will be a power of compulsory purchase with a right of recovery from the local authority or from ILEA of any compensation payable. In the case of contracts, including contracts for disposal, which I have mentioned, entered into without my consent, there will be a right of repudiation, and such repudiation will be deemed to be a repudiation by ILEA or the relevant local authority, so that any liability in damages will remain with ILEA or the relevant local authority.
"My department is today writing to all local education authorities which currently maintain or assist polytechnics or colleges affected by the legislation and to ILEA and the inner London authorities to explain how these provisions will be applied. I shall continue to monitor the activities of maintaining and assisting local authorities, and of ILEA in particular and shall not hesitate to take whatever additional steps are necessary to prevent the interests of present and future pupils and students from being jeopardised."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am sure that he will recognise that there is a great deal of agreement on this side of the House with the Government's proposals on the issue of corporate status for polytechnics. Indeed, there has been a great deal of agreement from local education authorities, from the educational trade unions and from others involved in education. Quite apart from the White Paper issued in April of this year, that was a policy which was urged by the National Advisory Board's management review, commissioned by the previous Secretary of State for Education. On that matter, there is no disagreement with the proposals or indeed with the means which are now sought to be used to achieve the desired ends.
However, is it not the case that all of the matters which are now the subject of what is perhaps rather an emergency Statement at the very end of this part of the Session of Parliament before the Recess could have been anticipated at the time of the White Paper? Is there anything which is known now which was not known at the time of the White Paper and which could not have been prepared for well in advance? In particular, the Statement refers to the small number of local authorities that have been or are planning to bypass the intentions of the Government. Will the noble Earl name those authorities and tell us in what way they have been bypassing the intentions of the Government? As I understand it from the debate in another place, the Secretary of State was unable to give specific examples of what has actually been happening.
Is it not the case that extra staff will be required for the proposals related to polytechnics? Is it not the case that there will be planning blight because there are inevitably long-term proposals for the redevelopment of polytechnics, their properties and their locations? Will there be a hiatus in decisions concerning capital expenditure? What proposals do the Government have to overcome the problems which are inevitable in a proposal of this kind?

1421
The Statement refers to two different matters. One is the question of the corporate status of polytechnics. The second is a quite different matter of the proposals for the break-up of ILEA. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, is no longer present. However, perhaps the Minister will recall that it was the noble Lord who in his report of 1977 described the physical and financial difficulties attendant upon breaking up ILEA, and said:
"Only a fool would attempt it".
Will the noble Earl accept that description of his right honourable friend? Does he recall that in 1981, the present Secretary of State for Education said that a break-up of ILEA of the sort that he described would produce:
"a rump of poorer, deprived boroughs"?
He also mentioned an increase in administrative costs. Is there any reason to suppose that the Secretary of State has better evidence than he had in 1980–81? Does he recall that an inquiry carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on behalf of the then Secretary of State for Education concluded, in the words of the Secretary of State, that what was needed was a,
"single authority of adequate size",
in London? How is that consistent with the proposals now being made?
Finally, how does the Minister square what is now being proposed with the Statement of Sir Keith Joseph when he was Secretary of State only three years ago that what was needed was:
"a continuing unitary authority for London".
Under the circumstances, is it not the case that the imposition of these restrictions, not just on capital expenditure and disposal of lands but on all contracts down to a level of £15,000, is the unnecessary, undesirable and unworthy result of an unworthy change in political policy? That was a change which was not in any way a result of consultation but which arose as an ill-understood and ill-worked-out manifesto commitment at the time of the last election.
Those are different matters from the question of polytechnics. However, they deserve better answers than we have been given so far.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. We have not dissented from the Government's mainstream plans for polytechnics. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; I find this emergency Statement rather puzzling in one or two respects.
The Government refer to a small number of local authorities but they seem to be very coy about giving names other than that of the Inner London Education Authority. I believe that paragraph 3 refers to the names of institutions, but that is actually a separate list to those actually affected by the Statement.
We on these Benches have made many criticisms of the current Inner London Education Authority. We believe that if the Government had agreed that that authority should be elected and constituted as we suggested, many of the problems would not have
1422
arisen. Even so, it would be interesting to know what evidence the Government have of any drastic disposal plans by ILEA of any of their polytechnic interests. My understanding is that the ILEA polytechnics already have a corporate status. It would be surprising if there were plans to break up that patrimony. Perhaps the Government in the interest of fairness can give us the evidence they have for that intention and also their evidence for the proposed spoliation of existing schools prior to any rejigging of ILEA when its current mandate comes to an end. The Statement is extremely coy on all those matters.
I should like to make one final point. It does not arise strictly from the Statement but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he will confirm that his department has received the recommendations of Sir Alistair Pilkington's committee on polytechnic-local links. I understand that those recommendations were sent to him before 30th June, as required, with a detailed response to the White Paper. Those recommendations are very important for the future conduct of polytechnics under the new dispensation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as regards evidence, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has evidence in the form of reports from the polytechnics and colleges themselves and from local authority documents that several authorities are actively considering or taking steps to avoid polytechnic and college assets being transferred.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Which ones?
The Earl of Arran: On the second point made by the noble Lord regarding ILEA, the inner London boroughs must obviously be given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to take on education functions. I believe that many will be keen to do so. However, if some wish education to be administered within their areas by a unitary authority, albeit one that may be reduced in size by the decisions of other boroughs, that is not a possibility that we should rule out.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, if I may I shall write to him on the question of Sir Alistair Pilkington's report, as I do not have the answer. However, I would think it quite probable that noble Lords on the Benches opposite, in the light of similar future legislation, might also seek similar protective measures.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the light of the facts which he has disclosed, most thinking people will feel that Her Majesty's Government have done the least that they possibly could in the face of a very serious situation? So far as the action threatened by ILEA, is he aware that that will increase the doubt in the minds of many of us as to whether it is right to allow ILEA to continue at all?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks and it goes without saying that I agree with them.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, as someone who is associated with one of the biggest polytechnics in the country, if not the biggest, I agree with the Government's objective. However, will this not be retrospective legislation of the most serious kind? Does it not mean that any contract for the sale of land entered into between midnight tonight and the date of Royal Assent, which may be in January or February next year, will be negated and void? Is that not a departure from the usual situation?
I recollect many years ago speeches were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about retrospective legislation. Before we debate this matter I shall look at those speeches in Hansard. This will be retrospective legislation of an extremely serious and far-reaching kind.
With regard to the local authorities, is it not a fact that of the three local authorities concerned two are large, Conservative-controlled county councils? I regard the proposals for ILEA as nothing more than spite against the Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the interests of present and future students must be paramount. It is the Government's duty to take whatever action is necessary to prevent damage to the quality and effectiveness of this key sector of higher education. My right honourable friend must act to prevent the threat posed by a small number of irresponsible authorities.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the Minister refers to a small number of local authorities. We should like to know which those are. It is no good saying that the Secretary of State has evidence without telling us which authorities they are.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in the circumstances I shall pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, that is not fair. The noble Earl should tell the House.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, surely it is unfair to ask the Minister to deliver in this House information which must be given by the Secretary of State and nobody else.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that interruption.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, we are not asking the Minister. We are asking the Government and the noble Earl is speaking for the Government. We ask him again to tell us which are the local authorities.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must repeat that I shall pass on the concerns, anxieties and questions of noble Lords to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is this not a criticism of the timing of the Statement? In normal
1424
circumstances, other than immediately before the Recess, it would be possible and necessary for us to put down questions to the Government requiring an answer to these entirely proper questions. Those questions would then have to be answered by the Minister, the Secretary of State or any other spokesman for the Government. The choice of the day before the Recess and Royal Assent for this Statement makes that clearly impossible for a period of three months. Is that not a derogation of duty on the part of the. Government as a whole?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not think it is. These decisions were taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in view of the circumstances he had at hand and particularly in view of the fact there was about to be a three months' Recess.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some noble Lords strongly disagree with the proposition that what is proper for a representative of the Government to say in another place is improper for a representative of the Government to say in this place?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, surely that is not the point. Everybody knows that my noble friend Lord Arran has to consult the Secretary of State before he can speak on matters of government responsibility. It is utterly unfair to a fairly new Minister to try to put him into this position and it is also unconstitutional.
Noble Lords: Absolute nonsense.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, once again I agree and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State in answering questions on this Statement in the other place this afternoon was challenged on exactly this point. He gave one name, Nottinghamshire. Was that name not available to the noble Earl? Has he not had the same briefing material as the Secretary of State in order to answer questions relating to the Statement? May I remind him that the Statement itself says, "a small number of local authorities", and it therefore invites that question? Is it not the responsibility of government as a whole to have the same briefing material, the same possibility of an answer and the same possibility of satisfying the legitimate requirements of this House in this House as in another place?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I confess that I understand that Nottinghamshire was one of the areas. I know of no others.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, we are not attacking the Minister who is replying for the Government. We are saying that we expected the Government to anticipate what was going to be asked of them from these and other Benches. On this side of the House we have not welcomed the Government's

1425
proposals but we have gone a long way towards agreeing with them. There are 104 education authorities in England and Wales, and we should like to know which are the guilty ones; no more than that. Surely it could have been anticipated by the Government that this would be one of the questions coming from these Benches.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is easier for the Opposition to have an idea of anticipated questions than one's own Benches.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Earl, as a new Minister, that if he is not prepared to reveal the names and particulars of certain local authorities which are under strong government criticism and doubt he is very unwise to mention the subject at all?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot agree with that remark. This subject needed mentioning and mentioning urgently.

Metropolitan Police
5.37 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for 1986 (Cmnd. 158); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, by a coincidence this debate on the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis is taking place just nine days before the retirement of Sir Kenneth Newman.
As we all recognise, Sir Kenneth has had a testing career, first, in the Palestine Police, then in the Metropolitan Police. He was then the Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and later Chief Constable. He then became Commandant of the Police College at Bramshill and subsequently Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I believe that all who have come into contact with him, regard him as an outstanding leader of his service. He was calm and decisive at times of crisis, a man of firm and unyielding principle, cool and rational, insisting on the highest standards of professionalism from those who served under him. I believe he will go down in the history of the Metropolitan Police as one of its greatest commissioners. He will carry with him into his retirement the thanks of this House and the gratitude of many citizens of London. I know that all noble Lords will want to wish the very best of good fortune to his successor, Mr. Peter Imbert.
I turn now to the contents of Sir Kenneth's final report. It discloses, once again, a significant rise in serious crime in London. In 1986 robbery rose by 7 per cent. compared with 1985, which in turn showed an 11 per cent. increase compared with 1984. Sexual offences rose by 7 per cent. on top of a 17 per cent. increase in the previous year. Within this group of offences the number of offences of rape rose in a single year by 45 per cent. There is further evidence in the report of the growth of trafficking in heroin and cocaine, which is still one of the most rapidly growing industries in this country.
The increased level of serious crime in London, together with the heavy pressure of public order commitments such as those at Wapping—which alone led to the deployment of an average of over 300 officers a day being taken off the streets of London—has, led, as I think we all recognise, to heavy demands on the resources of the force.
I turn now to this serious problem of police manpower in London. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will, I am sure, be telling us of the substantial improvement in police recruitment since 1979, just as his noble friend Lord Glenarthur did when we debated the crime situation pertaining in London in 1986. What he tells us will of course be true. An increase of over 4,000 men and women not only sounds impressive but is indeed impressive. Unhappily, the reality is very different. The effect of the reduction in the working week has been the equivalent loss of 3,000 officers. The cash limits placed on the force last year led to cuts in overtime estimated at around a further 400 officers. Additional leave entitlements since this January took another 144 officers off the streets. Then there are the consequences of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, much of which we welcomed, which took another 177 officers off the streets. The Drug Trafficking Offences Act took another 42.
Furthermore, quite apart from police burdens, the level of sick leave is a matter of serious concern. Last year over 400,000 working days were lost as a result of sickness and, although some were the result of injuries on duty, many were due to the pressure of police work in London which in turn has led to a significant wastage of experienced officers to other police forces in England and Wales. The loss of manpower caused by sickness has, as I have indicated, now reached very serious proportions. It is in fact equivalent to 7 per cent. of the strength of the Metropolitan Police—in other words well over 1,800 officers.
I accept—as I am sure everyone does—that the police must be efficient in terms of their use of resources. However, cash limits are undoubtedly creating serious problems in the Metropolitan Police. Over 75 per cent. of their expenditure is related to pay and pensions and the balance is concerned with maintaining and replacing buildings, transport and communications. In that situation it is hardly surprising that the Commissioner, faced with still greater demands on his depleted manpower, has had to warn the Government—as he does in explicit terms in his report—that further economies imposed by them can only be at the cost of a lower level of effectiveness and service to the public. In view of what the Commissioner has explicitly said on this point, I think that it is right to remind the House of the Prime Minister's commitment on this very question, at the Conservative Party Conference in 1985, when referring to the police, she said:
"If they need more men, more equipment, different equipment, then they shall have them. We don't economise on protecting life and property".
When the noble Earl comes to reply, I wonder whether he can tell the House when the Prime Minister's pledge will be fully implemented in London. The economies now being imposed on the

1427
police are entirely inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said on that occasion.
I now turn to what I suspect will not be a matter of great surprise to the noble Earl and that is the question of the use of police cells for remand prisoners. These have, in effect, become a second prison system. We welcome what the Home Secretary said last week and indeed what the noble Earl told the House when he repeated the Statement, when he announced that he was increasing the level of remission for short-sentence prisoners. I should be very interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say about the implications of that Statement in relation to the use of police cells in London and elsewhere. I think that wherever we sit in this House we all recognise that the Home Secretary's decision was not an easy one. It was I believe a brave decision. I must confess that I found it a little hard to accept the fierce criticism by his immediate predecessor Mr. Brittan. It will be recalled that when Mr. Brittan was Home Secretary he announced with pride in an article in The Times, that he had solved the problem of remand in police custody—there would be no more. He did indeed deal with the situation, but only for a period of 48 hours. Subsequently, however the prisoners began once again to pour into the police stations and, needless to say, Mr. Brittan declined to do anything further about it. Nevertheless, he now attacks his successor for having taken action to implement his own promise. As the father of my noble friend Lord Attlee said, in a rather different context, to the late Harold Laski in 1945:
"A period of silence on your part would be appreciated by us all".
However, quite apart from the issue of remands in police custody, with the very significant manpower indications which are spelt out in the Commissioner's report, which takes further policemen off the streets of London and elsewhere, together with all the squalid and degrading conditions which are involved in keeping remand prisoners in wholly unsuitable accommodation, the Commissioner's report deals with a totally different question which also has very substantial manpower implications: the matter of jury nobbling. This problem is spelt out in detail in the report. In particular, there is the case where a judge makes the appropriate direction whereby a team of 72 officers can be involved in giving round-the-clock protection to each member of the jury. In many cases that also applies to key witnesses. In a substantial case the cost to the police can amount to £750,000. Mr. John Dellow, the new Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has made it clear that large sums of money are available to these professional nobblers in order to intimidate both jurors and witnesses.
I accept at once that it is easy to recognise the problem, but it is far more difficult to decide what to do about it and to bring to justice the gangs of criminals who are involved in this practice in London. The noble Earl will recall that this particular matter was raised in the debate on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I think that he, and I, together with many others, will be interested to know what further action the Home Office, and the
1428
Lord Chancellor's Department, is contemplating to deal with this extremely disquieting situation.
I shall now turn to two other matters that cause very serious public concern—the growth in trafficking of narcotics and the use of firearms, particularly shotguns, by criminals. I will start with heroin. In the period of 10 years between 1975 and 1985 Home Office figures show that heroin seizures rose in number from 236 to 3,126, which is a rise of over 1,200 per cent., and the quantities involved rose by well over 5,000 per cent. We are faced with evidence that heroin abuse is continuing to rise, accompanied by the threat of a sharp rise in the use of cocaine.
I think that it is accepted, by all concerned in this matter that at least half of our country's drug problem lies within London; very few significant provincial drug operations do not have some contact with the criminal community in London. Let me illustrate this. Drug submissions to the Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory number more than the submissions to all the other forensic science laboratories in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the action which the Government have taken to implement the findings of the Broome Report, but I find it depressing that once again the Commissioner's request for a substantial increase in the size of his central drug squad has been ignored. All North American experience demonstrates the folly of having inadequate resources to deal with the sophisticated criminals involved in trafficking in narcotics. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that this matter will be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
Secondly, I turn to the use of shotguns. In the four-year period 1983 to 1986, armed robberies in London increased by 46 per cent. Within that period armed attacks on banks rose by 53 per cent. and on security vehicles by 97 per cent. In many cases, shotguns were used. The Government have been told repeatedly by many senior police officers, both in London and elsewhere, that it is necessary to impose firmer control on shotgun licences. But still, unhappily, nothing has been done. The matter was raised again by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill only last week. We have received hints that the Government may be prepared at least to impose a requirement on licence holders that they should take adequate steps to protect their weapons from being stolen; yet even on that limited question nothing has been done.
I am aware, of course, of the pressure of the shotgun lobby but it is time that the Government acted in this matter. The safety of the police and the public requires it. I tell the noble Earl that we shall be putting down amendments on this matter, I hope on an all-party basis, when we reach the Criminal Justice Bill. I very much hope that he will be in a position to support those amendments when they are introduced.
Finally, I deal with the all-important question of relations between the police and the public. There are, as we are all aware, still many severe tensions in inner-city areas in London as elsewhere. There is the problem of racial attacks, which are still difficult to

1429
quantify, but which pose an intolerable threat to the well-being of many of our fellow citizens. There are, of course, in London and elsewhere plenty of hardworking political extremists bent on keeping the police out of inner-city schools and determined to poison the relationship between the police and the community. That is why it is even more important that when there is any misbehaviour by individual police officers, the most rigorous action is taken to deal with it.
The trial which ended at the Old Bailey last week—the Holloway Road episode—was just such an incident. It was, as we all recognise and as the judge made clear, a wholly disgraceful business. I very much hope that the demands which have been made in the aftermath of that trial from some fellow officers—that the policemen who came forward to give evidence against their colleagues should be ostracised—will be ignored, as I am sure they will be, by the overwhelming majority of policemen in London. Only because they came forward was it possible to convict those responsible of these extremely serious assaults.
In conclusion, there remains, as I think we all recognise, deep public anxiety about the level of serious crime in London which is continuing to rise inexorably. To tackle it I think that two requirements are necessary—adequate resources to police our streets and the firm co-operation of the general public. The first is the responsibility of the Government; the second is the responsibility of us all. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, on the front of this excellent report we have the words,
"Crime is a problem for society as a whole: it is too important to be left to the police alone".
This has been my maxim, and it is what I have attempted to do, in the crime prevention world for the past few years. To sell the message of prevention of anything is not easy. Whether you are talking about preventing crime or preventing accidents, people always believe that it happens to the other fellow and not to them. It is only when it has actually happened that they sit up and take notice.
Neighbourhood Watch, Business Watch and all the crime prevention panels with which I have been concerned do work and I urge the Government to make sure that they receive some financial support. The panels not only have to obtain the good will of citizens to operate them but they actually have to get the money from some of the people to do this very worthwhile job. In my opinion it is an excellent report and I underline what my noble friend has said concerning Sir Kenneth Newman. He has been an excellent officer and we salute him for what he has done.
It is impossible, obviously, to cover everything so I shall concentrate upon a matter on which I have spoken before and upon which, no doubt, I shall have to speak again because the wheels grind rather slowly in your Lordships' House. I refer to the increase in crimes of violence. The statistics are analysed in rather a curious way. They are described as less
1430
serious and more serious. No crime is petty to the person against whom it is committed. I have said many times before that physical scars heal but mental scars do not. I think that it is quite wrong constantly to refer to crime as petty crime; all crime is to be abhorred.
I was astonished to read in the report that a large majority—a dreadful expression—of recorded offences of violence against the person involved slight or no injury to the victim. I am not quite sure how the victim did not experience any violence. He must have been extraordinarily quick on his feet to avoid the person who was inflicting it. I should like to know from the Commissioner exactly from where he got that particular explanation.
It is easy, of course, to take quotes from newspapers, but I was particularly impressed by an article in an evening paper headed:
"Let me tell you why I do not walk alone".
It opens with these very significant words:
"London is a different shape at night. A route that takes five carefree minutes to walk during the day becomes a 10 minute all-senses-on-the-alert assault course once darkness has fallen".
Indeed, as a Londoner, I am sad that I no longer wish to travel on the Underground after six o'clock in the evening, such is the measure of fear that one has from the known assaults that one has heard of and from people one knows personally.
Linked with this is an article which I read last evening. The police now describe this as "the year of the knife" and they give an outline of one weekend in the borough of Lambeth. I will not cite all the incidents, but I will give your Lordships a measure of what it is like to be actually out there working. On Friday night a man was arrested in possession of a four-inch knife. In an alleyway behind a library the victim was threatened with a long knife. In the main road—this is only Friday evening—a man of 32 died from a stab wound. That is just a few examples, and I shall now give your Lordships a few examples from Saturday. The victim was approached by a man with a knife and the victim's throat was slashed with a Rambo-type knife. A gang of six youths robbed a man at knife point in the main road. And so it goes on. There is another example on a Sunday which I select for your Lordships: The victim was approached outside his own front door and threatened with a knife. I note in the report that 3,400 officers were injured as a result of having been assaulted in one year. That is an appalling figure.
Chief Superintendent Mike Fairbrother is quoted as saying,
"We are seeing early evidence of a generation which carries knives almost as part of their clothing".
They would not hesitate to use them if they are frustrated in a burglary or, indeed, even if they are challenged.
As I told your Lordships on a previous occasion, there are now dozens of shops springing up in the metropolis selling these and other offensive weapons; this is not to mention mail order. There appears to be no law preventing this. There are opponents to the idea of some laws relating to knives and to shops selling them. Slightly ridiculous examples are quoted. One is of a housewife who wants to buy a bread knife.

1431
I do not know about the ordinary housewife, but I think that I have bought two bread knives in the whole of my married life. I do not believe that that is something one buys every day. Then there is the example of a boy scout returning from a camp with a sheath knife; or a decorator who is hanging wallpaper and he still has his knife in his pocket. I suggest that, if that were all we had to worry about, there would be no problem, but people legitimately carrying knives are rapidly being outnumbered by people who carry knives with the direct intention of using them as an offensive weapon. Everyone knows what I am talking about. I hope to have an exhibition in the Commons at some stage. Then there is the butterfly knife—horrific; and the Texas Star, which one merely swings to slash people's faces. These weapons are deliberately bought for one purpose only—to wound someone.
I have given notice to the Home Secretary that I shall promote a Private Member's Bill in an attempt to restrict the sale of these weapons. I am told that it is difficult to define and to enforce, but this will not deter me. If we do not make a start, the number of these shops will increase. I understand from the police that there are 22,000 martial arts classes throughout Great Britain. We know that the students are supposed to learn only the gentle arts of Kung Fu, but it is significant that many of them buy from these shops.
This may involve some changes in current law. The police are concerned about the fact that they can no longer stop and search for knives. In fact, there is reference to it in the report:
"My officers perceive that there is now an increased use of knives in some areas…".
The police are faced with extremely difficult situations, which involve considerable personal risk.
I am very glad that the report mentions the negative attitudes towards the police, to which the noble Lord referred. Luckily these are held by only some sections of the London community. We are reminded that the force operates by and with the consent of the people. There is nothing more soul destroying than to be put in the wrong when one is doing one's job and one knows that one is doing the right thing as the upholder of law and order. We must give the police 100 per cent. support.
I believe in the goals put forward by the report: the reduction of criminal opportunity; the enhanced detection of crimes; the attack on organised crime; support, care and concern for the victims of crime—we want much more attention given to that—and the preservation of public tranquillity. My own poor effort I hope will make some contribution to ensuring that these ideas are fully implemented.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for tabling the Motion on the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and for his excellent speech initiating the debate. Having been concerned with the police for quite a substantial part of my official career, I welcome the opportunity to
1432
repeat how much we all owe to the Commissioner, who is just about to retire and, indeed, to the Metropolitan Police as a whole.
I have seen something of policing in other parts of the world—not just the television versions—and it is a matter for pride that, notwithstanding all the problems and some rather distressing recent events, the Metropolitan force stands high among the best. It may be rather un-British, but I do not feel particularly ashamed about saying so.
If one looks back, those who defined the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district in 1839 at the second attempt certainly displayed notable prescience in foreshadowing the area of Greater London. More important, as Kenneth Newman points out in the report, is the fact that the basic role of the police has remained unaltered since its foundation in 1829; namely, to prevent and detect crime, to protect life and property and to preserve the Queen's peace. While rather too many of today's crimes would still be recognisable to Sir Robert Peel—human nature does not change all that much—it is obvious that there is a vast difference in the problems that the police face today.
The opening chapter of the report—the Commissioner I know will forgive me if I say that the style makes it clear that it is his own handiwork—gives a vivid picture of some of these problems and the thinking that lies behind the way the police are tackling them.
Two developments that are naturally enough not spelt out specifically in the report are worth underlining. When I was first involved, of the six top posts in the Metropolitan Police—that is, the Commissioner, the deputy Commissioner and four assistant Commissioners—only two were held by policemen. That is now unthinkable. The police themselves have become more professional and have demonstrated that they can produce their own leaders. In those days the Metropolitan Police and the provincial forces remained perhaps rather aloof from each other unless the provincial chief constable happened to be one of the favoured few who had been to Hendon police college, which, incidentally, closed down in 1939 but has left behind it clouds of glory that persist in the popular press even to this day. There is now a much greater two-way exchange of senior officers between London and the provinces. I am sure that the Home Office is determined that this policy should be maintained.
The second development I have in mind is that the Metropolitan CID is no longer the separate, self-contained empire that it used to be until not all that long ago. I am sure that the Home Office will keep an eye on this important aspect which, to put it at its lowest, is something of a safeguard against the ever-present risk of corruption—a risk which, it seems, will never be completely exorcised.
Turning to the report, I am glad to note that even on its covers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, pointed out, it reflects something of what was said on Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill the other day; that is, to rub in the fact that the prevention of crime is not a matter for the police alone and that the community must play its part. In that context, it

1433
would be interesting to know whether the Home Office attaches the same importance to neighbourhood watch schemes as the Commissioner evidently does, notwithstanding recent research (under Home Office aegis, I believe) which strikes a somewhat sceptical note; and whether it remains pessimistic about the prospects of progress in the two or three boroughs where there are as yet no consultative groups.
One overriding consideration must be that our highly trained and expensive police officers are used on duties which can be discharged only by those possessing police powers. In this context there are some rather disquieting facts in the report. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us that we were discussing the other day the grave objections to prisoners being detained in police cells and looked after by police officers. I very much hope that the measures recently announced, and other steps which might prove to be practicable, will have the result that no future report on the Metropolitan Police will have to include a section on this duty.
I find it disappointing that the introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service is said to have led to an increase in the demands on the police. I notice that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary makes the same point for the provincial police. This was not the idea at all. I wonder whether that is the long-term position. It takes a bit of swallowing.
I feel sure that if there were more traffic wardens they could add to what has been done in relieving the police of some of the duties which they used to discharge. Today's newspapers suggest that wardens might be given greater powers in regard to immobilising vehicles. It is rather disquieting to find that their numbers went down in 1986. I also notice that of more than two million fixed penalty notices, less than half were paid and that an almost equal number were cancelled or failed because the offender had not been identified in time. I hope that the statistics will not give wrong ideas to any Members of your Lordships' House. I know that the problem was not new in 1986 but there seems scope here for some improvement.
The size of the Special Constabulary also declined during the year. A total of less than 1,500—which is hardly an impressive figure—makes one wonder whether the police really believe in the ability of the specials to give them effective help. I wonder, incidentally, how many come from the ethnic minorities.
Lastly, in this context, the Commissioner states that 1,170 police posts have been identified for possible civilianisation. I can only say that the sooner something is done the better.
On quite another point, I should like to support the pleas made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for greater controls over shotguns. I derive no comfort from the fact that in 1986 there was a sharp increase in the number of certificates issued in the Metropolitan Police district. I confess that I find it hard to believe that here has been such an enormous increase in the rabbits which can be shot in the hedgerows of that police area. I do not agree with those who suggest that criminals, and those who wish
1434
to shoot at pictures, will get hold of weapons anyway and that it is pointless to have stricter controls.
I should also like to agree with the noble Lord when he spoke about the Holloway Road incident and of those officers who came forward being ostracised by their colleagues. I regard that as a very grave matter. The outcome will be something of a touchstone for the reputation of the force.
I do not think that I ought to address the House any longer, although the report touched on such a wealth of topics that one could talk for quite a long time. The final point I wish to make is to pay tribute to the Receiver of the Metropolitan District and his staff, the backroom boys, who look after the necessities which make the police force tick. One responsibility of the Receiver, with the approval of the Home Secretary, is to fix the police rate and the precept on the local authorities. I express my sympathy with him in the intellectual processes he will be going through in devising how to fit what is already a very complicated procedure into the poll tax which is to come. He will find nothing in the Scottish legislation to act as a precedent to guide him.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I knew that my noble friend Lord Harris would make a powerful and disturbing speech. I knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, would make one's hair stand on end when she talked about risks. I do not believe that either exaggerated the situation. We are back to the days when Mrs. Thrale begged Dr. Johnson not to come down to Streatham at night. That is the position today, and it is very disturbing.
There are two approaches to crime. One is to fight it. That is the first thing we have to do; that is what all the speeches have been about. Another approach is to see whether there is some way to stop people committing crime. This is a very long way round. It seldom works but it has to be tried. I have irritated my friends for the last 50 years by talking from this side of the question rather than from the other.
There are one or two positive matters in this very wide report to which I shall come in a moment. However, I wish first to associate myself with the tribute which my noble friend Lord Harris paid to Sir Kenneth Newman. I knew him first when he came to Northern Ireland and after a short time succeeded James Flanagan as Chief Constable of the RUC—the most difficult police job, I suppose, to be found anywhere. He acquitted himself admirably and withstood with great firmness and good temper the complaints from both quarrelling sides: on the one hand, that he was not doing enough; on the other, that he was doing too much.
Sir Kenneth then came over here to his present position in charge of one of the most famous police bodies in the world which we who live in London respect, admire and depend upon for our safety. However, like all great bodies, it had some problems. He earned praise from all sides, not least for his firmness in tackling alleged corruption in his force. That is one of the most difficult and distasteful of all tasks for a new broom. It is generally agreed that he has gone a long way in the right direction.

1435
Sir Kenneth has also adopted a very open stance towards the public and has taken them more than is usual into his confidence. I suppose that his worst problem with the public has been the need to insist on a better approach towards the ethnic minorities, in particular the blacks in the inner city areas. A great deal of his area is inner city. He inherited a force which was shown to behave quite often in a way that was not acceptable. Most courageously he invited in critical outsiders from the Policy Studies Institute who made a fascinating report called Police and People in London. However, this revealed a worse situation than any of us had expected.
Sir Kenneth set about putting matters right with great energy. His successor will find the position a good deal better, but not yet entirely right. This is at least partly because the reaction of the blacks to callous behaviour tends to persist even when the behaviour has changed. Thus it all takes time. I have seen what has been done in Birmingham and I have spoken about it before in the House. The blacks I saw were absolutely splendid. There was a very good man with a Birmingham accent who was training other blacks. He said to me, and to my noble friend Lord Hunt who was with me, "You must not think there are not a lot of other people outside who would not come in here". So he was only getting one half; the other half remain to be converted.
What interests me about the report is that the Commissioner shows full awareness of the problem and how he has initiated a much more positive effort to bring the public into his efforts at crime prevention. He says at the beginning that,
"we have been consciously organising a coherent structure within which the public will be enabled to work with us in a purposeful partnership".
He goes on to explain that there are only three London boroughs that do not yet have consultative groups with the police attending. But in spite of this he says that the oldest group—Lambeth—is full of constructive proposals and still finds its progress limited by the ambivalent and sometimes hostile attitude of the borough council. So there is a long way to go and I do not think it is any good trying not to go it, if I may so put it.
We in NACRO believe strongly in the consultative groups where statutory and voluntary agencies, such as tenants' associations, welfare services, housing authorities and above all the police, join us to analyse causes and agree preventive action. Sir Kenneth quotes the Pepys Estate in Deptford where the police have taken part in a NACRO multi-agency project and have seen very good results. To quote his words it has,
"helped to reduce crime and bring about improvements in the orderliness of the estate".
The aspect which makes this frightfully difficult is the infiltration of drugs among the young blacks. We are told by our people who work there that the parents are entirely in favour of the drug business being put down. They back the police. But the young do not. There is quite a long battle to be fought here, a battle which is a mixture of trying to help the people and at the same time shutting some of them up. They are very difficult matters to combine. One is apt to
1436
lose people's confidence and then it becomes most awfully difficult.
We in NACRO have about 60 ventures of this kind: in each we believe two matters are essential. First, the police must be involved as equal partners with the other components. Secondly, the inhabitants of the area must be involved in the active work of putting problems right and building things up. For this reason I was greatly disappointed by the failure of the noble Lord, Lord Young, last night to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter concerning contract compliance. It is essential that local people, especially black people, should be enrolled and trained to put right their own areas. It is only thus that a pride in their home ground can be developed. Nothing leads so directly to decent behaviour as pride in your environment.
Mr. Clark, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has made it clear that he agrees that this approach is essential. But the new Local Government Bill seems to contradict it. The Secretary of State failed to reassure us and it is perhaps unfair to press the Minister tonight for an answer. We in NACRO believe that this is one of the two conditions (the other being the co-operation of the police) which alone can bring about a real change in these very difficult areas.
So much for positive action. I agree very much with my noble friend and all other speakers on the question of further restrictions on funds. I am not interfering with shooting expensive pheasant or even cheap rabbits. I believe however that people should be made to lock their guns up. This brings me to another reflection about firearms on which I have no very positive statement to make. Sir Kenneth and I are both accustomed to the police being armed, as they always were in Northern Ireland. As the terrorists were only trying to kill British soldiers, RUC policemen, probation officers, prison officers, judges and almost everybody else, it was pretty obvious to anybody concerned that if you had a gun you had better shoot first. A number of RUC members and soldiers were killed by the terrorists through not shooting first. When they did shoot first there was always a frightful cry that they were shooting to kill. This sort of thing is contemptible in a situation of that kind and I do not think anybody in the House would have any time for it.
The situation is not quite the same in England because the armed robber does not particularly want to kill a policeman; he would much rather not see one. However, he has to take that risk. I thought the hysterical remarks in some newpapers the other day when one or two were, it seemed to me, very properly shot in a battle in which they had involved themselves was too foolish for words. On that rather aggressive note, showing that I am not only for letting everybody off, I await with great interest what the noble Earl will have to tell us.
6.26.p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the way in which he has laid the foundations of the debate. It is perhaps a rather odd thing that of the

1437
nine Members of your Lordships' House who are taking part in the debate, six have had experience in the Home Office of one kind or another. Mine ended exactly 25 years ago this month, so my experience is the least fresh of all. My memory of it goes back 30 years. That enables me to say that I have known every police commissioner in those 30 years and that Sir Kenneth Newman has been second to none.
My experience also enables me to reflect with some surprise that 25 years ago we made do with 17,000 police officers in the Metropolitan Police. There was pressure for an increase and the number was increased a little, but we now have over 27,000 and that is nothing like enough. Incidentally, I hope that I shall not be repeating points made by previous speakers, as I have other matters to mention, but there is one point that I should mention arising from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he referred to firearms. I did not hear him refer to the recent proposal that there should be an amnesty. We had an amnesty in my time. It did not produce many firearms from the criminals, although occasionally it did. But it reduced the number of firearms wrongly held among members of the public. That meant that when there were burglaries there were fewer firearms for people to steal. I should he grateful if when he winds up my noble friend will say what is happening about this recently announced amnesty.
I hope that it will not be considered a waste of your Lordships' time and attention if I refer to a matter which is not generally understood but is rather important. That is the simple but unusual matter of the constitutional position of the Metropolitan Police. The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament for everything that they do, but he is not responsible in that way for other forces. He appoints the commissioner and several of the other senior officers.
As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, if I may so call him, through the Receiver he has to ensure that the Metropolitan Police get the finance that they require. However, the Home Secretary has no power to direct the day-to-day operations of the police in spite of his being answerable for them to Parliament. In very limited circumstances, closely defined by statute, he can issue a direction on a matter of public importance but he very rarely does so. On the contrary, the Home Secretary himself has to obey police officers on duty just like any other member of the public.
For example, he must not park even his official car in a way that will obstruct traffic. If he does so he can be reported and summoned by the humblest member of the metropolitan force. I once tried to explain this to a Minister of the Interior of a South American country who came on an official visit. He expressed great surprise, shrugged his shoulders and said, "Oh, but in our country I can park my car wherever I like". Our system has worked well for more than a century and I do not consider that it should be changed. But it needs to be better and more widely understood, and that is why I have ventured to mention it briefly in this valuable debate.
1438
With regard to the report itself, its presentation is excellent. I am not referring to the glossy cover but to the fact that it is full of relevant detail and comments and that the comments are restrained and frank. There are two matters that I wish to mention. One is mentioned in the report and is given a good deal of prominence and the other is not mentioned at all. The first is crime among young people. The statistics on page 155 show that one-third of notifiable offences, the more serious ones, are committed by people between 21 and 30 years of age inclusive. But nearly half of the total are committed by people under 21. That is very serious and it must be important to get the rising generation to be more law-abiding and to co-operate more with the police.
On page 30 there is an interesting and encouraging passage on the work that the police are doing with the schools. I should like to quote two sentences of that passage. It says:
"Despite an effort by some groups to undermine and distort the police role, the Force schools' involvement programme is still welcomed in the vast majority of London schools".
Another short paragraph deals with what the police themselves do to prepare for this work. It says:
"Officers involved in schools still receive training at three of London's teacher training colleges and by summer 1987 a further 300 officers will have attended. It is envisaged that this training will be continued for the foreseeable future to supplement valuable local training initiatives"—
initiatives among the police. Some of those are described in the next section on page 31. There are competitions and entertainments. The report says:
"In Brixton probationary police officers are attached to community projects for work experience with local youths. At Kennington police station a project has been set up to provide children soon to leave school with work experience".
There are visits to the Peel Centre Training School and summer camps for unemployed young people in which the police have helped not from a policing point of view but just to make good contacts. Various other details are mentioned.
These steps cannot succeed—and they are necessary and worthy steps—without the full support of ILEA and of those education authorities on the periphery of the metropolis, some of which are within the area of responsibility of the Metropolitan Police. It needs the co-operation not only of the education authorities concerned but of all school teachers. I am glad to say that over most of London that cooperation has been forthcoming. But it is notorious that in some other parts it has not been forthcoming. In Haringey and Lambeth there has been constant obstruction of the police when they have tried to help and even when a crime is acknowledged to have taken place in schools. I hope that ILEA will insist on cooperation by all its teachers and that parent associations which have a part to play will also help.
My last item concerns the handling of emergencies. I do not want to impinge on the next debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is to take part, as am I, but what I have to say is relevant to this debate. Although the police are not primarily responsible for coping with emergencies in peace and war they have a vital part to play. The London Joint Fire and Civil Defence Authority, when it eventually decides to comply with its statutory duties under the civil

1439
defence regulations, will find that it cannot do all that is required of it without the help of the Metropolitan Police.
A proportion of police officers in every force used to undergo training in civil defence—and not so many years ago. Some officers of the rank of inspector and upwards used to attend courses at the Civil Defence Staff College at Easingwold. Unfortunately I cannot find any mention in the report of that kind of training or of the role of the police in dealing with emergencies even in peacetime.
London is a large industrial city. Large numbers of huge aircraft fly over it every day. Some have crashed on the outskirts of London and there have been some nasty accidents. There have been train crashes in London. It was only by the grace of God that we did not get fall-out from Chernobyl over London to an extent that might have been dangerous for several million people, but it could happen at any time. When it does happen the police have a part to play. Heaven knows, the police have plenty to do already beyond what is strictly policing—catching criminals and so on—but it is elementary that they should be trained for emergencies in the future as in the past. I hope that my noble friend—I am afraid that I have not given him notice of this point—will be able either to let us have his views on this matter when he replies to the debate or perhaps in answer to a Question later in the year he may be able to give some indication.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join the debate with great pleasure and I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for having initiated the debate. I have listened with great interest not least to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who probably knows more about the police than the rest of us put together. I have listened with pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whom I follow, and to his exposition of the constitutional position of the Home Secretary and the fact that he cannot park wherever he wishes. Can the noble Lord tell me when last a Home Secretary was clamped, or fined for speeding? The answer to the second question is, very rarely, not because Home Secretaries do not generally speed but because they are driven by policemen. I knew a Home Secretary who ought to have been arrested for speeding almost every day of the week, and still should be, although he is no longer Home Secretary. He remains amazingly immune.
The noble Lord also mentioned crime among the young, which appears on page 155 of the Metropolitan Police Commissioners Report. It is a worrying total because, like other crime, it has increased vastly. I think that the noble Lord will find that crime among the age group from 15 to 25 has always been a much higher proportion than crime among any other group. That is not a reason for not worrying about it; but I do not think that it indicates a great shift in the pattern of behaviour among the young, other than that they are following their parents with rather exaggerated zeal.
1440
In some respects I regard this debate as a continuation of last night's debate on our inner cities. Part of the problem facing the police is that, to deprived people, they are the symbols of the society which has forgotten them. Anyone who thinks that there is not a close and inescapable connection between social deprivation, absence of achievement, poor educational achievement and social disorder ought to look a little at our history. The police emerged from the Industrial Revolution and from the cities which grew up as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. In querying a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, I suggest that the police were set up more to control social disorder than to deal with crime. It is an open question but certainly high on their list of priorities was the control of social disorder.
Nor should we delude ourselves that, because of a short period in our history where it was not the case, the English are a notably pacific people; they are great rioters. Throughout the 19th century, from the Gordon riots onwards, they rioted continuously up until about 1880. There was a riot at Tredegar against the Irish, who were kicked out in 24 hours and had to go down to Cardiff. About two years before there had been a riot in Camborne against the same group of people. Throughout the north of England and in Birmingham there were a continuous series of violent, riotous explosions when the army had to be brought in. Those riots were the result of economic and social change, and of social deprivation.
It is interesting to note that between 1880 and recent years there have been relatively few riots. When one looks at the history of America it is interesting to find that the black disturbances (as Americans used to call them with their passion for euphemisms) which disrupted their cities have, in the past 20 years or so, greatly diminished if not altogether ceased. In both cases I ascribe the pacification of the rioting classes, if I may refer to them as such, to their incorporation into the political system. In the late 19th century and the early 20th century the working classes were incorporated into the British political system. In the 'seventies and 'eighties the blacks in America were given the vote, incorporated into the American system and elected mayors, congressmen and so on. Their relative economic condition has not greatly changed but their political condition has been revolutionised. When we are talking of social disturbance I suggest that we should not forget the importance of political incorporation. I welcome the presence in another place of a number of black MPs, and I should like to see in this House more representatives of those groups than we have at present.
In all cases of social disturbance the police are in the front line. It is not therefore surprising, given the task with which they are faced, that the perception of the police which most of us have, owing to our age—and I exclude the Minister—is different from that of most people under 30 today. The old idea that if one wants to know the time ask a policeman would not be readily accepted by most young people today nor the natural response to seeing a Bobby. Indeed, Marc had a particularly sad though funny cartoon of a man with his hands up going up to a policeman and

1441
saying, "Officer, please can you tell me the time?" That represented a change in perception of which the PSI report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred, gives dramatic evidence. The fact of the matter is that there is an enormous difference in the perception of the police among people under 30 than among people over 50. It is the under 30s who are worrying, and if the under 30s of all colours are more suspicious of the police than were we, and have less faith in them, that is doubly or trebly true of the black ethnic minority groups.
I cannot altogether share the optimism which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, expressed as to the changes which have taken place over the past few years. I do not think that any surveys or opinion polls have been taken comparable to those in the PSI report; but I should be surprised if there had been a dramatic change in attitudes. I think that in some ways the position is alarming because we have two groups of people both of whom, oddly enough, see themselves as minorities—because the police see themselves as a minority—locked into the position in which the stereo-types that they have of each other have been verified. Therefore when they now meet they expect hostility from each other and the expectation of hostility makes it far more difficult for them to defuse it. Therefore almost our most important achievement would be to see if that matter can be dealt with, although it is immensely hard. I welcome the moves taken by Sir Kenneth Newman; but, like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I think that it will take a long time and need a great deal of hard work.
One of the things of which those people who may be alienated must be convinced (alienated in the sense meant by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, when he talked about people being alienated from the mainstream of British life) is the fact that the police are genuinely trying to be fair and evenhanded. Therefore I wholly agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich in the latter part of his speech. He spoke of the importance of quick, thorough and drastic action being taken where wrong doing is discovered.
I have in mind two cases; one gives me cause for concern and the other makes me think that there are certain steps which we might consider. The case which gives me cause for concern was the trial which took place after the Tottenham riot. The judge dismissed the case against three juveniles because he said that police behaviour had been oppressive. It emerged that one of the juveniles who had been arrested had a mental age of under seven. He had been interrogated for 24 hours without a solicitor or his mother being allowed to be present—and this was done by a police force which was meant to be conducting an experiment in improving the way in which police evidence was collected. I want to ask what disciplinary action was taken against those men, because if none was taken I think it was a grave error.
The second case I want to mention refers to Holloway, which has already been referred to. I do not propose to go through the story, but it raises in one's mind the question of the adequacy of the powers of the Police Complaints Commission. I
1442
myself regard the powers they have as being in general quite adequate, except that they have in law a duty:
"to supervise the investigation of complaints".
I very much doubt whether they are actually in a position to do that as they are at present constituted. I do not agree that they want a totally independent investigating force: that is far too big a business. They might have a small special investigating force. If you changed that duty from a supervisory one, and if you gave them the right to take over cases in critical instances or in cases where they encountered obstruction, that would greatly strengthen their powers and would prevent the kind of obstruction, or what appeared to be obstruction, that there was in the Holloway case.
The second matter that I should like to raise with the noble Earl is this. Is it really necessary that in formal police disciplinary proceedings evidence should be proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than, as it is in the case of every other employer/employee relationship, the balance of probabilities? I do not see why the police should be in a privileged position in this respect as compared with, say, nurses or firemen. They have equally responsible roles and are equally in touch with the public.
It has a backlash down through the whole police disciplinary procedure. It is only actually called into operation at a formal disciplinary hearing. But of course the disciplinary authorities know that if someone they are disciplining cares to be obstinate then, if they are going to win their case, they have to produce proof beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot myself see the justification for this and I shall be interested to learn what the Minister says in that respect. Apart from that, I should like once more to thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for this interesting and important debate.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I too rise to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for allowing us to debate a most important report and a matter of grave consequence to the nation. I think we all appreciated the speech with which he introduced this short debate. I also from these Benches associate myself with every sincerity in the tribute that has been paid to Sir Kenneth Newman. I agree he is a very fine commissioner of police, whose name will be honourably engraved on the history of the Metropolitan Police, and deservedly so.
Mention has been made of the reputation of the Metropolitan Police. I at once want to say the obvious; namely, that those who let down the traditions of this great force are a minority, and a very small minority. The fact that they are produced from time to time brings the whole of the force into disrepute and I merely mention the matter on this occasion because Holloway Road and all that it meant has been raised in the debate.
Two observations would I make, with your Lordships' permission. First, I entirely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he talked about the threatened ostracism of those who were responsible for bringing the offenders to justice. I

1443
would go further if he will permit me. I hope that an inquiry will be made within the Metropolitan Police as to those who are responsible for the idea of ostracising. I trust that disciplinary proceedings will be taken against them forthwith in order to see that the very seriously wrong action they propose is nipped in the bud and that we do not have to deal with the results of that action because we shall have prevented it.
The debate has also covered race relations matters and the Police Complaints Authority. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, with his wealth of experience, dealt with two aspects. One concerned the powers and duties of that authority; he felt that supervision was not enough. He also felt it was unnecessary that it should have investigative powers and personnel, and that this in the main should still be left to the police force.
I am going on to talk—I trust not at length—to your Lordships about some of the problems facing the Metropolitan Police and all the citizens of our great capital city. I will do that in a moment, but there is one matter that is obvious and it is this. The confidence of the public in the police must be maintained. I say this in parenthesis—and I shall talk a little about schools and youngsters, if I may. Let me at once make it clear that I deplore from this Dispatch Box any education authority and any school in our land that tries to bar its doors to police officers. I deplore that. I ask them to mend their ways and I say to them that my party, at all events, will never support their action.
Having said that, I turn back again to the attitude of the public. I feel it is important, as does the Police Federation, that there should be a completely independent authority investigating serious police complaints. That will give confidence in making such complaints and people will know how seriously and independently their complaints are taken. If the result is that the complaint is not substantiated, I think they will accept that from an independent body, but, rightly or wrongly, they will not accept it when the police themselves are carrying out the inquiry.
I move immediately to the aspect that I believe worries us all. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, started the discussion about young people. If I may, I would rather like to go a little closer than he did into the statistics revealed in the report. I turn to page 82. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—he may wish to correct my history—I feel that this is a situation which may well be worse than any we have had to deal with in recent times. I am reading from "Age of offenders":
"as in previous years, about half the total number of people arrested for notifiable offences were under the age of 21 years: 20 per cent. were juveniles aged 10 to 16 years and 26 per cent. were aged 17 to 20 years".
Then lower down:
"Younger offenders—juveniles and those aged 17 to 20 years—are most active in offences of motor vehicle theft (72 per cent. aged under 21), robbery (61 per cent.) and burglary (60 per cent.). Juveniles, that is those aged 10 to 16 years, are also disproportionately represented in arrests for theft from shops although 17 to 20 year olds appear relatively less involved in these particular offences".
Looking at those figures and the types of offences is enough to make one tremble—anyone at least who is
1444
thinking in terms of the next generation of adults in the population. I say that in all frankness. The figures are disturbing and distressing. Even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, says, that is the pattern that we have had in the past, I know that he will agree with me that it is not one that we can afford for the future.
Having considered the problem with regard to juveniles, I turn to the question of the whole relationship between the police and young people. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, drew attention to those parts of the report dealing with police activities in schools, among school-leavers and with young people. I pay tribute to those activities and, with great respect, declare that they are not enough. Policemen who are spared for duties in relation to young people and schools are well spared. We say that we cannot spare them to deal with such matters because of our present establishment levels, but we must afford them as a matter of policy. It is a question of great national need.
What do I have in mind? I remember that I once put a question to the Minister, or it may have been to his predecessor, about the Metropolitan Police band. I hope that your Lordships did not think that I was indulging in flippant matters when I asked him whether he would tell us how it was getting on. That was not the formal way in which I couched my question but that was the gist of it. In a supplementary question I suggested most respectfully that police bands ought to be seen in and around our schools because that is the atmosphere in which the police force should be seen by our young people.
It has been said—and was repeated earlier in this debate—that the police are not looked upon today in the same way as they were when most of your Lordships who are anything like my age enjoyed the days of their youth. It is not a joke if today a policeman is the person of whom one does not normally ask the time. The caricature or cartoon that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is a picture of our times and a cynical remark upon them. I want to see policemen on our streets rather than traffic wardens. I do not want to hear that such duties are a waste of police time. I remember in my school days that the policeman was quite literally on traffic duty for part of the day. He took children from their earliest age by the hand and led them across the road. When that became the job of the traffic warden or the special warden, it was an unhappy time from the point of view of children's relationships with the police force.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to give way. I wonder whether he is using the term "traffic warden" in its widest sense to include school crossing patrols? I recall seeking the support of another place when traffic wardens, properly so-called, were introduced. They were welcomed by all parties as a way of saving the police from rather irksome minor duties. I gave an undertaking that they would not be used to deal with mobile traffic but only with parking offences, stationary cars and the like. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive this incursion into his very interesting speech but I think that we ought to understand the situation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my point was that the alteration of their duties may not have been a very happy one. I repeat, with all the emphasis that I can muster, that I want to see the police force recognised not only as the body which issues a summons or, as it now can do, issues a penalty by way of notice upon people who are offending. I want the policemen to return to the earlier tradition by which we remember them; namely, that they are the people who help, who guide children across the roads—at least for some part of their time.
If one says that that activity is a waste of police manpower, I must refer your Lordships to another part of the report. I am taking a little longer than I intended and I shall limit my speech to that topic so that I can at least cover it properly and I shall not deal with the other matters that I had adumbrated in my notes. I hope that your Lordships will think that I am being somewhat considerate.
When quoting from page 82 of the report I said that an alarming percentage of cases in which children and young people were involved consisted of autocrime. It has always been said that one of the ways to prevent crime is to increase the rate of discovery of offenders, because that is the biggest deterrent of all. On page 16 of the report your Lordships may have noticed that 225,789 crimes in this category—it is a 13 per cent. increase in the 1985 figure, incidentally—accounted for 29 per cent. of the total crime recorded by the force. The RAC motoring service has called my attention to the fact—and it may be that the attention of other noble Lords has also been drawn to this matter—that although it appears from this report that a great deal of energy has been devoted to autocrime prevention, the clear-up rate is only 7 per cent. That is a shockingly low figure. Moreover, we hold the record for the largest number of autocrimes in Europe.
Since our police force is limited to a 7 per cent. clear-up rate, why do we allow our young people to get away with a type of crime that leads them on to commit other offences? It is not a waste of time to insist that policemen take more account of that kind of crime and of matters involving traffic offences and misdemeanours of that nature.
As a whole the report was received as an educative document. That does credit to the Metropolitan Police force, which knows—indeed has confirmed—the great problems that lie ahead. I hope that the whole nation will help it in the solution of those problems and that some positive action and results will emerge from this debate which has been so usefully initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
7.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I know that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us the opportunity to debate the important subject of policing the metropolis. When the Commissioner's report for 1986 was published three weeks ago, it attracted some attention, especially the references to manpower and finance. I shall respond to the points raised by your Lordships on these matters later, for they are important. However, I
1446
should like first to draw attention to some other aspects of the Commissioner's interesting and thoughtful report, which perhaps have not received the attention they deserve.
The first chapter sets out very clearly the Commissioner's basic approach to the policing of London. He believes, as do the Government, that the police cannot curb crime and disorder on their own; there must be a partnership between the public and the police. There is, of course, nothing new about this idea. What is new is the range of policies now being pursued to turn it into reality. Community/police consultative groups, neighbourhood watch, crime prevention panels, victim support schemes and lay visitor schemes are all designed to bring the community and police together in a practical and co-operative manner. Only five years ago these policies had not been born, or were still in their infancy.
Community/police consultative groups now operate in all but two of the boroughs and districts in the Metropolitan Police district. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that a public meeting is taking place this evening with a view to inaugurating a group in one of those remaining boroughs. They play a significant part in determining local policing policy. Divisional chief superintendents consult them before preparing their annual plans, and attend meetings throughout the year. Groups have become useful fora for exchanging views about local problems. As the Commissioner says in his report, the next stage is for them to develop into a method of finding joint solutions to those problems.
Neighbourhood watch has brought even more Londoners into contact with the police. At the last count there were just over 7,000 schemes. Although it is difficult to measure their impact, the signs are that schemes can be effective in reducing crime. It may be significant that the number of burglaries—the main target of neighbourhood watch—declined slightly in London between 1984 and 1986. The less tangible effects are also encouraging. There is evidence that neighbourhood watch can reduce fear of crime, and it has certainly helped to rekindle community spirit in some areas. It will not come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that not only is the Home Office keen to see these schemes increase and work, but so are Ministers. I am sure that what was said in our manifesto, which we hope to implement in the not too distant future, has not escaped his attention.
The Special Constabulary is one of the oldest expressions of the partnership between the public and the police. In addition to its traditional role as a reserve for times of crisis and emergency, the Special Constabulary now acts as a continuing link between the police and the community. For this reason it is particularly pleasing that nearly 8 per cent. of special constables are from ethnic minorities. The Metropolitan Special Constabulary has one weakness: it is not large enough. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is keen to see it grow, and so is the Commissioner. The Metropolitan Police have just launched a new

1447
recruitment film, and they are reviewing their recruitment procedures to try to deal with applicants more swiftly. We shall be watching the position carefully to see if these measures increase the strength to the extent that we hope.
I turn next to the young and it is a matter of major concern to us all that the peak age of offending in this country is 14 and 15 for girls and boys. This point was particularly highlighted by my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. This is a very complicated area. It is not just a matter for the police, because it involves schools, parents, parent-teacher associations, teachers, families and homes. It is a vast and difficult area that we are looking at very seriously to see what more can be done to try to bring those figures down from the present horrifying level. I am sure that all your Lordships firmly believe that police involvement in schools is essential in the part that they can play in the development and maintenance of good police/community relations in general, and in the reduction of crime both against and committed by young people.
I do not think that the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was flippant. I think that the question was asked by my noble friend Lady Vickers and was about the police band. Of course, anything like that which can help to break down barriers is to be welcomed. It is clear that we all deplore the actions of those governing bodies and school teachers who seek to undermine the relationship between young people and the police. Their actions can only serve to undermine the trust and respect for the police, and for authority in general, that are an essential part of the society in which we live and to increase the risks to which young people are subjected.
As several of your Lordships have pointed out, despite these useful initiatives, the number of offences recorded—and I should like to stress "offences recorded"—by the police has continued to increase. This increase is certainly a matter for concern but we must keep it in perspective. Recorded crime in the Metropolitan Police District increased by 5 per cent. in 1986, roughly in line with the annual average over the past 30 years, and less than the national average. In the first quarter of this year there was a 4 per cent. fall as compared with last year, though it would be imprudent to draw too many inferences from that.
The clear-up rate in 1986 was 16 per cent., which was slightly lower than the year before, as in most forces. But the clear-up rate for the most serious offences was far higher; for homicide, for example, it was 81 per cent. The low overall clear-up rate is influenced by the large number of petty, opportunistic offences. These offences are far more susceptible to prevention by the public than detection by the police. It is worth bearing in mind that 25 per cent. of burglaries result from unforced entry.
The sensible way to deal with autocrime, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is for car owners to remember to lock their cars and to hide valuable possessions rather, than for the police to devote even more manpower to what is, unfortunately, a virtually unsolvable offence. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, responded to
1448
the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, better than I could when he said that it is of course the concern of the public—that is all of us. It is not the public out there; it is every single one of us, and we must play our part in trying to reduce these petty crimes.
The police must, of course, have sufficient manpower and other resources if they are to tackle crime effectively. This is an area to which we have given a high priority. The strength of the Metropolitan Police now stands at 27,227, the highest ever, and some 5,000 more than in May 1979. The strength of the civil staff, many of whom work in direct support of the police, has increased by 1,400 over the same period. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked when the Prime Minister's pledge at the 1985 party conference would be implemented, and from the figures that I have given your Lordships you will see that it is already being implemented.
Furthermore, in May last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced increases of up to 1,200 in the police establishment over four years, together with increases of up to 600 in the civil staff ceiling over the same period. This additional civilian manpower should release 400 police officers for operational duties. In deciding on this programme of increases, my right honourable friend took full account of the Commissioner's assessment, which he re-states in his annual report, that the force needs larger increases. But he also had to take into account the rate at which the force could realistically increase strength, and the competing demands upon the public purse.
So far he has approved increases of 600 in the police establishment and 400 in the civil staff ceiling. He plans to implement the rest of the programme over the next two years. Sadly, the strength of the force has not so far kept pace with the increases in establishment. At the moment, the force is some 500 below strength. Wastage, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, has been running at a high level, thus eroding the gains from increased recruitment. The main reason is that the number of officers transferring to provincial forces has increased. This, as your Lordships will agree, is troubling, and my right honourable friend and the Commissioner have been working hard to find ways of staunching the flow.
As a result of these manpower increases, expenditure on the Metropolitan Police has increased very considerably over recent years. In fact it has increased from £295 million in 1978–79 to £929 million in 1987–88. That is an increase in real terms of 55 per cent. Those increases are greater than those enjoyed by any other major public service.
This expenditure is now cash-limited, like many other areas of public spending. A cash limit is a control; it tightens financial discipline. As such, there were bound to be some teething problems. But that would not have been a good reason for flinching from introducing it and, as the Commissioner recognises in his report, the difficulties which arose in 1985–86 have since been overcome by refinements to the cash limit system. He also acknowledges that the introduction of the cash limit has succeeded in its aim of making the whole force a great deal more cost-conscious.

1449
As police authority for the metropolis, my right honourable friend has a duty to see that the force has sufficient resources. However, he also has an obligation to the ratepayer and to the taxpayer to ensure that it uses these resources effectively, and offers good value for money. Tha cash limit is an essential tool in this policy but because he was aware of the Commissioner's concern it was increased by 9 per cent. in this financial year.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, reminded the House this afternoon of the difficulty that we are facing with the number of prisoners being held in police cells. I am only too well aware of the burden which this places on the police and I pay tribute to them for their efforts in coping with the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows, we are continuing to take action to alleviate the pressure by providing more places and by tailoring the estate better to match the population. There will be over 3,000 places coming on stream in the next 12 months. We are opening Rollestone Camp as a short-term interim measure.
On Thursday my right honourable friend announced the opening of Rollestone Camp and half remission for those serving 12 months or less. Furthermore he announced a speeding-up of the prison building programme which is already at record levels this century.
It cannot be a happy state of affairs when on the night of the 21st-22nd of this month we had 792 people in police cells, of which 551 were in the metropolis. I cannot give a date as to when that figure will reach nought, as it should. All I can say is that we shall continue to work hard to get it down from its present levels as quickly as possible.
As regards manpower, in October 1985 my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced an increase of 50 in the police establishment specifically to strengthen the effort against drugs. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The increase of up to 1,200 over four years announced in May 1986 should in due course enable the commissioner to strengthen the central drugs squad further. I turn next to jury nobbling. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said it is an extremely serious matter because it strikes at the integrity of our system of criminal trial. Those who try to interfere with juries commit the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, the penalties for which are unlimited. The law therefore seems to us to be equal to the task of dealing with jury nobbling where it is detected, but it is by its nature very difficult to detect. Perhaps for that reason I must say to the noble Lord that there are, as far as we are aware, very few suspected cases of jury nobbling, but I can assure the House that the police are aware of the dangers and take the matter very seriously.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway during the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill put forward a suggestion for dealing with the problem and, with my right honourable friend, I am considering that at the moment. I welcome any suggestion that any noble Lords may have.
The police, shotgun owners and the Government all agree that secure storage is important in
1450
preventing shotguns from falling into criminal hands as a result of thefts from domestic properties. We are therefore closely examining whether shotgun users should be required by law to lock away their guns when they are not being used, in the same way as rifle and pistol owners are required to do. However, it does not necessarily follow that by strengthening shotgun controls the number of illegally-held weapons will be substantially reduced, bearing in mind that 840,000 shotgun certificates were in issue at the end of 1986. Any major changes to the controls would have significant resource implications for the police and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, would be only too well aware of that.
That point led my noble friend Lord Renton to mention the amnesty. I may be able to correct him as he slightly misunderstood what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had said. The amnesty has not been announced recently. My right honourable friend has been considering an amnesty in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland for some months. That consultation process has now been completed and he expects to reach a conclusion fairly soon.
However, there are obvious attractions in taking out of circulation unwanted firearms by allowing them to be surrendered under an amnesty. But that amounts to a decision not to enforce the criminal law in relation to the serious offence of unlawful possession of firearms and it is not to be taken lightly. That and other considerations need to be carefully thought through. It would be unwise to rush into an amnesty before being reasonably sure that it would achieve the desired results without other unacceptable consequences.
I turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which concerned traffic wardens. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that the Metropolitan Police are currently conducting a radical and wide-ranging scrutiny of the traffic warden service to find ways of making it more effective and, as a follow-on from that, the possibility of increasing the service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who I am glad to see in her place, highlighted the disturbing increase in the use of knives in crime and the fact that this is confined almost entirely to street robberies of personal property. There is also a perception among officers that youngsters are generally tending to carry knives around with them more frequently to ensure social acceptability among their peers. That is a very dangerous trend about which the Government and I am sure all your Lordships must be most concerned. In response to that problem my right honourable friend recently set in hand a study of how the law relating to the possession of knives and other sharp-bladed instruments might be reinforced. We have not yet completed our work on that, but your Lordships will know from the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill that we hope that that Bill may prove an acceptable vehicle for change. Not content with knives, the noble Baroness went on to mention the other offensive weapons. Again we are very well aware and understand the concern that there is about the more general availability of offensive weapons.

1451
Some of them have perfectly legitimate uses, for example in sport, but there are others which do not. We are committed to taking action on the sale of items which have no legitimate use and I look forward to the support of the noble Baroness when we come to take action. I look forward to seeing her Bill in print.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I hope that we shall not hear again the words "legitimate use". I emphasise that there is no legitimate use for something like the Texas Star or a Rambo knife. Nobody could dream up a legitimate use for those. I hope that what I am talking about is clear. Offensive weapons can only be used as offensive weapons.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for highlighting that. I am sorry if I did not make that point clear. There are of course weapons which are legitimately carried which can be offensive and there are also weapons, as the noble Baroness has just reminded us, which have no legitimate use whatever.
With regard to civil defence and peacetime emergencies, there will be, I hope, no need for my noble friend Lord Renton to put down a question on that because the Metropolitan Police devotes considerable resources to civil defence training. In 1986 1,320 recruits received basic training. A further 1,980 sergeants and constables received refresher training and 32 officers attended a four-day war duty course at the civil defence college of Easingwold.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to intervene. It is splendid news that he has just given us, but perhaps I may make the comment that I find it very strange that it is not mentioned in the report.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we may have corrected an ommission tonight. Perhaps I may return to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Lord Harris of Greenwich, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Mishcon, concerning the Holloway Road incident and the possibility of ostracism. That is an internal matter of management and discipline and it is for the commissioner to resolve, as I know your Lordships are well aware. He has made it clear to his officers in the force handbook of professional behaviour that they should not shield their fellow officers if they witness any malpractice. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was right to speak of ethnic minorities.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl moves on to the very important subject of ethnic minorities, will he kindly see that the portions of this debate dealing especially with the question of ostracism and Holloway Road are brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Police?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it will not need me to bring it to the attention of the Commissioner of Police. I am sure he would do that voluntarily in any case. I shall of course bring the whole of this debate to the attention of my right honourable friend
1452
the Home Secretary, my honourable friend Mr. Hogg, who has special responsibility for the police, and indeed of the Commissioner as the noble Lord requests.
May I turn to the question of ethnic minorities. The Commissioner fully accepts the need to increase the number of ethnic minority recruits. The Metropolitan Police could put a good deal of effort into that in 1986. Their efforts were directed mainly at winning the trust and confidence of the minority communities That involved the introduction of a number of new initiatives. Representatives of the Commission for Racial Equality were brought into the force's standing committee on ethnic minority recruitment. The views of a number of local consultative groups were sought. Influential local people and serving police officers from the minority community were involved in localised recruiting campaigns. I am happy to tell the House that the results were encouraging. A total of 64 black and Asian police officers were recruited in 1986, compared with 44 in 1985. At the end of the year, 334 members of the force were from minority communities, compared with 287 at the end of 1985.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, also asked me three rather detailed questions. Perhaps I may write to him rather than answering him now.
It is particularly fitting that your Lordships should be debating the Commissioner's report this year for, as several noble Lords have pointed out, this is the last annual report to be presented by the present Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Newman, who retires at the end of this month. He has been an outstanding Commissioner. He has steered the force through some difficult events with coolness and great skill. And he has introduced fundamental reforms and a major reorganisation of the force which will mark his commissionership as one of the most significant in the history of the Metropolitan Police. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in congratulating Sir Kenneth Newman on his achievements, and in wishing every success to the new Commissioner, Mr. Peter Imbert.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who contributed to this short debate. So far as I am aware, this is the first time that this House has discussed a substantive Motion on the report of the Commissioner. I think it has been a very useful experience for all of those participating and I am grateful to all who have done so.
I should like to make two or three brief points before asking leave to withdraw this Motion. They are points which arose during the debate and upon which the Minister has now commented. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the question of schools as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose views on this matter I very much shared. Perhaps the Minister can tell me, by correspondence, what exactly has happened following the passage of the Education Act 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I were involved in a series of guerrilla compaigns against the Government to ensure that we had police involvement in schools written onto the statue book

1453
and we succeeded. I should be grateful if the Minister could let us know what has happened since then.
Secondly, the Minister, will not be astonished to know that his reply as regards resources did not meet with total acclaim in all parts of the House. As I foreshadowed, he drew attention to the welcome increase in the size of the Metropolitan Police, while ignoring some of the very substantial additional commitments imposed either by legislation or as a result of negotiations with the Police Federation. That has led to a situation where, in reality, we now have fewer police officers on the streets in London than we did a few years ago. That is a matter of fact. I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said. But I have to tell the Minister that there is a substantial gap between what she said on that occasion and the situation which is disclosed in the report of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I very much hope that the Government will now look into that matter again with some energy.
I particularly hope that the matter of the Central Drug Squad will be re-considered. The fact is that when the Broome Report was produced, the Government provided welcome additional resources for provincial police forces. They did not provide additional resources for the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police had to take account of the drugs situation in terms of the additional 1,200 men and women that they were given. There seems to be a substantial gap between what the Government have done outside London and what they have done inside London. It is difficult to justify that, given the seriousness of the drug situation in London. I very much hope that that matter will be reviewed by the Home Secretary. I think that most of us believe that the present situation, in terms of the size of the Central Drug Squad, is highly unsatisfactory.
Finally, may I deal with the question of shotguns. The Minister said that he, his right honourable friend and others are discussing the matter. I do not have the words of the noble Earl on a previous occasion when this matter was raised. However, I think they are curiously similar to the ones he has used this evening. This process of consideration and reconsideration appears to have gone on for a period of one or two years. In the light of the seriousness of the situation in London in terms of the increased use of shotguns, I hope that this period of consideration and consultation will lead to an early policy decision. As I indicated to him, my noble friends and I are absolutely committed to bringing in an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to deal with this question. I very much hope that the Government will then indicate that they support it. There is overwhelming support inside and outside the police service for new requirements on the owners of shotguns to take proper care of weapons which can, if misused, cause horrifying injuries both to members of the public and to police officers. I hope that the Government will come to a firm policy decision quickly. Rather than having to press the matter to a Division, we should reach a decision by way of consensus.
Once again, may I thank all those who have participated in the debate and ask the House for leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]
7.39 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is an exact duplicate of that given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 28th January 1987. The sponsor of that Bill was the then Bishop of Birmingham who has since retired and is no longer a Member of this House. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee on 11th February and the Select Committee, under the distinguished and wise chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, began its work in March. We were well advanced in our task, had heard many witnesses and had received a great deal of evidence when the dissolution of Parliament put the whole thing to an end.
The Select Committee is automatically disbanded and the Bill falls when Parliament is dissolved. On such an occasion most of the work in progress lapses. If it is to be revived then a special step is necessary. I am taking that step tonight.
It would be a great shame if the work in progress in the Select Committee at the time of the dissolution of Parliament was cast aside. The problem committed to it is still a live and controversial issue arousing deep emotions and will no doubt come before your Lordships' House or another place if matters are left as they are. Therefore, I am impressed with the need for the work of the Select Committee to be revived. It should be enabled to finish its job and report to the House. The Bill is an indispensable condition of doing so under the procedures which are most convenient to secure the end in view
Noble Lords may ask why I, a strong opponent of the Bill earlier, should be moving that the Bill be now read a second time. The answer is quite simple. Whether I was for or against the Bill last January is immaterial tonight. I am convinced that the Bill should be given a Second Reading solely for the purpose of enabling commitment of the Bill again to a Select Committee in order that the work started may be continued and completed. That is the case for the Second Reading of the Bill.
In this House when we take up a matter and deal with it as thoroughly and conscientiously as we have done in this case (and as we always do with matters referred to Select Committees) and it then lapses through the accident of parliamentary affairs, we owe it to ourselves and the public particularly—with such a difficult and sensitive cause—to discharge the duty and give the Bill a Second Reading.
If I were to say I have undertaken this task almost by accident, that would be almost the truth. I have been interested in the recommittal of the Bill to a Select Committee ever since dissolution. The Select Committee was doing an important job and having started on the matter it should be allowed to continue. I was inquiring what steps had to be taken, and who had to take them, in order to get the Bill read a second time and for the Select Committee to commence again. I was told that it was necessary, being a Private Member's Bill, for a private Member to do it. Also if the Bill was to be introduced in time for the Second Reading to be over before the

1455
beginning of the Recess I was told there was one hour to put the Bill down for First Reading the following day. That happened on 8th July. On 9th July the Bill was given its First Reading, and I had no time to consult anybody.
As one of the principal opponents of the Bill earlier, I thought I was probably as well qualified as anyone to move the Second Reading for the purpose in mind tonight. I had qualms about it the day after I decided to do it, but everybody fully understands that this is a procedural motion which takes the form of giving the Bill another Second Reading.
I hope that the Bill will be received in that spirit and that the record will contain the explanation of why I stand here in this unusual situation. I am not attempting to wear the mantle of the then Bishop of Birmingham, which I would never dream of trying on for size or appearance. I am doing this only for severely practical reasons. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has explained the reason why he has introduced this Bill, which is identical to that introduced in the previous Parliament by the then Bishop of Birmingham. In the circumstances your Lordships will expect me to be brief.
The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 makes it an offence to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive before it has an existence independent of its mother unless this is done in good faith to preserve the mother's life. If at a trial for this offence the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was pregnant for 28 or more weeks, this is prima facie proof that she was carrying a child capable of being born alive. As presently drafted this Bill would reduce this period from 28 to 24 weeks.
This proposal is based on a recommendation contained in a report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which we received in 1985. That report recommended that the gestational age after which a foetus is considered as viable should be changed from 28 to 24 weeks. So far this advice has been implemented by administrative action. In England and Wales abortions may lawfully be carried out only in NHS hospitals or in hospitals approved by the Secretary of State. In practice clinicians now apply a 24-week limit. In the private sector my right honourable friend has made it a condition of approval of the limited number of hospitals permitted to carry out late abortions that they will not permit terminations after 24 weeks. As my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook explained in the last Parliament, this Bill would carry through the change into the law and we would not oppose a change in the 1929 Act to reflect existing medical practice.
Your Lordships then decided that the best way to proceed was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The committee had time only to hold seven meetings before the Dissolution prematurely ended their work.
1456
Even so I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to the committee and to its chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for the careful and detailed consideration they were able to give to this important subject in the short time available to them. I think their special report is a valuable contribution both to our debate and to the wider public debate on this issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that there is advantage in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House completing the work so ably begun by the previous committee. Our views on the Bill before your Lordships may differ slightly from those of the noble Lord who introduced it; but we are agreed on what its immediate fate should be.
Therefore, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and urge your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading and then agree to the Motion in his name to refer it to a Select Committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

Civil Protection and Local Authorities
7.48 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that all local authorities are complying with current civil protection regulations and guidelines.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on the nuclear aspect. Other noble Lords will I hope deal with the modern all-risks approach which has brought civil defence under the umbrella of what is now called civil protection. Successive governments have improved civil defence since what one might call its nadir in 1968, when the old Civil Defence Corps was reduced to little more than a hollow shell, which was somewhat euphemistically described then as being armed care and maintenance.
I fear that we are still but scratching the surface of the problem. There are still 180 nuclear-free zones in this country, two-thirds of us live in one, and nowhere in the country do civil defence provisions begin to match those of Switzerland, Sweden, China or Russia.
Civil Defence is about saving lives. Good defence can save lives by an order of magnitude. To give a very extreme example, the 70,000 deaths at Hiroshima could have been reduced to 7,000 if the citizens had been in the air raid shelters provided. When the bomb burst they were strolling around the streets shopping and not taking cover because there was no proper air-raid warning. More recently, in Bhopal, 10,000 people died because the warning siren was switched

1457
off after only one minute because, and I quote the authorities,
"to continue sounding it might alarm the people".
These are the sort of mistakes that are made in a crisis. Civil protection and defence exists to minimise those mistakes and it is an extraordinarily cheap way of so doing since most of the members of the Civil Defence Institute are unpaid volunteers.
So far as nuclear-free zones are concerned, there are historical precedents. In the 1939 to 1945 war the village of Shere declared itself a bomb-free zone and refused to install an air-raid-warning siren. The Cambridge scientists anti-war group decided the Government's then ARP plans to be ineffective and a deception to people because, as they put it, "the bomber will always get through". In the event, 51,000 civilians were killed by German bombs between 1939 to 1945. That comparatively small figure was due, in no small measure, to the valiant efforts of our civil defenders.
There have been many theories about the effect on this country of a nuclear holocaust, some better informed than others. I was interested to read the Gerald Drewitt thesis of 1980 on feeding the population after an attack. The attack that he envisages is the worst conceivable: 200 megatonnes in this country. It assumes, for instance, that four 5-megatonne bombs drop on London; that is a total of 20 megatonnes. London's population being 8.5 million, casualties would be around 3 million, thus leaving 5 million survivors. Nationwide—I stress that this is the worst possible case—there would be between 25 million and 40 million survivors.
Drewitt also assumes that the attack would take place at the worst possible time of year—that is, early June. Our crops would be young and vulnerable. Tests have shown that gamma radiation would stunt their growth and wreck the August harvest. However, even then it would just be possible for the government to provide the minimum of two kilocalories per person per day, provided that they were sufficiently organised so to do. The alternative, as my noble friend well knows, would be anarchy, vandalism, looting and the collapse of the system, leading to millions of additional and quite unnecessary deaths.
To those who ask, "What's the point of feeding the people when they'll probably all die of radiation induced cancer anyway?", I would say that that particular question is invalid. No decent man would turn his back on the starving child, buried in rubble, and say "I am sorry, my friend, I will not feed you; I won't dress your wounds because you might die of cancer in five years' time". Surely, it would be against human nature to behave in that way? I urge government to increase effort and expenditure on civil defence and remind my noble friend that our noble friend, Lord Glenarthur, told the Institute of Civil Defence a year ago:
"I would not pretend for one moment that everything in the Civil Defence garden is rosy. There is an enormous amount still to be done. But a great deal has been done and I do believe that we are getting there".
Government have been criticised for paper planning rather than active programmes. We have now the civil defence regulations of 1983, and we
1458
have the 1986 Civil Protection in Peacetime Act, so ably steered through this House by my noble friend Lord Renton. But the most important thing that we have now is the Home Office circular dated 30th October 1986, to run through to October 1989, called A Planned Programme for Implementation. This has been sent to chief executives of all county, district and London borough councils. It requires them by October 1987 to provide basic information on the objectives of all plans and the organisation required to achieve them; by 1st April 1988 to collect and distribute information on the result of attack; by 1st October 1988 to provide details on accommodation, prevention of disease, disposal of human remains, and feeding; by 1st April 1989 to provide rescue, repair and clearance of property; and by 1st October 1989, to provide shelters and other essential services.
I warn my noble friend that these provide excellent material for Starred Questions and that we shall be asking them in October, next April, the following October, and also in April and October of 1989. Can I also warn him that the nuclear-free-zone local authorities have perfected the art of creative compliance, as it is known, and they may well implement the October 1987 regulations by using a model letter, a copy of which I have here.
This is the sort of letter the Home Office will receive.
"Dear Mr. Whalley. My authority wishes to emphasise that the attached list of objectives and initial information on the question of organisation is, as stated, provisional and that the authority will wish to amend this in the light of information obtained from our planning assumption study, and other work undertaken by our Emergency Planning Team. In addition, it is assumed that revision of the objectives on the question of organisation will also require to be undertaken in the light of advice offered by the relevant districts under the consultative arrangements we are putting in hand, particularly having regard to the fact that as a Fire and Civil Defence Authority, our resources for any implementation of any plans are so limited, consequent upon the abolition of the Metropolitan Counties".
That letter has been written for all nuclear-free-zone authorities by the national steering committee in Manchester. I have only read about 100th of it and it is, I suspect, deliberately long and confusing. The whole letter, my Lords, must be some 20 pages-worth—all of it in the same confusing prose as the extract I have just given. It does not really have any substance. Any specific objectives are qualified with the prefix "to attempt" and the suffix "where possible". For instance,
"to attempt to collect information on nuclear attack the objectives of this plan will be to evaluate information received where possible".
The letter is just a filibuster. It is nothing but a waste of paper and a waste of ratepayers' money.
Can I now remind my noble friend of what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said two years ago:
"We are determined that local authorities shall carry out their statutory obligations. What could be more senseless than declaring oneself a nuclear free zone and then, come the crunch, finding oneself 30 miles downwind of a nuclear burst and resultant fall out. We have made it clear that while we intend to proceed by reason and persuasion we shall hold in reserve the use of formal directions and default powers available to us. Should it prove necessary we will not hesitate to use those powers".
Nevertheless, the Government have hesitated because they have never used those powers. There are still 180 nuclear-free zones two years after my noble friend, Lord Glenarthur, made that pledge. Surely

1459
my noble friend, Lord Arran, would agree with me at least that "he who hesitates is lost".
8 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this important subject this evening. I suppose that we all in principle accept the case he makes that we need an effective civil protection organisation in this country. Yet I was a little surprised at the manner in which the noble Viscount set out to persuade the recalcitrant local authorities of the error of their ways. He argued that in a nuclear war, there will always be a fringe area. There will always be people on the margin who can and must be helped. There is logic in that argument. Yet of course it is also possible to imagine a nuclear exchange so great that really it made civil protection and civil defence useless. This was a mistake the Government made many years ago. It recommended its civil defence proposals to the country in terms of protection of the population in the case of nuclear war. That was a mistake. It appeared so much as though the Government had thought that a nuclear war was winnable and that it could be coped with. It even appeared as though the Government were putting forward their civil defence proposals as a kind of excuse and defence for their obsession with nuclear weapons, which is a feature of their defence policy.
My Lords, what happened? What happened is what one would expect. Having made the case for civil defence in controversial political terms, of course the Government opened the way for crackpots in all kinds of local authorities to reply in an equally unbalanced political manner. That is how we have arrived at the deplorable situation which the noble Viscount outlined. That is precisely because civil defence was presented to the public in the terms which the noble Viscount used and which the Government were using some years ago. It was thesis and antithesis, to use a phrase which some of the members of the local authorities mentioned will easily understand.
What have the Government learnt since those years? I remember very many years ago complaining very strongly to Sir Patrick Mayhew, who was then in charge of the presentation of the case for civil defence. It was bogged down in the concept of whether protection was possible against nuclear war and that civil defence was something quite broader, far more important and far more likely to be useful than protection against nuclear war. Whether or not it was because of my representations, the Government in fact changed their mind. Now they are presenting civil defence, or civil protection as it really is, as something non-political, humanitarian and applying to the whole range of emergencies which can threaten the citizen. That is right.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Viscount. We know well the kind of people that these local authorities are and how difficult they are to handle. No one knows that better than the Opposition Front Bench in this House and the Leader of the Labour Party. They are the experts and know even more about those councils than do the noble Viscount and
1460
I. If one is going to handle them, the worst way to go about it is to say that the whole purpose is to protect the citizen in the case of nuclear war. It is untrue. If one is going to bring the nuclear factor into it, it is not nuclear bombs, but Chernobyl which is the answer to such local authorities.
The Russians had civil defence around Chernobyl but it worked badly and failed. Chernobyl showed the enormous value of civil defence in nuclear terms. None of the members of these local authorities can deny that Chernobyl showed the need for civil defence even on the nuclear front and far more than all the emergencies for which they are now geared.
I agree with the noble Viscount that we need an answer from the Minister. We need to know how many local authorities are co-operating, how many are refusing to, and what the Government are doing. I hope the noble Lord will take this opportunity also of telling us what lessons have been learnt from the Chernobyl disaster and, even more important, whether those lessons have been applied. What has changed in government policy and action as a result of Chernobyl? That is relevant and will interest the House. I can assure the Minister that to the extent to which the Government concentrate on the broad purpose of civil defence, and the extent to which they give it the resources that it needs, they will continue to have the backing of my noble friends and myself.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful that the Question has been posed tonight by my noble friend Lord Mersey because I want to address the relationship between central and local government that has been much touched upon in the debate so far.
The Government cannot be satisfied that all local authorities are complying with the current civil protection regulations and guidelines, because they are not doing so. And of those that are not complying, most—if not all—have determined politically to thwart all efforts of the Government to establish a national network of emergency planning through the offices of local authorities. Too many council chambers—and I know them well—are turned into mini-Westminsters, discussing anything from nuclear-free zones, defence policies, South Africa and a host of other subjects which have little relevance to local government. It is interesting to me that it is often the same councillors and very often the same local authorities that are involved in discussing many of these issues.
Protection of the people must remain a concern of national government. It is however appropriate that the operational implementation of policy for protection should be a responsibility of local authorities. So often when it comes to emergency disasters it is an area of autonomy very much at local level which often needs to be brought into play.
The Government have been extremely tolerant of those local authorities which have found every way possible to delay, frustrate, circumvent and often to overtly oppose the preparation of emergency plans. The authority which I represent—Cambridgeshire County Council—has always taken its

1461
responsibilities on this issue very seriously. It was one of the very first authorities—probably the first authority—to pioneer the all-hazards approach to emergency planning, taking the view that an emergency is an emergency is an emergency.
We were delighted when my noble friend Lord Glenarthur came to Cambridgeshire and, in the presence of my noble friend Lord Renton, endorsed that policy as one that the Government would support and from then on would advocate. It really does not matter to those interested in emergency planning whether the emergency is a collision of aircraft, a chemical explosion, floods, fire, nuclear reactor emergency, or of course any kind of war-time emergency. The fact is that a community well prepared and with systems and strategies that can be triggered when necessary will do much to minimise the risk to its people and its property.
It is not only the Londons, the Manchesters and the Liverpools which are the recalcitrant authorities. In Cambridgeshire, however progressive we may be and however positive in our approach to emergency planning, nevertheless within our borders we have two nuclear-free zones showing all the signs of deliberate prevarication.
Nuclear-free zones are a concept without any substance, and of course without any practical meaning. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned that Chernobyl had changed all that; and it has. I had hoped that Chernobyl would make it rather easier for those authorities who are genuinely concerned and share the concern of many of our people about nuclear weapons and all that they entail and who would like to be rid of them. Would not we all!
Chernobyl has proved that a nuclear-free zone as a concept is a nonsense and that planning is ever more essential. All of those authorities should now be coming in from the cold and getting involved positively in effective emergency planning. However, those local authorities which have determined a nuclear-free zone policy and are not prepared to have effective emergency planning are guilty not only of opposing the law of the land but also of seriously neglecting the proper protection of their own people in their own areas.
There are two kinds of worlds that we all know about. There is the one that we would all like to live in—the nuclear-free and disaster-free world—but there is another world that we all inhabit, and that is the real world. We cannot disinvent nuclear weapons or nuclear power. Therefore, we have to live with them and we must do all in our power to offer as much protection as is practicable to the people who may one day need it.
So many of these councils which get involved in this kind of nonsense are also guilty in one or two other areas. Certainly they are guilty of the misuse of time and the misuse of money. I think it was Professor Reagan who made a study of the amount of money spent by local authorities on this issue. At the last estimate it was about £10 million and rising.
There is an irony too in the concerted effort of nuclear-free zone authorities, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey; they who are the first to oppose any kind of central diktat, respond to a
1462
central diktat by writing the very same letter to Government on the matter of ineffective production of emergency planning.
National government must set the parameters within which we have to work in local authorities. Emergency planning of course requires—I emphasise "requires"—co-operation between local and national government, fire and police authorities and the professional and voluntary sectors. I can think of no area in the land where the relationship between the voluntary sector and the professional sector is more positive, constructive and effective.
Local authorities indulging in—and I understand this is the modern jargon—creative compliance offer their people nothing positive; rather, they increase the element of risk because, without sound planning and emergency procedures, the consequences for the people in those areas are potentially serious. Political self-indulgence and the deliberate thwarting of government policy that has been arrived at democratically should not be tolerated. Protection of the people is too important an issue.
In reply to the question posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, I hope that the Government's response will be that they are not satisfied and that they will use all their power to require those recalcitrant authorities to come into line, for they have been getting away with it for far too long. The legislation is in place, and I support the call to Government to take a much tougher line with dissident local authorities.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to follow my noble friend Lady Blatch, not only because she was a constituent of mine and I have witnessed her rise in local government, culminating in her becoming leader of Cambridgeshire county council—and a very effective one—but also because of the way in which she got going with her maiden speech and has followed it up so soon on a subject in which she is well versed. I was not able to congratulate her at the time as I was not speaking in the debate. In her work on Cambridgeshire-County Council she played a leading and effective part in helping the county council to do what it is required to do splendidly in terms of civil defence and civil protection. I have reason to know as I have the honour to be president of Cambridgeshire Emergency Volunteers.
I thank my noble friend Lord Mersey for initiating the debate. It is important and timely. I am also thrilled—if that is not too strong a word—by the interest that he has taken in civil defence. Not enough people take a leading part in it in either House. I wish to congratulate him on becoming president of SESO (the Society of Emergency Service Officers).
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I was reminded that time was when civil defence, whenever it was discussed, was befuddled by two assumptions of the CND, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: first, that the only nuclear hazard was from nuclear weapons; and, secondly, that the only wartime emergency that anyone had to contemplate was a nuclear holocaust against which there was said to be no defence.

1463
Since Chernobyl it should have become clear to even the most indoctrinated politicians that we must be ready to protect our people in peacetime from fall-out caused by another nuclear power station accident of the Chernobyl type. Although it is unlikely to arise in this country, scores of different kinds of nuclear power stations not only in Russia but on the Continent might produce another Chernobyl. It is a sad thought, but it could happen.
Let me stress that local authorities, civil defence authorities and civil protection authorities are required by law enacted by Parliament to be ready to help and protect their people in the event of any serious emergency in peace or war. Peacetime emergencies nowadays can include industrial accidents on a vast scale, such as occurred at Flixborough in Lincolnshire some years ago or at Bhopal in India, which I happened to visit earlier this year. They also include the danger of radioactive fall-out from an explosion at a nuclear station.
I am proud to say that we have not yet had a major nuclear accident in this country, but we must not assume that it could never occur. Central and local government have a duty to be ready to prepare for the worst and to protect our people if the worst should happen. It does not cost much. The Government already pay 75 per cent. of the overall cost. If we are ready to deal with fall-out in peacetime, very little extra effort is needed to protect people from fall-out in wartime. I remind noble Lords opposite that, thanks to the firm stand taken by successive governments since the war in keeping the nuclear deterrent going, if we are involved in a war it is less likely to be a nuclear war than one fought with conventional weapons. There have been over 30 wars since 1945 in the world and we have been involved in some of them, but not one nuclear weapon has been used.
In preparing to protect our people in the event of peacetime and wartime emergencies, I think that there are four essentials. They are, first, a professionally efficient but fairly small number of public officers and specialists, scientific officers; secondly, a large number of volunteers such as we have in Cambridgeshire and, indeed, in Devon and several other counties; thirdly, enough of the right equipment (especially communications equipment) and instruments for detecting fall-out; and fourthly, and not least, purpose-built and well protected operating centres. The Government pay the cost of most of it. It is extraordinary how obstinate some people are—and I use a moderate word. My noble friend has already described the extraordinary attitude of those who have nuclear-free zones, but I should like to add some stronger words. Only blind prejudice, irresponsibility or both can make people so wilfully callous as to continue to fail to perform the duties imposed upon them by Parliament for the protection of the public. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Arran has to say on these matters.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, saw me smile when he said that
1464
we on these Benches were the authorities in regard to the lunatic politics of certain local authorities. I hope that he will equally smile when I say that he really ought not to make remarks about lunatic politics at the moment until his own lunatic politics and those of another party have been completed and then I have no doubt that we shall all enjoy a very good universal smile.
The matter which is being debated in this House is the result of the Motion very kindly put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—who immediately preceded me—that he thought it was very timely that this Motion should be put down. The noble Viscount expressed some apprehension about the behaviour of certain local authorities. I am a little bemused by this, because just before the general election and before Parliament was dissolved on 7th May in another place, Mr. Hunter asked the Secretary of State for the Home Office,
"if all the local authorities required to do so under the planned programme for implementation have submitted their plans compiled under the Civil Defence Regulations 1938; and if he will make a statement".
Mr. Hogg on 7th May by way of Written Answer in another place—and he was the responsible Minister at the Home Office—replied as follows:
"The PPI"—
as the noble Lords will realise that is the vernacular for planned programme for implementation—
"is a rolling three-year programme setting out a series of monitoring targets for all the requirements of the 1983 regulations. The first target date in respect of plans is 1st October this year. All the initial PPI meetings with individual county authorities have been completed satisfactorily".
That was the Government's Answer on 7th May 1987. I am quoting from col. 516 of the Hansard of the other place on 7th May.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is expressing amazement—and so one ought if one heard the debate that has just taken place. It does not seem to me so very timely, first, because we have not reached 1st October. I should have thought it was more sensible to see the replies and the plans of local authorities rather than quote draft letters which may or may not be sent and which may or may not deserve the description of the noble Viscount. However, that is not my main contribution to the debate this evening.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that part of his speech which he says is not his main contribution—it will be interesting to hear the rest—I wonder whether he will bear in mind that we are now at 22nd July. We are about to enter August and then September and the 1st October follows immediately. It is abundantly plain from the evidence already given by my noble friends, and from evidence which I have at my disposal here, that the nuclear-free zone authorities—and we know their attitudes—have embarked upon a long-term stalling exercise which appears to have the deliberate intention of not being ready by 1st October. I can assure the noble Lord that that is so. I can provide him with the evidence. I do not want to take time in the middle of his speech repeating it all. But does he support them in that attitude?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made a second address to the House, but I do not quarrel with that. The Minister responsible in regard to civil defence on 7th May of this year—a matter of only a couple of months ago—said with all the responsibility and consideration that go into a Written Answer that meetings have taken place in regard to the implementation of the programme:
"All the initial PPI meetings with individual county authorities have been completed satisfactorily". [Official Report, Commons. 7/5/87. col. 516.]
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, expressed surprise both facially and I think by some vocal announcement to the House when I read that out. I am not surprised that he is surprised but I am surprised that the noble Viscount thinks that he has to raise this matter before the House today in view of that reply. As I said, that is not my main contribution to this debate.
Any Government and any Opposition that does not take the protection of the public seriously and act with all reasonable precautions in order to bring civil defence up to a proper standard would deserve from me and from my colleagues on these Benches the adjective "irresponsible", and that applies to the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, brings always so usefully to this House. They are matters of national emergency where he feels that civil defence training is of great use and civil defence personnel can be used. We cannot sit down with equanimity and say, "Our country is exempt from national disasters". They can happen. By the grace of God they are very few by virtue of many attributes that this country has.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the very logical reaction of many people to the initial discussion in regard to nuclear war when he said that it looked as though the Government of the day was saying to the people of this country. "Don't worry, a nuclear war is bound to leave certain survivors and certain things to do". And there were those who were a little incredulous with regard to those matters. The House will know that there were many medical and scientific authorities who threw their weight behind the argument that this was not realistic. However, I entirely agree: Chernobyl has changed all that. There could just as easily be—heaven forbid!—an accident here. I hope that we have taken greater precautions than the Russians took; but, nevertheless, it could happen here.
However, what the Government have failed to do—and I put this to the Minister of that time a couple of years ago and I have never had an answer to it—and what the Government ought to do by way of responsibility, is this. Looking at Chernobyl it was not a local area matter: it was a matter that not only spread over the Soviet Union but to countries far from the Soviet Union and even to our own shores.
The Government plan the protection of our people through local authorities. Let us take it for granted for one moment that some local authorities have acted irresponsibly in this matter. What do a government who accept the responsibility for the protection of our people do? Do they have debates like this? Do they read on drafts of local authorities who, it is said, are submitting plans in an ambiguous
1466
and useless fashion? Do they go on debating, writing letters, and protesting, as the noble Baroness in her eloquent speech suggested? No, my Lords. A government that really believe in their policy in regard to nuclear defence, as well as any other defence, say that this is not a local area matter. We learnt this from Chernobyl, if we did not know it before.
This is a national responsibility. We take responsibility for it nationally. In the same way as with the fire authority, regional authorities will deal with the matter. The Government will consult local authorities where local authorities co-operate. Where they do not want to co-operate the Government will try to consult, but if local authorities still do not co-operate they will act just the same because they believe in responsibility. Therefore these are arguments about local authorities, some of them irresponsible and some of them responsible, in relation to a great national matter of importance that has been discussed today and previously. We can go on arguing about some of the local authorities and what are described as their lunatic activities.
I throw the gauntlet down to the Government now. Let us assume that this is responsibly to be dealt with by the Government. Do they want to deal with it and not get off cheaply by subscribing only a certain amount towards the grant for civil defence purposes and by leaving it as a debating measure with certain local authorities which feel they have other priorities in this day and age—they may be right or they may be wrong? A government who sincerely believe in civil defence and the sort of things that ought to be done to protect our nation will bravely take the task upon their own shoulders, organise it regionally and consult those local authorities that are prepared to consult them.
8.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should first like to tell my noble friend Lord Mersey how grateful I am to him for introducing this debate tonight in your Lordships' House. Equally I express my thanks to all other noble Lords, all of whom have made a very valuable contribution and who in doing so now enable me to update your Lordships on the Government's current situation concerning civil protection.
My noble friend has once more drawn to your Lordships' attention an important element in our civil defence planning and preparedness. His particular interest in the local authority aspects of this is clear from his contributions in your Lordships' House, and I am sure it is right to acknowledge the commitment and understanding which underpins his contributions. Indeed, as I am sure my noble friend will soon discover, the depth of his knowledge inevitably far exceeds mine as a newcomer to this subject. But I readily understand his main concern, and I hope I shall be able to respond to it.
Although my noble friend's Question relates to civil protection, I believe that originally it referred to civil defence. He is, I think, clear about our terminology, but other noble Lords may not be. It may be helpful to consider this for a moment. Civil defence, as defined in the Civil Defence Act 1948,

1467
relates to measures taken against hostile attack on this country. Under that Act regulations are made from time to time prescribing duties and providing for financial support by way of grant aid. But for peacetime emergencies, with the exception of certain designated industrial sites which could represent a major accident hazard, there are no directly comparable statutory duties. Local authorities are able to spend money under the general power of Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 to take action to mitigate the effects in their area of an emergency or disaster.
"Civil protection" is a term in common use among our European neighbours. It recognises that there can be common aspects in planning for responding to emergencies however they might arise. This all-hazards approach, as it is called, is recognised by this Government, and indeed was given effect by the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, to whose passage the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a major contribution. Against this background, I shall focus my remarks on the fact that Parliament has laid specific duties on local authorities in relation to planning for war emergencies, which I think is the point at the heart of my noble friend's interests.
It may help your Lordships if I set out briefly what those requirements are. Under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 all local authorities at county level (and this now includes fire and civil defence authorities in the former metropolitan counties) are required to make, keep under review and revise plans for a number of specified services; establish, equip and maintain emergency centres; arrange for training of staff; take part in training exercises; make arrangements in respect of volunteers; and when requested implement their plans.
We are concerned tonight principally with the first of these duties, since planning must be the prerequisite to other actions. The specific matters on which local authorities are required to make plans are set out in Schedule 2 to those 1983 regulations. I shall not weary your Lordships with the whole list. Suffice it to say that these particular requirements relate to all those ways in which local authorities would be expected to extend the operation of their services into a wartime situation: for example, providing shelter, rescuing trapped people, providing accommodation, emergency feeding, sanitary arrangements and clearance of damage will be but a few of the wartime requirements. Above all, there are requirements to co-ordinate action and to provide and distribute information to the public, who may be in panic.
Let me summarise the progress which has been made to implement the 1983 regulations. Your Lordships may be aware of a Statement made in another place on 22nd July 1986 by my honourable friend the Minister of State. Copies of this and the accompanying report are in the Library. This Statement indicated that a number of local authorities were making encouraging progress in meeting their civil defence responsibilities. The rate of progress had, however, been very varied and there was a great deal still be be done before there could be
1468
a satisfactory and balanced state of preparedness across the country, as my noble friend the Minister of State recently indicated in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Mersey. In these circumstances the Government decided to introduce a planned programme for implemenation (PPI) of the 1983 regulations. The PPI set a rolling three-year programme to monitor progress, discuss budgets and agree objectives and set six-monthly target dates for assessing the plans required to be made by county level local authorities in accordance with Schedule 2 to the 1983 regulations.
Following consultation with the local authority associations details of the PPI were sent to local authorities on 30th October 1986 under cover of Home Office Circular, Emergency Service 1/86. As a result of further discussion with the local authority associations, extension of the guidance, including guidelines for the preparation of plans, was issued to local authorities on 20th March this year as Emergency Service 1/87.
Meetings were held at the turn of the year between the Home Office and each of the 54 county level local authorities. These meetings provided an opportunity to discuss a range of matters relating to emergency planning, and in particular to clarify mutual expectations. Although the meetings provided confirmation of the wide variations in the rate of progress, at the same time, however, they helped to obtain a commitment from all the authorities to respond to the PPI timetable and an acceptance of the need to give priority to making the plans required by the 1983 regulations. I have to tell your Lordships that despite the occasional sound of sabre rattling, no authority is specifically refusing to meet its statutory obligations.
The Government are not of course so naive as to believe that every local authority is now applying itself to civil defence planning with equal vigour and enthusiasm. It is the precise purpose of the PPI to allow us to see what progress is being made by individual authorities and to channel resources and guidance accordingly. I should make it quite clear that the Government expect to see value for money in relation to the very generous levels of grant which they pay. To this end, assessment of progress will be reflected in the determination of the level of grant payable in each case.
The meetings with individual authorities have also provided an opportunity to discuss budget estimates in some detail. Wherever possible estimates for 1987–88 were formally approved at that stage for the purpose of adancing grant. The budgets of 41 authorities have now been approved. The remainder are awaiting resolution of points of detail and no question of withholding grant currently arises.
Financial provision has been greatly enhanced by the Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 which have enabled all civil defence staff related costs to become eligible for 100 per cent. grant aid. The Government expect that this will provide further encouragement to local authorities to fulfil their statutory obligations.
The next important date in the PPI calendar will be 1st October by which time county level authorities

1469
will be required to submit further progress reports together with information on the objectives of each plan and the organisation necessary to achieve them. All local authorities will by now have received a letter advising them of the details of the information requested. When that information has been received and assessed, a further report will be made to the Secretary of State. and the Government will then be in a better position to judge the levels of compliance generally.
To summarise the position, therefore, I can tell your Lordships that all the indications at present are that every local authority intends to meet its statutory obligations, but as I have said the levels of enthusiasm with which those tasks are approached will vary considerably. Where resistance is encountered it will be the Government's intention to seek achievement of satisfactory results by discussion and persuasion rather than by bringing legal sanctions to bear. I know that my noble friend has strong views on what course the Government should take. I must however tell your Lordships that the Government regard the application of legal sanctions as very much a move of last resort. There has been a broadly encouraging response to the PPI and it is the Government's intention to meet that response as constructively as possible.
That is, in summary, where the Government now stand on the implementation of the 1983 regulations. Good progress has been made but there is a great deal to do. We shall continue with resolve and purpose and forge ahead stage by stage with the course charted out in July last year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but my point is terribly important. He has used the phrase, "county level civil defence authorities". Does that phrase include the joint fire and civil defence authorities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must confess straightaway that I am not absolutely certain. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to write to him on that point.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it may be that interruptions at this stage, and limited to this stage, will help the noble Earl. I wish to be entirely fair to him. He was not to know that I was going to make a suggestion which I made two years ago and it would be quite unfair to ask him to reply to it. I wonder whether he would kindly deal with the matter of regional authorities and government responsibility for what is national safety, not now but either by letter or by a Statement in the House at some future time. Obviously I shall leave him to choose his own method of dealing with it and I hope he feels that I have used with him the courtesy that he undoubtedly deserves.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for those remarks. Of course I shall answer those questions in writing. I most earnestly thank him for the courteous way he has put those questions this evening.
1470
Perhaps I may turn briefly to a few individual points that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Mersey and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, were worried about nuclear-free zones. I am not aware of any authority saying that it will not meet its statutory obligations. We shall be looking for evidence that their functions are being carried out. We pay substantial sums and high levels of specific grant. We need to be sure that the money is being used properly and is directed as effectively as possible. My noble friend Lord Renton asked about the spending for 1987–88. The answer is approximately £105 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Renton expressed considerable anxiety about the effects of Chernobyl. Noble Lords may be familiar with a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on 30th June. My right honourable friend made it clear that the main framework of the new contingency plan to cater specifically for the consequences for the country of nuclear accidents outside the United Kingdom was complete. My right honourable friend went on to set out the main features of the new plan and to explain that it will be kept under review, will be exercised, and, where necessary, will be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is quite right to stress the wide range of matters covered by the civil protection arrangements and Chernobyl has reinforced these in public consciousness.
We have had a most useful debate and I am once again grateful to my noble friend for providing an opportunity for discussing the subject of our emergency planning arrangements. I should like to leave your Lordships with a positive message. Some encouraging progress has been made in local authority civil defence planning. The planned programme now in operation will assist local authorities in knowing what is expected of them, and will help them in discharging the statutory duties which Parliament has placed on them. At the same time, the PPI is providing the Government with a means of ascertaining whether the necessary planning work is being carried out, and furthermore whether it is being done in a way which will give value for money. It is the Government's firm intent to ensure that these statutory responsibilities are carried out.
We believe that the best way forward in the present circumstances is by encouragement, guidance and assistance, and we look forward to working in close co-operation with the local authorities as they tackle these important tasks.

Bexley London Borough Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Channel Tunnel Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.