Lords Sitting of 7 November 1988

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

Postal Strike: Effect on Jobless Figures
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect the recent postal strike had on the unemployment statistics for September.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the recent postal strike resulted in some temporary over-recording in the September 1988 unemployment figures because of delays in the receipt of information about when people ceased to be unemployed. A reliable estimate of the effect is not yet available but it is unlikely that the fall in the seasonally adjusted total in September would otherwise have been much different from the recent average of 40,000 per month. A more precise assessment will he available in the October figures to be published next week.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging reply. Does he not agree that such industrial disruption not only delays the completion of unemployment statistics but also possibly contributes to unemployment itself? Is he aware that in May this year in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser 560 jobs were on offer and 30 people were seeking employment but that last week in the same newspaper 709 jobs were on offer and only 23 people were seeking employment? Does he not consider that to be encouraging?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for finding an ingenious way of drawing attention to the adverse effects of the postal strike. I am also aware that your Lordships' House will have to wait until Thursday next week, when the unemployment figures are due to be released, for confirmation of whether or not that is the trend. However, there appears to be a notable disparity between the number of jobs advertised and those who are looking for work in jobcentres.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, could not the postal strike—which we are all sorry about—have been avoided had management been advised to adopt a more conciliatory attitude leading up to and during the course of the dispute? Is the noble Lord aware that the union in question is scarcely known for taking a militant stance; likewise its general secretary?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is my practice to receive in my box each evening a note which tells me whenever there is a postal strike, for
472
whatever reason. I must confess that there have been few days during the past six months when I have not received such a note.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not this example show that such a public service should have a no-strike agreement and also that it is quite wrong for an organisation that does not have a no-strike agreement to have a statutory monopoly?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, once again, I am grateful to a noble friend who has managed to bring two entirely separate matters into the same question. I congratulate him on his ingenuity. Whether or not a no-strike agreement would work is something which we have yet to put to the test. It is a matter of concern to many of us that a statutory monopoly should be in the hands of a body which is prone to industrial disputes. I hope very much that the management and unions will get together, that they will communicate and that we shall see no more such disputes in the future.
Lord Mellish: My Lords—
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lord Mellish: the Privy Counsellor!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I wonder whether I may help. I do not think that there is any particular hurry as to which noble Lord speaks first. However, if one were to proceed in alphabetical order I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has precedence over the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in spite of that uproar I simply wish to ask the Minister: is it not a weird and wonderful system in which we have to rely on the Post Office for statistics? Has no one heard of the telephone?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is one of the vagaries of the system for registering unemployment. There is never any doubt when people unfortunately become unemployed because they go along and register for benefits with the benefit service. When they return to work they normally notify the benefit service by post. What we are absolutely certain about each month is the number of people who draw benefit. What we are not certain about in this particular month is the number of people who had posted their forms off saying that they were, happily, now back at work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, reference was made to no-strike agreements. Will the noble Lord not agree that the unions at GCHQ offered the Government a no-strike agreement and that the Government totally rejected the offer? Does he agree that such rejection is similar to what has been happening to Lech Walesa and his trade union, which the Prime Minister thinks is a model for us to follow? So what are we to do? Are we to carry out the instructions of the Prime Minister and defy the Government, even if we do not provide the trade unions with what they demand? Or shall we

473
try to find reasonable answers in a civilised manner through discussions as the Post Office union wanted but which were turned down by the management?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not believe that the affairs of GCHQ need recounting once again in your Lordships' House, particularly, if I may say so, in connection with a Question dealing with the postal strike. Otherwise, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that I cannot find the slightest similarity between the two cases to which he referred.
Lord Molloy: Ask the Prime Minister!
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to return to the answer given to my question. Have the Government not heard of arbitration as a means of settling disputes? If they have, why have they consistently undermined the authority of the Central Arbitration Committee by writing it out of successive pieces of legislation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this Government have no intention of undermining the authority of management. They believe that it is for management and the unions to settle their differences and I believe that left alone they will do so.

Hospices
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Dudley Baroness Dudley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many hospices for terminally ill people, and especially for AIDS patients, are available in the United Kingdom; and how many hospices are planned for the future.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we know of 120 hospices in the United Kingdom providing in-patient care for people with a terminal illness. Included in this number are the London Lighthouse and the Mildmay Mission Hospital, which provide residential care for people with AIDS only. A further 37 hospices have indicated a willingness to care for people with AIDS. At present there are some 25 hospice projects planning in-patient units for the terminally ill.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Can he say how many hospices are run by charities and religious orders?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are 26 National Health Service hospices and I would assume, if my counting is correct, that there are therefore 94 independent hospices.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how much in percentage terms are the Government putting into the funding of these hospices, bearing in mind that a great many of them are run by charities but that the area health authorities disburse the government money?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the case of hospices which receive funding from the area health authorities the level of financial support varies from nothing to 80 per cent. However, the average commitment is 27 per cent.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that 2,315 beds in 122 hospices are quite inadequate in view of the steady increase in the number of AIDS cases and deaths due to AIDS? Is he satisfied that some hospices receive no help at all from National Health Service funds? In view of the urgency of this matter will he ask his right honourable friend to take some initiative in this field?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is a fact that the modern hospice movement is only 20 years old. On the basis of how much it has grown in the past 20 years and assuming that the present rate of growth will continue, I hope that all of us in this House will be most happy to see the future expansion of a very valuable movement.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to accept my apologies as I did not hear his reply to the second part of the Question. Is he yet in a position to tell the House when he expects to have the reports called for under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 which had to be produced before the end of 1988? Can he tell us when they will be available?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord an accurate date for that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question that I put to him? I asked him whether he was satisfied with the situation in which such a high proportion of hospices receive no financial assistance although many of them have asked for it. Will he raise this matter with his right honourable friend in order to give some sense of urgency to the provision of hospices, especially in view of the growing number of AIDS cases?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of our Health Circular HC87/4, a copy of which is available in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am sorry to return to my point, but can the noble Lord find the information that I am seeking and perhaps write to me?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to ask me the question I shall answer it.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord pay tribute to the excellent work that is being done in hospices throughout the country and by the dedicated people all over Britain who are raising money for them? Does he not feel that it is sad, at a time when the Treasury has money oozing up through the floorboards, that they have to raise so much of their finance—and in some cases all their money—through charity?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will remember the Autumn Statement last week. I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that we have recently announced a further £4.5 million for health authorities in England for this year to meet the additional costs incurred by hospices and other charitable hospitals.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to repeat my question? Is he in a position or when does he expect to be in a position to tell the House when the reports that were called for under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987, which were due to be made available before the end of 1988, will be produced?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in my earlier reply I said to the noble Lord that I was unable to give him a date at the present time.

Odometers: "Clocking" Proposals
2.48 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking on the proposals on the "clocking" of odometers made to the Minister for Roads and Traffic by 16 organisations.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the implications of the proposal, which involves a DVLC-based mileage recording scheme, are still being considered. An announcement will be made shortly.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer. Is it fully appreciated that the 16 organisations which support the working party are very responsible bodies? They include the five local authority associations, the AA, the RAC, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, the Office of Fair Trading and, what is more important, the five motor trade organisations. Is it fully appreciated that the report of the working party has revealed widespread abuse and cheating in the alteration of mileage on cars? Ought not the Government to give the matter serious consideration at the earliest possible moment?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my honourable friend only received the document on the 25th September and, as the noble Lord will appreciate, he will need time to consider its implications. However, I can tell him that the Government are grateful to the Director General of Fair Trading for co-ordinating the views of bodies representing motor dealers, trading standards professionals and others. The proposals arising out of such an exercise deserve to be and will be studied with great care.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the DVLC is a not very efficient tax-gathering machine? Perhaps it would be better for the crime prevention role to be returned to the police and for the remainder of it to be returned to the private sector.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is one of the matters that will be considered. However, I can tell my noble friend that certain private companies already operate a mileage register and inquiry service on a limited basis, mainly for the motor trade. The motor industry is investigating the feasibility of tackling the problem at source by the use of tamper-resistant mileometers.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, with reference to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I hope it will be appreciated that the working party report includes practical proposals for the DVLC to contribute in a very valuable way to this matter.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my honourable friend will take account of what the noble Lord has said.

Remand Prisoners: Working Party Proposals
2.50 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received representations from a group of lawyers, justices' clerks, probation officers and police, co-ordinated by the Law Society to set up a working party as quickly as possible to report by Christmas on possible solutions to the increasing problem of remand prisoners held in police or court cells, and what action they propose to take.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the chairman of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society wrote to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 18th October to inform him that the meeting to which the noble Lord refers has taken place, and that the Law Society would be making formal representations to him in due course. We have not yet received them. I am glad to say that the action which my right honourable friend has taken has resulted in a drop of 500 in the number of prisoners in police cells over the past two weeks.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the last count which I managed to obtain from the Home Office for Friday last, 4th November, the number of prisoners in cells—both court cells and police station cells—was 1,314? Is he further aware that of that number 1,261 were male and 53 were female, and that 960 males and 45 females were in the South-East?
The Minister has referred to the Law Society letter. Is he aware that because of the urgency of the situation the letter called for a working party because of the burdens being cast upon the police and the legal profession, as well as the inhumanity of these remand prisoners being held in cells? Has he nothing further to say?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has given are of course entirely correct, as they would be since he managed to obtain them from my department. I congratulate him on his prudence in his accuracy.

477
He asks me whether there is anything else that I wish to add. Of course, the overcrowding in police cells is a cause of great anxiety. Much of that was caused by the industrial action that took place whereby over 1,000 prisoners were locked out of prison. The point that the noble Lord makes about overcrowding is a very relevant one. I am bound to tell him, as he asked me whether I had anything else to say, that last March my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced new measures to produce more prison places. Over 2,600 new places have been provided so far including two new prisons which have been opened in the last two months. A further 1,400 places will be produced by April next year. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed last week to spend an extra £370 million over the next two years. This will result in 28 new prisons since 1984 which will have been provided by the mid-1990s. Of these, eight prisons have already been opened. Since 1979, 6,000 new places have been provided. By 1995, 25,000 new prison places will have been provided.
As the noble Lord asked me whether I had anything else to say, perhaps I may add that the expenditure on prisons is already more than double that which was spent in 1979.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not part of the answer to this recurrent and chronic problem closing the gap in time between committal and arraignment, which would reduce the necessity of keeping people on remand for so long?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite right. That is one of the options that is available.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, based on previous statistics, can the Minister tell us how many of those people now held on remand are not expected to receive a custodial sentence?
The noble Earl has told us how much money is going into building new prisons. Can he tell us how much money is going into building more bail hostels so that people on remand will not be held in prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not have the figures for which the noble Baroness asks. I shall see whether they can be obtained and I shall write to her.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl will recall that we had two debates this summer on this question and on the relationship between remands in custody of mentally ill offenders and the overall situation as described by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Does he recall that he assured me subsequently that he was raising with the DHSS certain matters concerning the question of mentally ill offenders kept in wholly unsatisfactory conditions in police cells? What has been the result of his approach to the DHSS?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has asked a rather wider question. There will be a debate this evening on an
478
Unstarred Question by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. There have been consultations with the DHSS. I very much hope that something will be forthcoming in the future. The noble Lord is quite right to be concerned about those who are mentally disturbed.
Perhaps I may return to the main onus of the Question. I would not defend the present situation, where prisons are overcrowded, as being acceptable. Of course it is not. I have referred to the industrial action that has been taken as a part of that cause. However, we shall not get the position right until new prisons and more prisons are built. The figures that I have given your Lordships indicate that the situation is being tackled in a very forthright way. There will be a great improvement. But one cannot expect these things to happen overnight.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the charge has been made that cases are being dealt with far less expeditiously since the establishment of the prosecution service. To what extent is this true? If the noble Earl is not able to answer, will he make sure that this is looked into very carefully?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not have any figures that I can give to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition about that. Certainly I shall have the matter looked into to see what the position is and whether something can be done about it. I shall write to the noble Lord to tell him my conclusions
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the figures were shocking before there was any question of industrial action being taken? Will he please look at the question, which I venture to ask again, with the recommendation that a working party be set up to report as a matter of urgency? Is he not prepared for such a working party to be created?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can certainly consider the suggestion. I do not know that it will necessarily provide an answer. One of the answers is to provide new and more prison places. I have explained that it is anticipated that there will be no fewer than 28 new prisons by the mid-1990s. That is a very great many. Far more money is being spent at the moment, both on prison places and on prison officers, than has been spent for a long while.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, has there been no examination of the reason for this massive increase in the prison population over the past six or seven years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, basically it is because there has been more crime and more people have been sentenced in that way.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, why?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lords asks why. I cannot tell him why there is more crime. He had better ask the criminals.

Business
2.59 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Broadcasting White Paper.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill Birmingham City Council Bill Southern Water Authority Bill
3 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That if any of the Bills are brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—( The Chairman of Committees.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Under Standing Order No. 44 no two stages of a Bill may be taken on the same day. It is usual at the end of a Session to suspend this Standing Order for the purpose of taking through the House any money Bills that may arrive from another place. As your Lordships will be aware, the House does not normally amend money Bills and all stages are taken
480
on one day. However, on this occasion there are two money Bills, the European Communities (Finance) Bill and the Rate Support Grants Bill which we propose to take through the House on Thursday. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the end of the Session. — (Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

School Boards (Scotland) Bill
3.2 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 6 (Proceedings.)
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 1.:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert ("and any legal proceedings or other document to be served on a Board shall be deemed to have been duly served if served at the school on the Clerk or, if no Clerk has been appointed, on the chairman or vice-chairman.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during debate in Committee and at Report I listened attentively to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on the need for a clearly established route for the service of legal notices and other documents on boards. My reply to his arguments was that there is a recognised legal principle: it is that the service of a document on- an officer or an office-holder of a statutory body counts as satisfactory service of that document on the body concerned.
It has been my intention to assuage the concerns of the noble Lord wherever possible. Accordingly I have tabled this amendment which in effect restates that recognised legal principle within the provisions of the Bill. If I may say so, the amendment is more satisfactory than that proposed at Committee and Report by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It covers the possibility that a board might, for whatever reason, be without a clerk at some time. In such circumstances service should be made on the chairman or vice-chairman.
The amendment also provides for service to be made at the school for which the board is established. The school therefore becomes a proxy for the board's place of business. Anyone wishing to serve a document will not need to find out the clerk's or the chairman's home address. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, for accepting the suggestion that I made. We on this side of the House do not have the facilities that the noble Lord has; therefore we are only too pleased to have the words that we put down tightened up and made easier to understand. It is now much more likely that notices of legal proceedings from outside bodies will be served on boards and not addressed to the headmaster which may have been the case otherwise. We are very pleased.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 26, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of a School Board, or of any committee of a Board. shall be drawn up and shall be signed at the same or next following meeting by the person presiding thereat, and any minute purporting to be so signed shall be received in evidence without further proof.
(7A) Where their education authority so require, a School Board shall send to the authority a copy of the minutes signed under subsection (7) above in relation to any meeting.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I undertook at Report stage to find a form of words which would give effect to the principle of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The noble Lord's concern was that without authentication, board minutes might be open to challenge. He also wished to secure a clearly stated right for authorities to require delivery of copies of board minutes should they so desire. I have redeemed my pledge. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Lord for looking at this point and bringing it back in a form of words that leaves little doubt as to its meaning. This means that the minutes of the board will be authenticated and totally accepted. I am very pleased that we have reached this agreement.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 Privative Jurisdiction and Summary Courts) Order 1988
3.4 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order has two purposes. The first is to raise the limit for privative or exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff from £500 to £l.500. The second is similarly to raise the limit of summary cause actions in the sheriff court from £1,000 to £1,500. The order is made under Section 41 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. The figures for the two amounts were fixed in the 1971 Act at the same figure of £250.That figure was raised to £500 in 1976 and the figure for the summary cause limit alone was raised to £1,000 in 1981.
In the consultation paper which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate issued in March last year, concerned mainly with small claims procedure, it was proposed that both figures should be raised to £1,500, particularly to take account of the changes in the retail prices index. These proposals were generally welcomed. Accordingly, the order before your Lordships provides that the figure for both the sheriff's exclusive jurisdiction and the limit of summary cause actions in the sheriff court should be raised to £1,500. I beg to move
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden].
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I have made some inquiries: I have found no adverse comments on the order. On the contrary, most people seem to be in complete agreement with it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Small Claims (Scotland) Order 1988
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [33rd Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall the debates in this House on what became Section 18 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985. This provision laid the foundation for, and established the main features of, the small claims procedure in Scotland. During the passage of the Bill I undertook to come back to this House with my detailed proposals about those summary cause actions which I proposed should be small claims. This I now do with the order which is before your Lordships.
I also undertook to consult publicly on my proposals. I did this in March last year in a consultation paper which was then issued on my behalf and on behalf of the sheriff court rules council which has the responsibility for preparing the detailed rules for consideration by the Court of Session. Written replies were received from 39 persons and organisations. To all these people I offer my thanks for their careful and helpful comments.
Those of your Lordships who have read the consultation paper and compared my proposals there with the contents of the order before this House will have noted two main changes. On reconsideration and taking account of what had been said by consultees I have included two types of action that I had previously considered unsuited for a small claims procedure. These are actions ad factum praestandum and actions for recovery of moveable property. I shall explain my reasons for including those actions in the order in a moment, but first I should like to explain my approach to the provisions of the order.
The purpose of small claims procedure is to create a court procedure which is, as far as possible, "user-friendly" to lay litigants. The procedure should be as simple as possible and it should be relatively inexpensive to raise a claim or to defend a claim. The achievement of these aims means that over-subtle distinctions, particularly in the definition of a small claim, should be avoided in favour of a broader approach. It also means placing reliance on the good sense and co-operation of all those who have to operate the procedure.
Lastly, it means accepting that difficult and complex cases should, where appropriate, be remitted from small claims procedure to summary cause or ordinary cause procedure. This is provided for in Section 37(2B) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, a provision of the 1985 Act. The limits on expenses which apply in small claims procedure will

483
not of course apply to cases which are remitted to summary cause or ordinary cause procedure.
The great majority of all small claims will be actions for the recovery of money. However, as your Lordships will appreciate, such actions can cover many diverse matters. In responses to consultation, I received arguments that road traffic accident claims and personal injury claims generally should be excluded because they involved special considerations making them unsuited for small claims procedure. I do not however consider that they should be excluded. I am reluctant to make distinctions which may be arbitrary and prove difficult to apply in practice. The lay litigant should not be faced with the difficult approach of whether his claim is indeed a small claim. Unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, actions which appear suitable for small claims procedure should not be excluded. It is of course always open to me to amend the definition of a small claim in the light of experience of the operation of the procedure.
The draft order provides for an upper value limit of £750, exclusive of interest and expenses. I have received arguments that this is too much, too low and about right. On balance, I have thought it best to maintain the level proposed in the consultation paper. In doing so I have been conscious that it is a new scheme as yet untried. This suggests that it is preferable to start the procedure with a lower rather than a higher figure for the upper limit.
I have also had regard to the argument that the procedure should cover as many as possible of regularly purchased consumer goods such as washing machines, television sets and video recorders. That points to not setting the upper limit for the procedure too low.
I turn now to the other types of action that I propose should be included as small claims. These are actions ad factum praestandum and actions for the recovery of possession of moveable property but only where in either case there is an alternative claim for payment of a sum of money not exceeding £750. In the consultation paper I originally proposed to exclude all claims that were not money claims. My reason was that I regarded these summary cause actions as rather too complicated to be included in the small claims procedure in its initial form. However, I received many responses which argued in favour of the inclusion of actions for the recovery of property and the performance or implementation of obligations and services. I accept that there is force in these views and have accordingly included actions ad factum praestandum and actions for the recovery of moveable property subject to a requirement that there should be an alternative monetary claim for under £750 in order to distinguish those of such claims which are to be treated as small claims from those which may not.
To those of your Lordships who may wonder at the inclusion of the Latin phrase ad factum praestandum in a procedure which is intended to be as simple and untechnical as possible I offer my apologies. My ear has been bent to translate that Latin term into English but I am told that to do so would be ultra
484
vires Section 18 of the 1985 Act. Perhaps some light is thrown on that by Article 3 of the order, which explains that actions ad factum praestandum include actions for delivery and actions for implement but do not include actions for count, reckoning and payment. I hope that this will be sufficiently illuminating to the non-Latinate. I am glad to report that I understand that the draft procedural rules and forms, prepared by the Sheriff Court Rules Council, have been able to avoid using the Latin term.
This now brings me to the provisions in Article 4 about the limits on the award of expenses in small claims. My powers under Section 36B of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, which was introduced by Section 18 of the 1985 Act, are limited to fixing the sum under which no award of expenses is to be made in a small claim and the sum for the overall maximum small claims limit. I have specified £200 and £75, respectively, in the order. I have taken the view that I have no power to fix more than one sum in each case and that I should not provide either for a proportional banding of expenses limits in accordance with value levels of claims or for the amount of expenses awardable to be a percentage of the sum for which decree was sought. Both courses of action were advocated by a number of those who responded to the consultation paper. I think however that what is provided in the order is an appropriately simple provision, certainly for the small claims procedure as initially introduced.
Finally, I should like to express my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the preparations for the small claims scheme and its introduction in sheriff courts throughout Scotland. In particular I should like to express my appreciation of the work of the Sheriff Court Rules Council under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal Taylor. It has been engaged for some years in considering small claims procedure and in preparing successive drafts of the rules. The burden of preparation has been onerous but I know that the new procedure will be widely welcomed. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Cameron of Lochhroom.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his full explanation, which I am sure will find a place in many legal offices in Scotland. I had not before heard the phrase in connection with small claims courts, but I thought that "user-friendly" was a particularly felicitous description. I am not sure how close it comes to reality but the idea is to make it as user-friendly as possible.
It is gratifying to note that, following our discussions in 1985 and requests for opinions, 39 written replies were received both from individuals and from representative bodies. I believe that there was also a great deal of discussion with those concerned, and the profession is continually discussing the issues. Therefore the noble and learned Lord will know of the thoughts of those involved with the small claims court and of the decisions taken therein.

485
We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for attempting to let us into the secret of what is meant by the Latin phrase. Although I took Latin I shall not try to pronounce the phrase because there appear to be varied pronunciations depending upon the part of the country in which one was taught. However, I am sure that the issue will be looked at with great care.
The noble and learned Lord suggested that there were problems with certain bodies in respect of the limit of the award of expenses in small claims. I am sure that he has done his best but I hope that he has it right on this occasion. It could affect people at a personal level, so I am sure that he will have gone to a great deal of trouble.
I have only discussed this matter with one or two people who have an interest in it and the general impression I have is that with all the various difficulties and problems that come before the small debt court. this is as good an answer as we are likely to receive for some time. Only time will tell whether any other improvements are required. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for all he has done to meet earlier points raised and also for the full explanation he has given today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liverpool and Wirral Urban Development Area Order 1988
3.20 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [35th Report .from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This order is made under the provisions of Part XVI of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. It designates an urban development area covering land in Liverpool and the Wirral close to the Merseyside Development Corporation's existing area and gives the MDC the task of regenerating this extended area.
This order was deemed hybrid and therefore subject to petitioning. No petitions were received, leaving the way clear for parliamentary approval. The order was debated in Committee in another place last week, where it received general support.
It may be helpful if I remind noble Lords briefly of the history to date. The MDC was established in 1981 to regenerate some 865 acres of derelict docklands in the heart of Merseyside. The corporation received powers under its area and constitution order to assemble, reclaim and service land. Development control functions were also conferred on the MDC for its area. It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to confer those functions on the MDC for its extended area.
The corporation has spent some £150 million to remove physical dereliction from and restore confidence in its designated area. The private sector has already invested nearly £50 million and that
486
investment will more than double over the next few years. Although the MDC is nearing the end of the regeneration of its designated area, there is significant regeneration still needed in Merseyside. Therefore the Secretary of State announced his intention of extending the corporation's remit last March as part of the Action for Cities initiative.
At that time a preliminary view was taken of the areas which should be designated. A team of consultants led by Coopers and Lybrand were appointed to examine these areas and the areas around. They were asked to recommend boundaries and assess the additional public sector resources required and the likely level of private investment that could be generated.
In the light of this advice, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State drew up firm boundary proposals which were circulated to the two local authorities for comment before final decisions were taken and the order made. The area for designation is some 1,500 acres. Copies of the consultant's report were placed in the Library. The indications are that net public sector capital investment of something under £100 million would result in further private sector investment of over £300 million.
I am happy to say that these proposals have received a positive response. Both local authorities responded constructively to the detailed boundary proposals and the proposals have in turn led to more effective working relationships. The signs are promising, but it is important that the corporation should get on with regenerating the area. I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in detail what the order means. As I see it, this is an extension of an existing development corporation area and it makes sense to expand it rather than create a new one. The Minister has said that the proposal has received general support and we have no desire to oppose it in any way. However, we believe that it would be carried out far better by a more democratic procedure. As I understand it, the Public Accounts Committee in another place is showing concern about some of the areas involved and some of the activities which it thinks should not be pursued in those areas.
However, the order covers a very derelict area which has required attention for a number of years. If this is the only way at this time to tackle the problem, to get the thing moving and to attract money into the area for redevelopment, it is to be welcomed by all Members of your Lordships' House.
I believe that it is good that both local authorities involved have indicated their support, as I understand that in some areas there has been obstruction, which in some respects could have been counter productive to the general objectives. Having said that, we hope that the exercise is a success and that it attracts to this derelict area—and it is quite a substantial area—redevelopment which is in the interests of the area as a whole. Perhaps I may say as

487
a person residing in the North-West that it will he welcomed there and I hope it succeeds.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mentally Ill Offenders: Treatment
3.28 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to provide more effective treatment for mental offenders.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as they used to say in old fashioned novels, "This is all so sudden!" I was told that this debate would begin at 5.30 p.m. and we are two hours ahead of time, but I suppose that one cannot complain about that. They say that in the House of Lords anything might happen at any moment. Therefore, without more ado I ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I asked a similar Question —this one is rather better phrased—four years ago and received a fairly unsatisfactory reply. Incidentally I fully understand why the Deputy Leader of the House cannot be here to reply. He has been most courteous about the matter. It is not for me to say that I am relieved that he cannot be here because I am sure that his colleague will he equally hostile to my line when he comes to speak. However, I believe there is less pressure on me because the Deputy Leader cannot tackle me.
I should like to say at once that I believe that this is the most difficult question in the sphere of social services. That does not mean that we should shirk it: it means that we should tackle it. However, the fact that it is so difficult has been partly responsible for the result that our national response to this problem, quite irrespective of party, has been totally inadequate. I am not saying that the situation is better anywhere else, but this remains a subject of the utmost difficult and urgency.
We punish people when they break the law. We do not always send them to prison but we blame people when they break the law if they have done something criminally and morally wrong. That is a prerequisite of any civilised order: that 99 per cent. of people are held morally responsible for what they do, including breaking the law. However, when people are sick, we do not blame them: we treat them. We do the best we can for them. Mental offenders— and I use that very wide phrase which will enable everybody to speak from all sorts of different angles—are people who have broken the law and at the same time have been able to persuade us that they are suffering from some sort of mental affliction. I am putting that in the most general terms. Clearly this is a grey area, a borderline area or an overlapping area where people who were once criminals and who have broken the law are also mental cases.
There are some easy illustrations. Many years ago my wife and I had a real friend. She was a woman who lived in Oxford and whose husband had died. She went off her head, to use the old-fashioned phrase, and murdered a child who used to play with my children. We were very fond of the woman and of the child. She was so clearly off her head that she was judged to he unfit to plead and was rightly sent to
488
Broadmoor. There she met a fellow patient. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that in Broadmoor, as in similar places, they are called patients, not prisoners. She married her fellow patient and after leaving Broadmoor they lived happily ever after. That was a clear case of a mental offender who was unfit to plead.
Conversely, there is the case of the Yorkshire Ripper. I have been into that case carefully. Psychiatrists for both the defence and prosecution were of the opinion that he was a mental case who should go to a hospital. However, the judge in his wisdom—he has been criticised by many people—put the case to the jury and as a result the Yorkshire Ripper went to prison. In prison it soon emerged that the psychiatrists were right and after three years he found himself in hospital. One will get such difficult cases.
There is another case which I have read about since preparing my notes. The papers on Friday reported a man who had committed an absolutely horrifying murder together with much sexual misbehaviour. The man has said that he never wants to be released, which is perhaps sensible. The judge recommended that he never should be released and quoted the overwhelming medical opinion in favour of not releasing the man. It would be difficult to say that that young man was not a mental offender. It was admitted that he was grossly disturbed in his youth. Therefore, his was a borderline case. I raise these cases to illustrate this difficult subject—but, as I said, that does not mean that we should shirk it.
To focus our attention. I cite one case of a man whom I have visited in various prisons for the best part of 20 years and three years in a special hospital. I have known him for a long time. He had committed horrifying crimes. At the time his eminent counsel could not find a psychiatrist who could help build a psychiatric defence. Therefore for the first few years he served his sentence in prison.
Later the Home Secretary and the Home Office looked most carefully into the case. The noble Lord, Lord Allen. knows this case extremely well. At any rate. the Home Office obtained the best possible psychiatric opinion and sought to get the man sent to Broadmoor. However, the Minister for Health— an eminent man, but I shall not mention his name because I have no need to drag it in—decided that it was not possible and that it would not be an appropriate use of the facilities at Broadmoor. Therefore, although the Home Office wanted him to go to Broadmoor he was left in prison.
That was in 1971. Between 1979 and 1981 he was examined by a Home Office psychiatrist who decided again that he should go to Broadmoor or some such special hospital. Again nothing happened, so for another four years he remained in prison. Finally in 1985 he was sent to what I call the northern equivalent of Broadmoor. I am not sure that the staff would be pleased with that description but it explains what I am talking about. It is known as Park Lane Special Hospital. He has been well looked after ever since. In all, he spent 20 years in prison, 14 of them after the Home Office had endeavoured get him transferred to the special hospital where he spent

489
three years. That is an illustration of how things can go wrong, because no one can pretend that they went right. Heaven knows how many psychiatrists were involved in that case over the years and how many representations were made by do-gooders of one sort or another. That is the sort of problem we are dealing with.
Therefore, I ask myself and the House what went wrong. One could say that it was the fault of the Home Office Minister, the Minister for Health or other Ministers of one sort of another. In all those years we can assume that more than one party had been in power. Ministers might make mistakes and doctors might make mistakes, so perhaps the law should be altered. Perhaps more resources should be made available. I am certain that more resources should be made available for the special hospitals so that there is no possibility of arguing that there is a shortage of facilities. Whatever the explanation, clearly something went wrong and I believe that that is often the case.
What do I suggest? I start with the assumption that where medical opinion is in favour of a man being transferred from prison to a special hospital or some other kind of hospital—or one of the regional secure units about which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will he speaking with his expert knowledge—that offender should have a prima .facie right to that treatment.
I have spoken to a leading person in the area we are debating. He is a doctor, but he says that one cannot leave it entirely to the doctors to say whether an offender should be transferred. Therefore we must bring in a new factor, because leaving such decisions to Ministers has proved to be unsatisfactory. I have had a great deal of consultation with well qualified people who have given both the medical and legal points of view, and I suggest that there should be a review tribunal analogous to the Mental Health Review Tribunals. When one has sufficient psychiatric opinion in favour of a man being transferred from prison to hospital, he should go before the tribunal, and if the tribunal recommends a transfer, he should be transferred.
I am merely seeking to open up discussion and by no means trying to close it, but if I had my way and that proposal were adopted, the offender would have a right to be transferred. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have a duty to transfer him and the Minister for Health, or whoever was in charge of the health service at the time, would have a duty to find accommodation for him.
One aspect of that of course is that more resources might need to be made available to the special hospitals or to the mental health service generally. We are told that tremendous resources are being put into the expansion of the prisons. In that case, if my suggestion involves the expansion of the special hospitals, that expansion should take place. That is the proposal I lay before the House. I hope that the Minister, whether the Deputy Leader or his substitute, will consider it. I hope it will not be shot down without further reflection. I believe that my proposal commands a considerable amount of support. Clearly there needs to be much working out
490
of the detail, as it could not automatically be put into operation.
I must ask the Minister to tell the House how many people in his opinion are in prison who could be suitably transferred to special hospitals or other mental hospitals. I asked that question four years ago and received an answer that, I have to say, made me smile. I hope that the Minister will riot be upset if I say that I am likely to view with scepticism any answer that he gives today. I hope when he does answer that he will explain how he has arrived at his answer. I read in a newspaper today that the Russian authorities now calculate that there are 11 political prisoners in Russia. Many people thought that there were—
Lord Renton: I beg your Lordship's pardon. Last week they said there were 25.
The Earl of Longford: There were 25 last week; there are 11 this week. That raises a kind of hollow laugh. It seems to be a pretty sick joke. The question is whether there are many thousands or hundreds of thousands. At any rate, the idea that there are only 11 political prisoners is ludicrous. When the figures are available from the Minister he will receive if not a hollow laugh—a kind of suppressed smile if he tells us that there are just a handful of mentally disordered people in this category. I am bound to press the Minister on the point of how he arrives at his figures.
I have referred to the man who was put in prison for 20 years. All the time that he was there I doubt whether he entered into any calculation of the people the Minister would have said were suitable for transfer. I shall want to know how the Minister arrives at his figures. I have ventilated the subject: I hope that others will follow it up.
There is another aspect of the matter which some people may consider runs in the opposite direction, but I am sure that those who follow me closely—in spite of my being rather hoarse—will not find any contradiction. It is argued by well-informed bodies like MIND and the Matthew Trust founded by that splendid pioneer in the field of mental health, Peter Thompson, and other bodies that have also given evidence to me, that some people are being sent to mental hospitals who should not be there. I must lay the thoughts of these bodies before the House. It is argued that at the end of their sentence some prisoners are sent to mental hospitals in order to prevent their coming out and that they are left to moulder there.
I press that matter upon the Minister. Although it does not come under my direct first-hand scrutiny, it is a situation felt quite strongly by the bodies I have mentioned. I have been asked to put a question to the Minister. What information can be given about the number of prisoners transferred towards the end of their sentence under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act? I have given notice of this question to the Minister. I believe that he has already a very good idea of what I am going to say. What information can the Minister give the House about the number of prisoners transferred towards the end of their sentence—those are the key words—under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act.

491
Another point has been brought before me by these well-informed bodies. Has the Minister any information on the ethnic breakdown of prisoners transferred under Section 47? There is a growing suspicion that ethnic minorities are being maltreated under this section. I report what I have been told by these expert bodies. There is a growing suspicion that ethnic minorities are being transferred under the section. When I speak of MIND I am sure that everyone knows the famous society of that name. There is a growing suspicion not only in MIND about the mental health care of prisoners on remand. I have time only to mention two cases. Keith Hicks, aged 38, died in Brixton Prison on 12th March 1985. It was treated as a death following an epileptic fit. The handling of the case by the coroner gave rise to much criticism and after an appeal to the High Court a second inquest was held. The verdict of the second inquest was accidental death, aggravated by lack of care.
The second case concerns Samuel Carew who died in the same prison on 5th February this year, aged 22. He was found hanging in his cell. At Southwark Coroner's Court the verdict was suicide. The coroner was moved to remark:
"There is a terrible rottenness in the system that needs rectifying".
The coroner set out a list of recommendations that I hope are available to the Minister. If they are not, I can supply him with them. I content myself now by asking the Minister what steps are being taken to give effect to at least some of the recommendations of the coroner.
I am close to concluding what I have to say. There are many matters that should be taken up with the Government. I am sure that some will be effectively dealt with by other speakers. There is the far-reaching question of psychiatric assistance within the prison system. I am not saying that anyone with a psychiatric problem should be transferred at once to hospital. The prison psychiatric service has to cope with many cases. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has great experience of these matters and I hope that he will be able to deal with some of the problems. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will return to the deplorable story of the regional secure units and that he will bring us up-to-date with the latest news from Broadmoor which I expect will be very bad, though I may be pleasantly disappointed.
There is one major issue that deserves a debate of its own: the after-care for patients who have been in special hospitals. That leads one to the question of after-care for ex-mental hospital patients. I chaired a committee on this subject some years ago and Lord Beswick, a great worker for these causes, opened a debate in the House. The subject is too wide for me to deal with it further today. However, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who is chairman of the Matthew Trust, may have something to say on that and other matters.
Ex-prisoners are protected after a certain number of years from references to their time in prison. It is a source of deep pain to those who have been in special hospitals and those who care for them that a
492
similar protection is not extended. An additional point is that persons who have been in special hospitals are sometimes referred to as ex-patients of a criminal lunatic asylum. I have in mind something that was written recently in a highly reputable paper. Two points arise here. The first is any reference at all to their having been in a special hospital and, secondly, to their being described as having been in a criminal lunatic asylum—a total misnomer and one that has been so for many years. I hope that the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, will say something further about that. I hope that the Government will consider introducing legislation to make sure that the same kind of protection accorded to ex-prisoners is accorded to ex-patients of special hospitals.
I have hardly done more than touch upon the fringe of this baffling and often tragic subject. I hope however that the House feels, as I am sure it will after it has heard the other speeches, that this matter should be explored far more deeply and accurately. I hinted earlier that I believe this subject is avoided because it is so difficult. People turn way from it: I believe that is unworthy of a society that still claims, with some justification, to be Christian.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, again we must thank the noble Earl. Lord Longford. for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. We must admire his persistency in doing this. I cannot remember exactly how many times he has done so but I believe it is a number of times. We congratulate him and we are also grateful to him.
I believe that the most helpful books that have been written on this subject are that by Nigel Walker and Mrs. McCabe called Crime and Insanity (volume 2) and Larry Gostin's book, Human Condition of Mind. The two books make many recommendations but they have not yet been implemented.
For the purposes of my speech I should like to define the words "mental" and "offenders". We are discussing today what steps the Government are taking to provide more effective treatment for mental offenders. Offenders are those who have transgressed the law or who are alleged to have transgressed the law. When we try to define the word "mental" we run into problems and we have to turn to Part I of the Mental Health Act 1983 for a definition. The word "mental" can refer to several different areas—mental disorder, severe mental impairment, psychopathic disorders and arrested mental impairment.
I shall divide mental offenders into two sections. First, there are the gravely ill psychotic or psychopathic offenders who commit serious offences and need treatment in secure conditions. How secure should those conditions be, and for how long should the treatment last? The Mental Health Act 1983 made it possible for those who had committed serious offences to be discharged by mental health review tribunals if their consultant said that they no longer needed or were unable to benefit from treatment. This does not usually happen without the approval of the Home Office and the Department of Health, but it could happen. That is why the two departments issued in 1986 consultative document entitled

493
Offenders Suffering.from Psychopathic Disorder. In it they suggested that psychopaths should no longer be able to be dealt with under the Mental Health Act but should be absorbed by the penal system, from which they could be transferred to hospital if this was felt to be necessary. This suggestion met with opposition and has not been followed up. Is the suggestion likely to be followed up? We realise that in this connection there are problems of justice and safety.
The second type of offender is the minor offender the chronic schizophrenic or irresponsible nuisance who might be called a psychopath. Both types can now be dealt with by hospital order. The trouble is that they become known to their local psychiatric hospitals and are such a nuisance that they are refused admission. The court cannot make an order, and in the face of a long penal history it has little option but to commit them to prison. In the present prison conditions of tremendous overcrowding this is no solution.
We have managed to bring down the number of juvenile delinquents appearing before the courts and the number of juvenile delinquents who are committed to penal institutions. This has been achieved by good relationships between the probation and social work departments and the police. In a number of cases the children have not been charged and alternative arrangements—most notably. intermediate treatment— have been made for them in the community. Is it not possible for some of the less serious cases—I say "the less serious cases" because obviously the serious cases have to come before the courts to be tried and dealt with in the ordinary way—to be dealt with in the community in a different way? There are perhaps an enormous number of people in prison, particularly on remand, who could he dealt with in this way. We would then not have to build the huge number of prisons to which the Minister referred earlier this afternoon at Question Time.
People ask how this can be done. I suggest that there are outstanding organisations in this country which to some extent are dealing with the problem. I refer to the Church Army, the Salvation Army, Hostels for the Homeless, an organisation chaired for a long time by the vicar of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, the Simon Community and the Cyrenians. Instead of giving so much money for the building of new prisons, might it not be more suitable to ask those organisations to administer hostels in the community to deal with people involved with less serious cases as an alternative to sending them to prison. I refer in particular to bail hostels, which were mentioned earlier this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Do we use the community, the people in the community and the facilities in the community in the way that we should?
I have told the following story to the House once before but I feel I must tell it again because it emphasises what I mean. Every year old Joe used to come and wish me a happy Christmas. He always came two days before Christmas. I used to say, "But Joe, it isn't Christmas yet". He said, "Yes, but I have duties to do". On that evening I would read that he
494
had clocked a policeman, and clocked him fairly badly, so that he could spend Christmas in prison. He had nowhere else to spend Christmas. We would not want to see the return of the old Poor Law Acts, but when we lost the poor law institutions we also lost the casual wards.
I would not wish to bring hack the casual wards but perhaps I may remind your Lordships about them. Every poor law institution in the country had a casual ward which accommodated about 12 people. They were roughly 25 miles apart. One could travel from John O'Groats to Cornwall and be sure that every 25 miles one could find somewhere to sleep that night. This was well outlined in the Autobiography of a Super Tramp. The casual wards had accommodation for about 12 men. At Christmas, instead of having to clock a policeman and get into trouble, the men would fall back on the casual wards. They got to know the staff of the wards. I know a number of schizophrenics and mentally-disturbed people who hitched on to the casual ward as a kind of lighthouse. They stayed there when they could bear life no longer. The casual wards did a magnificent job but one would not want to bring them back.
Instead of spending so much money on Christmas, could not the Government allocate it to the magnificent hostel organisations, with their outstanding voluntary workers? Those disturbed people could be organised through the local authorities, and every authority would have in its area a hostel or hostels to meet this need. We need to have a completely different view of many of our prisoners. A great many of them need not go to prison at all. However, we have to have the facilities for them. If we made such an appeal to the hostels we would have to give them the money to carry out the work we would want them to do.
Having said that, I should like to pay tribute to the prison staff who at present look after mental patients of the two types that I have enumerated. They have to do so in overcrowded cells, not having received any special training and without the provision of adequate help. I should also like to pay tribute to the staff in the psychiatric hospitals. I think that the work they carry out is quite outstanding and the mixture of people with whom they have to deal is extraordinarily difficult.
I have not attempted to deal with the very severe types of mental illness with which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and others can deal far better than I. But on the less serious cases, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether we can look at the matter quite differently and have quite a different type of help available. I also ask whether we could not have some cases not coming before the courts at all but being helped in the community by the community.

Broadcasting White Paper
4.1 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should now like to repeat a Statement about

495
the Government's plans for broadcasting legislation. The Statement is as follows:
"I have laid a White Paper before the House today.
"Our broadcasting system has a rich heritage, which is a tribute to the efforts and enterprise of the broadcasting authorities and all those professionally engaged in the broadcasting enterprise. Our proposals seek to build on these achievements in developing services of quality, range and popularity.
"Broadcasting is changing fast and this change makes possible a much wider choice for the viewer and listener. The viewer should not be denied this choice. That is our starting point. The Government should not seek to lay down a blueprint for the future by picking favoured technologies. Rather we propose an enabling framework with increased opportunities for additional channels as the customer determines. Several dozen television channels and possibly several hundred radio services may be in prospect.
"Subscription, which enables the viewer to signal his preferences to the broadcaster directly, will have a greater role to play. There will be a greater separation of the different activities making up broadcasting, including programme production, the assembly of individual programmes into channels, and transmission and service delivery.
"The ownership of commercial television and radio should be widely spread. The White Paper contains detailed proposals to ensure that control of television and radio services is not concentrated in the hands of a few groups or individuals and to prevent excessive media cross-ownership. The Government are determined to keep the market open to newcomers, and to prevent any tendency towards editorial uniformity.
"Safeguards on minimum standards are needed to protect viewers and listeners from shoddy wares and exploitation. Subject to these, they should be able to exercise greater choice over what they hear and see. While some important positive programming obligations are retained, we envisage a substantial liberalisation. particularly of the ITV system, and greater reliance on the viewer, rather than the regulator, to sustain range and quality.
"These are the principles which have guided us. Our thinking has been influenced at many points by the Peacock Report [Report of the Committee on Financing the BBC, Cmnd. 9824, July 1986], and by the admirable report in June of the Home Affairs Committee of this House. I hope that right honourable and honourable Members will read the White Paper in full, but I offer the House now an outline of our main proposals.
"We propose that a new fifth channel, with 65 per cent. to 70 per cent. national coverage, should be authorised to begin broadcasting at the start of 1993. Different companies could provide the services at different times of the day but the channel will be nationally based. A sixth channel will also
496
be authorised if technical studies show it to be feasible.
"We propose a new flexible framework for the development of multi-channel local services through both cable and microwave transmission, known as MVDS. This will make possible a further extension of viewer choice. It will also provide new opportunities for local television in cities and for television services catering for minority interests.
"British Satellite Broadcasting plans to start its three channel Direct Broadcasting by Satellite (DBS) service next autumn. The Government gave BSB an undertaking last year that the United Kingdom's fourth and fifth DBS channels would not be allocated until BSB's service had been in operation for at least three years. BSB has recently said that it would be willing to see this moratorium lifted. Accordingly, the United Kingdom's two remaining channels will be advertised early next year. So five high quality DBS channels should soon be available to British viewers.
"Viewers will continue to be able to receive other satellite services directly, including those from proposed medium powered satellites. We continue to work for international agreement for the supervision of programmes in such services and shall propose to Parliament sanctions against any unacceptable foreign satellite services received here.
"The present ITV system will become a regionally based Channel 3. Licence-holders will, for the first time, have a statutory obligation to provide regional programming, including programmes produced in the region.
"Channel 4's distinctive remit will be retained and reinforced to sustain high quality programmes in the commercial sector. We consider that after the necessary legislation advertising on Channel 4 should be sold separately from that on Channel 3. Subject to these points, the White Paper sets out options on the future constitution of Channel 4. The Welsh Fourth Channel Authority will continue in essence unchanged.
"All these commercial television services will be free to decide their own mix between advertising and subscription funding, and will have greater freedom to raise money through sponsorship, subject to proper safeguards. All will be subject to consumer protection obligations regarding programme content. Most commercial television licences, including all those for Channel 3 and Channel 5 services, will be allocated by competitive tender subject to a quality threshold. Operators of Channels 3, 4 and 5 will be expected to show high quality news and current affairs programmes dealing with national and international matters and to show the news (and possibly also current affairs) in main viewing periods. Channel 3 and Channel 5 will be expected to provide a diverse programme service appealing to a variety of tastes and interests, to ensure that a minimum of 25 per cent. of original programming came from independent producers, and to ensure that a proper proportion of programme material is of EC origin.

497
"There will be one additional requirement affecting Channel 3 only. There will he continued provision, like that which brought ITN into existence, to ensure that there is at least one body effectively equipped and financed to provide news for Channel 3.
"There will be safeguards for the continued provision of a schools programmes service.
"The Government agree with the Home Affairs Committee that a new agency, which might be called the Independent Television Commission, should be established in place of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and the Cable Authority to license and supervise all parts of the commercial television sector. It will be able to operate with a lighter touch than the IBA, and without the IBA's detailed involvement in scheduling, but will have strong sanctions against failure by its licensees to live up to their licence conditions.
"The BBC will be expected to continue to provide high quality programming across the full range of public tastes and interests.
"The Government look forward to the gradual introduction of subscription on the BBC's television services and to the eventual replacement of the licence fee, which will, however, continue at least for some time to come. We propose that the night hours from one of the BBC's channels should be assigned to the ITC for allocation, like other licences by competitive tender. The BBC would keep the other set on the basis that it used it as fully as possible for making a start in developing subscription services.
"We envisage that the part played by independent producers in programme-making in the United Kingdom will continue to grow, as future licensees will be free to operate as publishers, without programme production capacity of their own. We believe that the transmission infrastructure should be separated from the programmes services.
"The Government propose to proceed with the plans I announced to the House on 19th January for the deregulation and expansion of independent radio, under the light touch regulation of a new radio authority. There will be scope for three new national commercial stations and as many as several hundred local services, including community radio stations.
"The Broadcasting Standards Council, established to reinforce standards on sex, violence, taste and decency, will be placed on a statutory footing. We propose that the exemption of broadcasting from the obscenity legislation should be removed at the earliest opportunity.
"These are the main proposals set out in the White Paper. We aim to ensure that viewers and listeners have greater freedom of choice from a more varied output of programmes, including programmes of high quality. British television has a deservedly high reputation in the world. We expect to see that reputation grow with the new opportunities which are now in sight.
498
"The House will have an opportunity to debate the proposals before they are put into legislative form. We shall also take careful note of views expressed outside the House. We shall then bring forward legislation".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not being here when he rose to his feet. I had not been informed that the Statement was about to begin. From these Benches we welcome the aspirations for broadcasting and recognise that some changes are needed. Unfortunately the proposals, as read out by the Minister in the Statement and spelt out in the White Paper, which we shall need time to consider, are highly unlikely to achieve anything near the target that he has described to us.
The Statement refers to:
"a much wider choice for the viewer and listener."
It continues:
"The viewer should not be denied this choice. That is our starting point."
However, more channels do not necessarily mean more choice. The work done by the Broadcasting Research Unit shows that there is no great pressure for more channels. Evidence from overseas indicates that unless great care is taken and real gaps are filled more choice, more often than not, means more of the same. Anybody who has seen American television will know exactly what I mean. People change from channel to channel and find the same kind of programmes, of a very poor quality on the whole, on the various channels. I hope that the Government will consider this matter very carefully before they legislate.
Subscription plays a great part in the scenario and, we are told, will have a greater role to play.
As I understand it, nowhere in the world is subscription broadcasting successful, except for specialities such as feature films. That is one of the reasons why many of us were very concerned about subscription when we discussed the Peacock Committee Report.
I turn now to franchises. If there is to be an auction for them, how are we to keep a grip on quality control when we are told that the new body that is set up to take over from the IBA is supposed to act with a "lighter touch"? I do not know whether the Minister can help me by defining more specifically what a "lighter touch" means. Broadcasting quality control is difficult enough with a heavy touch. We saw what happened to TV-AM which came under the authority of the IBA with its so-called heavier touch That body agreed that quality control, even with a heavier touch, was extremely difficult. It seems to me that the phrase "lighter touch" is another way of expressing the phrase laissez faire. I should be pleased to have guidance on how we can improve on broadcasting quality with a lighter touch.
The Statement, the White Paper and the Government's remarks show the Government's

499
concern to do away with regulation where they can, certainly as regards commercial television. But one of the great advantages of broadcasting in this country, which was brought out time and time again in this House when we debated the Peacock Committee report, was that both participants in our duopoly were concerned with public service broadcasting. I stress strongly that it is no good, certainly for broadcasting in this country, for the BBC to be considered the sole bastion of public service while public service disappears from the commercial channels. I am aware, as the Minister explained to us, that obligations will be laid on Channel 4, and for educational and some other programmes on other stations. But if Channel 4 has to seek its own advertising, how can we be sure that it will be able to continue with its minority programmes in view of the financial squeeze in which it might find itself?
If the BBC is left on its own as the one saviour of public broadcasting, it will lose audiences because it will be stuck in a kind of public service ghetto. Fewer people will watch it because of the competition from other channels. There will not be the situation that now exists in commercial television where a balance is compulsory and where a comedy can be followed by a documentary. There would be no call for a channel delegated to public service only. That seems a very dangerous road to go along. In the long run that road could be to the detriment of the BBC. If that situation occurred, questions would be asked in Parliament about why Parliament should be supporting the BBC when the demand for its programmes appeared to be declining. If commercial broadcasting is left without any firm regulations governing it at all, we shall find that the whole tenor of our broadcasting will decline. We shall be left with a very inferior type of programme in comparison with what exists at the moment.
Broadcasters around the world are astonished that we are doing away with a regulatory system when they consider that we have been so successful. The report of the Home Affairs Committee in another place referred to our broadcasting as "the least worst in the world". Nevertheless our broadcasting is still very much better than anyone else's. There is room for changes, but many of the changes that are proposed may result in a great deterioration in our broadcasting, and particularly in our television. However most of what has been said in the Statement applies to radio as well.
I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. It is made clear that take-overs will be permitted. What kind of control will be exercised over those takeovers? Will our broadcasting system be treated as some commercial commodity that can just be bought in? If that is the case, the criterion of quality will disappear altogether and it will become a matter of finance.
Secondly, what does the noble Earl mean by sponsorship? It seems to me that the whole country will be run on sponsorship soon. We are trying to get sponsorship for the arts and sponsorship for charities. Now we hear that Channel 4 will also be
500
expected to rely partially on sponsorship. Thirdly, if the idea is to increase the amount of advertising available, are the Government thinking in terms of increasing the number of minutes for advertising in each hour? At the moment we have seven minutes in the hour over the whole day and eight minutes in the hour at peak time. To accommodate this increased broadcasting, are we going to fall into the same horrible trap that again we see in American broadcasting where the advertisements seem to come in every few minutes and in the end one can very seldom tell the difference between the advertising and the programme itself?
It is impossible to go through everything in the White Paper in detail, but, as the Minister said, we shall no doubt have a chance to debate it at some time, I hope in the near future. In the meantime, I regret to have to say that it appears to represent a triumph of free market criteria over broadcasting criteria.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I also wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place on the very important and complex matter of the new changes which are to be introduced into broadcasting, television and radio. This is an extremely complicated subject. The Statement which we have heard covers a very wide variety of matters. We have not had the opportunity yet to read the White Paper; therefore any considered judgment and our views of this must wait until we have that opportunity.
However, as the noble Baroness said, the White Paper raises a number of critical questions about the principles which Her Majesty's Government feel necessary to apply to the development of television and broadcasting in the light of the new technologies. Those technologies will open up the possibility, but not the certainty, of much wider choice to viewers nd listeners. The wider choice could not merely be to majority viewers and listeners but also to minority viewers and listeners. This could provide—but not in the proposals which have been made today, with the exception of the Welsh—for regional listeners to be looked after as they might be.
I must confess that I can only regard any statement made by the present Government on television with some suspicion in the light of the campaign which has been conducted and carefully orchestrated over the last few years against first the BBC and then the IBA. The strategic purpose which lies behind this campaign is to me fairly transparent. It seems to me to be obvious that what the Government want to do is to produce a broadcasting and television system which is as much like the present press as possible; that is overwhelmingly Conservative in ownership, overwhelmingly supportive of the present Government in their ideology. Of course there is the lighter touch to which the noble Baroness referred. The failure throughout the Statement, as far as I can see, to use the words "public service", which appear in the eyes of the Government to be dirty words, will with the lighter touch make this far easier.
That having been said, we must always be thankful for small mercies. I wish to congratulate the Home

501
Secretary on having preserved Channel 4. I should like to congratulate him on having preserved ITN and I suppose one must congratulate him on having failed to give a date when the licence fee will be abolished for the financing of the BBC. It is my view that the licence fee could well be maintained in the medium term. It is unpopular in a sense, as all taxes are unpopular, but it is the best way that has yet been found of financing public service television which maintains the high standards which have been acknowledged in the world at large. As the noble Baroness said, as the Peacock Report says and as the noble Earl's Statement indicated, British broadcasting has a worldwide reputation for the standard and quality of its product. It seems to me extraordinary that any government should jeopardise this unless forced to do so.
The present proposals indicate not the execution of the BBC, which at one time seemed possible, but its euthanasia. The rich heritage of broadcasting to which the noble Earl referred depends on the example set by the BBC and the IBA. I must repeat that the lighter touch will lead not only, I suspect, to lower standards or the wider choice which the Statement optimistically referred to which is not noticeable in the popular press; nor is it noticeable, as the noble Baroness indicated, in other television services. What I suspect we shall get is an even greater outpouring of quiz shows and "soaps".
As for the Broadcasting Standards Council, it is becoming increasingly ludicrous as a body whose standards are more and more obscure. I do not know how many noble Lords had the opportunity to see a programme on Channel 4 last week in which the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, was asked about the standards he would apply in his new job. I do not understand why sex and violence are put in the same box. They seem to me rather different matters, one of which is generally regarded as pleasurable, the other as unpleasurable. I regret that the noble Lord is not here today. I have great respect and admiration for him. However, I do not understand why of all the people in this country he is the one man who can tell us what it is acceptable for us to see and what it is not acceptable for us to see in these matters in which I did not know that he had expertise.
It looks to me as though the Broadcasting Standards Council is to be the Hayes Office multiplied by the Lord Chamberlain. The noble Earl's definition of what would be acceptable in the broadcasting of sex was interesting. Romeo and Juliet sex, he said, was quite all right; explicit sex was unacceptable. Then there came a third grey area which was called "groping sex". He said that groping sex would have to be gone into with some care. It struck me that the Broadcasting Standards Council was groping for a role.
There was one omission from the Statement which I found interesting. The External Services, one of the glories of British broadcasting, were not mentioned. I should like an assurance from the noble Earl that the External Services will continue to be financed adequately and that they will continue to be allowed to act independently. It must be said that the recent
502
order on transmission of broadcasting, by terrorists will somewhat limit their capacity. They have spent a great deal of time broadcasting terrorists to other countries, if not our own.
I very much look forward to the debate we shall have on the White Paper, which I hope will be soon, before the Government's mind is set in concrete as to the type of legislation they propose. I also hope that before long we shall have an opportunity to debate the censorship on the transmission of broadcasts by Sinn Fein and the UDA. This is a very difficult matter but one which I think this House should consider.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for the very cautious welcome they have given. I agree with the noble Lord that there are certain elements on which we can agree. I agree with him totally that the subject is very complicated. The noble Lord prudently said that he had not yet read the White Paper and therefore found it difficult to comment. However, in spite of his not having read it, I thought that the noble Lord commented on it with extraordinary in-depth knowledge. When he does read the White Paper I think that he may well equip himself with a white jacket and a screwdriver because we arc dealing here with a very technical and complicated area.
The noble Lord said one or two curious things. He said he was quite convinced that he would treat every statement this Government make about television with a great deal of suspicion because he thought that we were gong to ensure that all television companies would be packed with people who supported the present Government. A short while ago he said he thought that the Government should not attempt to interfere with television. Now we have produced a White Paper, which the noble Lord has not yet read. in which we say we are going to open the television areas to competition and a general variety of interests. The noble Lord finds a critical element in that. Of course he is entitled to his view; but I do not think he can have it both ways. If he is going to complain that the Government have been too restrictive in the past in what has been allowed for television, he cannot then turn round when we are opening it up to others and say that that is bad too.
I should like to make one point very clear. Technology has advanced enormously, whether we like it or not. What is capable of being done now simply was not capable of being done ten years ago. There have been very great changes. What the Government seek to do, as the White Paper says, is to,
"open the doors so that individuals can choose for themselves from a much wider range of programmes and types of broadcasting."
I continue to quote:
"But the Government believes that, with the right enabling framework, a more open and competitive broadcasting market can be attained without detriment to programme standards and quality. Its single biggest advantage will be to give the viewer and listener a greater choice and a greater say."
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. when they say that if you have more programmes they are

503
automatically bound to be worse. I do not think that is so. There is a danger that it could be so, and that is one of the reasons why we set up the Broadcasting Standards Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, takes such exception. There are also great hoops through which any company will have to go before it is granted a franchise. Both Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees will have to pass the "quality threshold", which includes such requirements as consumer protection, high-quality news and current affairs programmes, a diversity test, a proper proportion of programmes of European Community origin and 25 per cent. of original programming from independent producers. There will also be a proportion of regional programmes. The requirements are quite extensive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that subscription has not been successful. I do not think that is completely true. Subscription has proved a great success in France and also, I understand, in certain parts of the United States. The noble Baroness asked about the Independent Television Commission and how it would enforce the licensing conditions. It will conduct formal reviews of the performance of its licensees and, if they are not performing satisfactorily, the commission will be able to issue a warning to them—a yellow card. If the performance does not improve after the issue of the yellow card the ITC will be able to withdraw the licence one year later, if necessary. The Government are also considering whether the ITC should be in a position to impose financial penalties.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked: what does the light touch mean? The Independent Television Commission will apply strict standards but it will do so without the kind of detailed controls which are imposed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. It will have a range of methods to reinforce its licence conditions.
I should like to point out one quite important thing. In view of the fact that all these technological changes are coming about, whether we like it or not, all we seek to do is to provide a framework by which people can take advantage of them if commercial considerations permit and if viewers wish it. As the White Paper says quite clearly, the Government should not try to pick winners: they should enable, and not dictate, choice. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will be at one with the Government on that point. We do not seek to dictate choice: we seek to enable it to come about.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, can I ask the Minister a point for clarification? When he was answering my question about the lighter touch, he referred to keeping a restraining hand without too much detail, without going too far, or words to that effect. Does that mean there will be no insistence on balance, which is one of the cornerstones of the IBA? It seems to me that that can be the only answer.
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. I did not mean to give that impression, and I am sorry if I did. Balance will he one of the criteria involved in the application of the licence-holder before being granted a licence. Licence-holders will have to go through the hoop of
504
providing a proper balance before they will be considered for the grant of a licence. What I meant by the lighter touch was that the Independent Television Commission will not have the responsibility of controlling or supervising programmes.
Lord Walston: My Lords—
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may intervene, we cannot have this number of speakers at the same time. It is customary, following the reading of a Statement, to hear from the Opposition spokesman who occupies the Front Bench opposite, followed by the other Opposition spokesmen, including what used to be the SDP. I suggest that if my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing will be kind enough to contain himself while the noble Lord, Lord Walston, addresses your Lordships it will help our proceedings.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I should like to make just one small correction. We used to be the SDP and we still are.
I want to put to the Minister one perfectly simple question. Do the Government consider that television and sound broadcasting are primarily market-led, profit-making businesses or are they, at least to some extent, a public service and an art form? We have no objection here to some of the former, but certainly not to all of it. We must retain some of the public service and some of the art form. I cannot help feeling that a significant element of the latter is of enormous importance to the whole of our broadcasting industry and to the country as a whole. The BBC has undoubtedly fulfilled these purposes in an admirable way and will continue to do so; but it will not be able to do so if it has to rely solely on profits, whether those profits come from subscriptions or from sponsorship. Therefore, it is up to the Government to say where its finance is to come from and, if it is to be guided, as are other providers of sound and television broadcasting, whether it has to rely solely on the profits which it can generate from its programmes. I should he most grateful if the noble Earl could answer that point.
At the same time I should like to endorse very strongly the final comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, concerning the BBC's External Services. I hope that we can have an assurance from the noble Earl on that matter also.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to that point on behalf of these Benches and myself I should like to welcome the fact that, after a long period of gestation, the Government have come down firmly in favour of the continuation of a licence fee and public service broadcasting. I believe that some of us do not appreciate, and the public certainly do not appreciate that there is already an obligation on the independent broadcasting companies to carry out some public service duties—the news and, as the noble Earl mentioned, current affairs programmes. Is it not wise to consider whether in the very long term some of the television licence money should go to

505
maintaining those obligations to public service broadcasting on the part of bodies other than the BBC? The BBC currently receives an income of £1,000 million a year from the licence and is the only body which benefits from it. As other forms of finance begin to be introduced—subscription television for the BBC, possibly sponsorship on some channels—I wonder whether it is not right that this huge licence income should also go to others seeking to provide public service broadcasting.
One of the problems which has emerged from points raised by several speakers on the other Benches and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred is that the regulatory authorities are now in a hit of a muddle. We are losing one and we shall have a new one which is meant to undertake a range of activities, including checking on sex and violence in programmes and the quality threshold. That will be a very difficult judgment to make.
I was particularly struck by the fact that my noble friend did not mention the word "balance". That is written into the BBC's charter, it is written into its licence and it will presumably be written into the licence of other organisations which seek to entertain the public. Ought not balance to be considered by the regulatory authority when it is set up?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Of course balance is important. As I tried to explain earlier, that is one of the criteria which will have to be considered when an application is submitted and before someone is considered to be a proper applicant. Applicants will have to show that they can produce a balanced programme, among other things.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing also said that he believed that the BBC ought to get funds from elsewhere other than the licence fee. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that the BBC cannot be expected to rely on profits. I do not think that "profit" was the right word to use. All the Government say is that the BBC will continue to provide the service which it produces at the moment but that it is the Government's desire that the BBC should seek alternative means of funding than from the licence. In the White Paper the Government make the point that it is their intention that at some time in the future the licence fee should be replaced. We suggest that subscription should be tried. At the moment it is an untried system. Until it is tried it is impossible to say whether it is the right system to use and what proportion of the BBC's funding it should represent.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, asks whether it should be market led or a public service. The answer is that both TV and radio have an element of both. The BBC's public remit will be unchanged and Channels 3, 4 and 5 will have more positive programming obligations.
One other point which I think is important relates to the question of deciding what is acceptable and what is not. When there was a duopoly of the BBC and ITV it was clearly necessary for them to operate under fairly strict regulations and controls. When there are 10 or more channels within the reach of the
506
average viewer it is believed that viewers can increasingly sort this out for themselves provided that the choice before them is sufficiently varied. Whether we like it or not technology has advanced and made these things possible. I accept the concern which some noble Lords have expressed about balance and standards but that is one of the points we shall have to keep in mind, and it is one of the factors which we shall be able to consider further when we come to debate the matter.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I shall begin with a wholly positive comment by welcoming the assurance given in regard to Sianel Pedwar Cymru, the Welsh channel. I do so not in any nationalistic or jingoistic sense but because of its importance to the whole of the culture of the country and to the debate on the White Paper that will follow the Statement.
When that channel for Wales was set up it was not intended to be specifically for the Welsh language although it was given an almost sacred duty to preserve that language. It has kept to its task and has been successful. Far more importantly in some ways, the channel has also broadened the culture in the bilingual channel. It has broadened the culture of Wales and in the nature of the Welsh content made a contribution to its preservation.
When the Minister addressed himself to the dangers of new technology and the all-pervasive atmosphere of other cultures which will be footprinted upon ours in the years to come through that new technology, and when he said that he was anxious to set up a protective mechanism, my mind went back to my days on the Independent Television Authority Council for Wales. That became the Independent Broadcasting Authority for Wales, on which I also sat before going to the General Advisory Council of the IBA and eventually into similar capacities with the BBC. I mention that because the Minister has not mentioned the role of the general advisory councils of the bodies when he repeated the Statement this afternoon. They are very important because the lightness of touch which the noble Earl has talked about was very often vested not in the authority's body but in the advisory committees, which themselves have been successful.
Can the Minister assure us that in imposing a lighter touch and in creating an organisation to control these new developments we shall not end up with a situation in which the strength passes back to government? In the early days of the Government of which he is a member it was said that they were very anxious to create less government. If the institutions which protect the people within government are dismantled, very often the power goes back to central authority and achieves the opposite of the purpose intended.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that those are all highly relevant points which it would probably be better to bring out in a debate rather than interrupt at even greater length the debate which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has introduced. I would only

507
say to the noble Lord. Lord Parry, that it is not the Government's intention that power—if that is the right word—should revert to the Government. The Government believe that there should be choice, there should be variety of choice and that it ought to be the consumer who does the choosing, subject to certain safeguards of acceptability.
There is one other question which I apologise for not having answered. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, both asked whether the External Services of the BBC would be affected. The White Paper has no bearing on the BBC's External Services, which will continue to be funded as now.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I could ask one question, but I certainly do not want to have a debate at this moment. My question concerns subscription and what is meant by it. Does it mean that I would have to buy a new television set with a special device in order to obtain a subscription channel of the BBC? If it does not mean that, does it mean that £200 million or £300 million will be taken from the BBC licence fee and that this will be replaced by appeals on the BBC channels for the public to subscribe? If so and if the practice of the United States of America is any guide, does he think it likely that we shall see Sir Robin Day divesting himself of his clothing down to his underpants and auctioning it to the public? That is exactly what happens on the public service channel in America. They are desperate for subscriptions and cannot obtain them and occurrences of that kind have been seen.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are many ways in which subscription can he brought about. I am bound to say that the rather graphic description produced by the noble Lord. Lord Annan, in which Sir Robin Day auctioned his clothes was not one of the ways that the Government had in mind.
One of the systems involves an attachment on the television set which enables the viewer to be charged when he operates it. I think that the BBC will try some new subscription methods during the night hours when programmes can be shown and possibly videoed automatically by people who will then pay when they see them again in the course of the day. There are all kinds of different methods. That is the reason why the Government are not specific on the matter. We feel that we have to try them out and see what enterprise and initiative can bring about. The point is that if subscription can come about it could relieve the licence fee somewhat.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should be grateful if the House would allow me to put one question to the Minister about the Welsh language fourth television network. Am I correct in assuming that the Government are not committed to the preservation of the existing broadcasting and financial viability of the Welsh language fourth channel station? In other words, will the station henceforth have to depend on the income that it can generate from advertising?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, at the moment Channel 4 Welsh language television is subscribed to by the ITV
508
companies. They obtain that money from advertising. It is suggested that instead of that method, the revenue should in future come direct to the company itself via advertising.

Mentally Ill Offenders: Treatment
4.53 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, perhaps we may now return to the problem of disturbed offenders and what to do with them. First, I should like to thank my old and noble friend Lord Longford for raising this very difficult question. I agree with him and with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that it is one of the most difficult questions of all.
My noble friend Lord Longford dealt only with one half of the problem. His remarks centred on the more serious half whereas the noble Baroness. Lady Faithfull, dealt with the question very fully in relation to the petty side, which is the more tiresome half. I wish to say at the outset that I agree wholly with the suggested remedies from both sides. I want to talk very roughly in the first instance about the petty side and, secondly, about what the prison service and others are doing in relation to the more serious side.
A difficult question to answer is whether or not seriously disturbed people qualify under Section 47—I think it is Section 47—to he sent to a special hospital. My noble friend asked how one made that decision and suggested that it should be made by a tribunal. On the whole something of that kind seems to be necessary because quite often things seem to go wrong. At the other end of the scale of dangerousness are the offenders about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke. They are in fact just a certain number of the huge group of petty offenders who are filling our prisons to overflowing and whose numbers have been increasing year by year over the last 30 years. I suppose that something like 10 per cent. of those offenders might come into the category with which we are concerned. They are not only inadequate but, to use a word which I use quite affectionately, rather dotty. They are not dangerous criminal lunatics; they are people who cannot be relied upon to take the rational course for the simplest possible proposition. Often they are very charming and rather fun to deal with if one does not have to try to control them.
Everybody in penal reform circles has been saying for years that prison does nothing but harm and certainly can do no good to the ordinary inadequate. However, that is not the subject of this evening's debate. We shall talk about that matter on 30th November I hope, and we shall come back to it. At present we must consider that percentage of slightly dotty inadequates with whom it is particularly difficult for the prison service to deal. Discipline, which is invariably misunderstood by such people, turns in no time to cruelty. Such people need treatment and not discipline. In general the prison service is not equipped to give it. I am not certain that

509
anybody is so equipped, because these people are very difficult to treat, but some effort has to be made.
The hospitals do not want them—and who can blame the hospitals? They must therefore be looked after in the community. If prison does damage and hospitals will not have them, only one solution remains: care by the community. That means—as the noble Baroness pointed out very strongly and better than I can do—a more generous provision of professional help added to the already fairly plentiful voluntary help. There are quite a number of different kinds of hospitals which deal with such people and it would not be difficult in any way to double the provision. In fact most of us believe that for under £l million it can probably be trebled. Of course it will not cost nothing but it will only cost about one-tenth of the cost entailed in further prison provision.
One could do worse than consider just for a minute the proper purposes of a hospital, a prison and an asylum. The proper functions of a prison are to punish by restricting liberty which at the same time protects society by removing the offender from circulation; to provide decent containment for all cases; and to aim at rehabilitation in cases in which it seems possible. The proper functions of a hospital are to relieve pain and disability and to attempt cure. The proper functions of an asylum—nowadays known as a special hospital or a long-stay mental hospital—are to protect the public from the patient and the patient from himself while looking after him or her in a kindly way and, in cases where prognosis is favourable, to attempt cure or at least amelioration of the condition.
As regards the serious offenders, apart from the appalling difficulties over diagnosis, the MacNaghten rules, questions of responsibility and so on, there is scope for dealing with them in special hospitals. The problem which the noble Earl raised; namely, how to decide which of them ought to go there, is not a question of provision; it is a question of understanding and expert views.
The second type of person—the petty or what I call the dotty offender—is something quite different. Here it is a question of provision. There is nowhere for these people to go. They cannot go to hospital because they are impossible to manage there. They do go to prison and there is a sad army which drifts in and out of prison on short sentences, and then goes in and out of hospital and back again into prison. We have to make some effort to deal with these people in an entirely different way, as the noble Baroness said. We should do so by giving the community enough professional and voluntary help to cope with difficult people of this kind in reasonably simple ways. I believe that all the machinery is there. For example, the Simon Community, which I have known for 30 years and have always much admired, specialises in the bottom rung of society. If one gave it a little more money, and possible an accountant, it could run 30 casual ward places which would be a credit to us and to the entire country. I do not believe that there is any difficulty except cash and the will to do it.
One issue which arises here is the question of drink. I believe that my noble friend Lord Soper will talk
510
about this. However, the truth about drink is that it is part of the cause of the dottiness in a great many petty offenders.
Seventeen years ago an admirable report was published. I do not suppose a single person under 60 in the Home Office has ever looked at it. It was the report of the Home Office Working Party on Habitual Drunken Offenders. It recommended that,
"persons who, under present arrangements would be arrested for being drunk in public should be taken by the police to special detoxification centres and there detained while they are dried out and any necessary medical and social investigation is carried out".
The report went on to suggest that they could then be sent to ordinary social work hostels.
Two experimental detoxification centres were set up in Leeds and Manchester in the 1970s. A more basic drying out centre was set up more recently in Birmingham. The Home Office recently withdrew funding from these centres and the Manchester centre has now closed. That is the response over 17 years to an important report which deals directly with the question that we are discussing tonight. I am not attacking the Minister. My own party, (as it then was) is just as guilty. For another six or seven years we did not do much. We accomplished a little, which has now been taken away. However, that is the kind of action that we must take.
I wish to add one comment because one is always misunderstood. Violence is an entirely different category. Most of the cases about which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was talking are connected with violence. Therefore one is concerned with a special hospital or a prison, because these people are, and often remain—although not always, as the noble Earl has said—a danger to the public. However, I for one support severe sentences for all kinds of violence and for carrying weapons with intent to rob or injure. But I would not send inadequates to prison, even if there were no overcrowding. I regard it as a half-baked extravagance which can do no good and must do some harm. I hope that we may be able to develop this approach on 30th November.
I wish to turn for one minute to the prison department's initiatives over the dangerously disturbed offenders, which is more strictly the objective of the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Grendon constitutes the department's main effort. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what else is being done in other parts of the service in this direction. Those in authority at Grendon have always insisted on selecting prisoners who would be both likely and willing to receive and benefit from its treatment. They have carried on a therapeutic regime, with some ups and downs, for over 30 years.
However, there is a new development which is of some interest to this present debate. Grendon has always had a small hospital of some 30 beds. This has now been transformed into an acute psychiatric unit at remarkably little cost and by the initiative of the people at Grendon. It is receiving cases from other prisons of men who have deteriorated mentally during sentence and is thus providing, in a numerically small way, for people who are not psychotic cases fit for transfer to such places as

511
Broadmoor but who are in a bad way and need immediate psychiatric help. This has long been needed and now exists where nothing existed before. We shall follow its progress with great interest. I for one congratulate the prison service and those at Grendon on this initiative. I do not very often have the chance of congratulating the prison service. I shall therefore sit down quickly before it goes wrong.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, one of the best ways to ensure that progress is slow and halting on any topic is to select one that straddles the responsibilities of more than one department of state. It is something that bedevilled the work of the Pearson Royal Commission at the outset and it affects the topics that we are discussing today. I am well aware of the efforts which are being made to improve co-ordination between the Home Office and the Department of Health in this area, but it is not easy. In the meantime, I must express some sympathy for the noble Earl who has to reply to this debate and the wide-ranging issues which are being raised.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is to be congratulated on taking this opportunity to return to this important topic which raises so many issues. I propose to concentrate on questions affecting the management and policies of certain of the institutions involved. I begin with Broadmoor. Perhaps I may he forgiven for recalling that the Home Office used to have direct responsibility for Broadmoor. I recall visiting it for the first time in 1935. For the last decade I have been President of the League of Friends there—an admirable and devoted body of people. I find it quite fascinating that when there is a suggestion of building a new institution which in any way involves offenders there is almost always a great local hullabaloo. However, the village of Crowthorne, if anything, is rather proud of Broadmoor; and certainly there is a good deal of local voluntary effort.
On a point touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, there is also quite a bit of resentment at the persistent failure of the media—newspapers and television alike, if I dare mention television again—to understand just what Broadmoor is. I do not wish to steal the thunder of my noble friend Lord Shannon, but I must express my disappointment that in a magazine article even so shining a beacon of intelligent journalism as the Independent not only referred to this hospital as a criminal asylum but also (when this was taken up) could not see that it had greatly erred. It is perhaps unfair to pick out the Independent for special mention when the offence, such as it is, is so frequently committed by others. Certainly no one would ever guess from the media that some 20 per cent. of the patients at Broadmoor had never been anywhere near a criminal court.
I believe that there is some move afoot to set up a working party to try to do something about this, but they will find it pretty hard going. Perhaps the department could do a little more. It is fair to say that the department allowed access to the BBC some time ago to make a rather good documentary about
512
Broadmoor but evidently the news editors do not watch such programmes.
Perhaps all this is not of the first importance. What is important is that Broadmoor should have a clear idea of its own function and just where it fits into the continuum of treatment of psychiatric patients as a centre of excellence providing highly skilled and highly professional medical treatment. Some splendid new buildings are going up there, even though they are tending to cost rather more than was thought. But it is not so clear what is now happening about the management of this important institution.
Some time ago plans were announced for setting up a special health authority for all four special hospitals, to come into being possibly next April and in the meantime to appoint general managers to each of the hospitals. But something remarkable has been happening at Broadmoor. It is not so much a wind of change that has been blowing there; it has been rather more like a Caribbean hurricane. The medical director has moved to another post and the doctor temporarily in charge, although an admirable individual, is of retirement age and would be the first to agree that he is holding a stop-gap appointment.
The management board that was set up not all that long ago with a great flourish of trumpets has in effect been suspended and it is now clear that its role was never properly thought out. The long-serving top administrator was called back from leave to be told that he was being moved to another appointment. The senior nursing officer decided to take early retirement. I have seen no sign of the promised general manager, but there is what is described as a task force beavering away under the chairmanship of an official in Whitehall. Morale among the staff, which is not too high, has not been helped by the results of the recent clinical grading review.
I am not alone in wondering why all this is happening. Does it have anything to do with a report on the hospital by the Health Advisory Service which is in the possession of Ministers? Is it a damning report? is it to be published with an indication of what is being done about it? What are the plans for appointing a general manager and defining his relationship with the top doctor when he in turn comes to be appointed? Is there to be a special authority for the four hospitals to be in being by next April? What plans are there for appointing somebody with local representation at each of the hospitals?
I could go on, but I think perhaps there are enough questions there to put to the Minister and I hope that he will be able to help, for there is a good deal of concern and puzzlement about what is happening at Broadmoor and why it has been so rushed.
It is a natural step from Broadmoor to ask about the semi-secure units aimed at filling the gap between the secure special hospitals on the one hand and the increasingly open-door ordinary psychiatric hospitals on the other. I shall not go over the agonising details of the abysmal early history following the initial theoretical approval of a programme for 1,000 places as recommended in 1974 in the interim report from Lord Butler's committee on mentally abnormal offenders, but I should like to know how that programme now stands. One is still

513
hearing about new units being opened—the one at Milton Keynes for example—all these years after Lord Butler's urgent recommendations. Are facilities now available all over the country and how many beds have now been provided? Are there enough trained staff for them all to be in use? It is not only a question of what accommodation is provided, but also what use is being made of that accommodation.
Part of the original concept was that some patients who might otherwise go to a special hospital might instead go to one of these units and that some patients might be discharged from the special hospitals to one of these units as a kind of halfway stage. In both ways it was hoped that this would relieve pressure on the special hospitals. Can the Minister say how this has been working out? My impression is that the contribution has been rather disappointing, but I hope I am wrong. It has been suggested to me that one difficulty is that the units will not take anyone for longer than a maximum of two years and that there are then problems in getting an undertaking from an ordinary psychiatric hospital to take the patient thereafter.
Is there a policy of fixing a maximum stay of two years? If so, who so decided? Is there some means of evolving policy over all the units? What, for example, is the policy about mixing offenders and non-offenders? Has it been found necessary in the light of experience to modify some of the concepts of the Butler committee in putting forward its recommendations? We did not have very clear answers to some of these questions when we debated these topics a few years back on 4th July 1984, but there must by now be enough experience for us to be told how matters have worked out.
I have one final and very brief point about the hospitals. The Mental Health Act Commission—I am pleased to see the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in his place—in its report for 1985–87, said that from such information as it had been able to amass there had been disappointingly small use made of Section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for the courts to remand an accused person to hospital for a report on his mental condition rather than to prison. It wondered whether the new powers were sufficiently understood by the courts and by the doctors. It would be helpful to know if the Government have done anything about that and whether there are any signs of improvement.
In seeking information from the Government on all these points, I end by saying that, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I appreciate that we are talking about some of the most perplexing and difficult problems facing an enlightened society and that there are no easy solutions.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I begin by reminding myself immediately of the concluding remarks of the last speaker. We are concerned with administrative problems which rest upon, I would suggest, a moral base. As my noble friend Lord Longford has already said, this raises all kinds of complex and difficult questions to which tentative answers are not a
514
sufficient guarantee of a final solution. I presume to think that the problem of mental distress and mental disease is a kind of litmus paper which can offer a good deal of information on the basic problem of what is right and what is wrong, what is sin and what is circumstance.
I remember many years ago listening as a student to the great Dr. Inge. He was questioned as to whether there were any fundamental principles that distinguished right from wrong because in the opinion of the questioner, there were not. After some meditation Dr. Inge said; "I would advise you that mocking the insane is utterly wrong". That was a rather strange thing to say, but I believe that it is a clue to one of the answers which in this debate we can at least begin to proffer. The problem is variable according to circumstance. I believe that there are certain basic guidelines which should determine the accountability of the sinner, or of the man who disobeys the law, and the condition which is in some cases remediable and for which he cannot be blamed.
With little success but not sufficient I have been reading a good deal about the research which is being carried out in the realm of mental disease. I declare an interest though not an expertise. I am reasonably assured that there are three areas in which mental disease can at least be considered reasonably. The first is a condition promoted by physiological means. In some cases it is operable and subject to improvement by surgery and by other medical applications. Pre-frontal leucotomy is an example in that field. Secondly, modern research tends to attribute a great deal more of what are called "mental labyrinths" to conditions which are environmental and dependent on social relationships with other people. The third area is the vast area where as yet there is little precise knowledge. We should he grateful to the linguistic philosophers for reminding us that when one has labelled something one has not necessarily described it. In many cases the labelling of the symptoms of mental disorder is but a shorthand for a description of those symptoms. It is by no means an explanation of their source or their basic nature.
I should like to comment on what is required in each of the three areas. First, I shall deal with the area in which I have been practically involved for some years, that of trying to deal with and help the alcoholic. I am sure that one of the ways in which an alcoholic can be improved, if not cured, is by a reassessment of his status which can be the product of a new relationship with his fellows. At the same time, in the hostel of which I have had charge for many years, we have learned that unless we can combine that with a medical knowledge we shall, in many cases, be wasting a good deal of our time, if not all of it. The improvement in the therapies that can now he applied has reduced the number of total failures. I am glad to say that there has been an increase in the number of people who, provided that they are suitably sheltered, can make a compete recovery from a condition which in many cases in its latter stages was mental as well as spiritual. Are the Government prepared to face the necessary expense involved in the necessary programme of devoting more attention to the preliminary stages of therapy

515
and hospital treatment, even though custody is required when the process is completed?
I turn to deal with the second area which is still in a state of exploration. There is a great deal of conflicting evidence but even more evidence is supplementary to a simple faith which I hold. It is that in many cases preventative medicine is in a new relationship with those who are insufficiently equipped to deal with the combativeness and the problems imposed on them by a broken society and the kind of world in which they live.
In that regard I heartily agree with what has been suggested; that there should be provision by the Government for hostels of various kinds and casual wards. It may interest the House to know that it was in a casual ward in one of the hostels where we were able to care for those who made a large measure of recovery. There they were surrounded by a different kind of environment from that in which they had found not escape but problems and, in many cases, disaster. I say frequently at open air meetings that if we can devote millions of pounds to the means of destruction, yet cannot afford to provide the necessary funds for the recuperation and treatment of those who are mental offenders because they are in a condition of mental stress, we have no right to call ourselves "civilised" and we should be ashamed of ourselves.
Finally, there is the area in which the competence of the analyst is still feeble and insufficient. It has been my experience over a long time that some kind of mental problem is almost universal among the down-and-outs. I do not say that with relish; I say it with a certain melancholy. My experience, which is wide though not profound, has shown over and over again that when one is looking at someone who can be regarded as rootless and down and out, one is looking at someone who is mentally afflicted as well as circumstantially embarrassed.
If that is so, I cannot but reflect that Christianity began with the casting out of devils. It may sound almost ludicrous to say that that is still the charge and opportunity of the Church. But let there be no mistake about it: the Church is in its less efficient days because no one would claim that it is doing more than a tithe of what it could do by the grace of God. Is it not strange that no one is talking about the relief and answer to the problem of mental errancy? No one is talking about the power of God's Holy Spirit to those who may be converted. I am a Methodist and John Wesley cast out devils up and down the country. I am not saying that that could immediately be repeated in our day and generation. There is a susceptibility to cynicism and unbelief which militate against it. However, I should not feel honourable if I did not include in the final category, of which mental distress is still a mysterious condition, that there is a great deal to be said for the argument that, if people were morally better, they would be more sensible and less subject to the rigours of mental distress and aberration.
It is in that field that I believe there is a case for a manifestation, in wider form that that which is now being expressed, of the caring society and for the
516
renovation of some of the major principles of morality which are voiced as though they had come from the 19th century. So they did, but so did Dickens. I believe that they are an essential part in the recovery of many whose symptoms are analysable in the two previous terms in which I tried to describe them. Nevertheless, they are an improverishment of their spirit and a menace to the society in which we live. To put them in prison and then to forget about them is, in my judgment, a grievous loss of human compassion and a useless process.
In welcoming what has been said this afternoon I should like to make a plea on behalf of the Church. We could do a great deal more if we were so asked and enabled and in some cases we must be provided with the money. I mention in passing that we also lost our grant in the area of the recuperation of the alcoholic.
I conclude with a simple statement. I do not pretend to be an expert in the field of psychological research and I am no scientist. However, I believe that today there is an imperative need for a higher quality of social responsibility in the community. I am certain that today many are impoverished in their spirits because they suck in the sour air of a privileged society as it is separated from those who are unprivileged. This is a privatised society—and there is no mention of privatisation in the New Testament. We should have a society in which we can look upon the man who is mentally afflicted in some sense in the way in which a medieval village looked upon the village idiot—he was a member of the community. I believe that to give the errant and mental delinquent the sense that he is still a member of the community is not a sentimental attachment to other and more practical programmes but lies very near the essence of the case.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is quite right to raise the issue of the mentally disordered this evening. However, my concern and the theme of my contribution, as very much seems to have been the theme of the noble Lord who has just sat down, is how society regards this group of people when they are discharged from their institutions.
At this point, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but in his speech he mentioned that I was chairman of the Matthew Trust. I am afraid that I have to tell him that, while I am very interested in the work of the trust—and it has kindly provided me with much of the information for my contribution this evening—I am not even a member of it let alone its chairman.
As your Lordships will know, when the 1959 Mental Health Bill was given Royal Assent special hospitals came into being such as Broadmoor, Rampton and others. Today there are some 2,000 patients in those hospitals many of whom have committed no offence. Since 1959 many hundreds have been discharged into the community. Some have re-offended and on sentence been put into prison and not redetained in their original special hospital for further treatment. However, others, while not having re-offended, have themselves asked

517
to be re-admitted because society's attitudes to them were less than humane. Some have taken their own lives having been unable to cope with social prejudice.
Surely the spirit of the 1959 Mental Health Act was to hospitalise persons who, while mentally ill, had committed an offence and required medical and nursing care until they were again well enough to enter society. If so, the spirit of that Act is not in the main reflected in society's attitude to the formerly mentally disordered. When one observes the reports in the press, on radio and on television when a former patient of a special hospital re-offends, it becomes apparent why society, employers, trade unions and the like adopt hostile reactions to the mentally disordered in the community.
For example, whenever a former patient from Broadmoor Hospital re-offends, it is described by the media as the criminal lunatic asylum and the patients as the criminally insane, which are terms nearly 30 years out of date and which have no clinical or legal meaning today. Currently national newspapers and certain television and radio programmes have had to and are likely to pay heavy damages for defamation as jurors are tired of relentless editorial irresponsibility. I cannot help feeling that patients and former patients of special hospitals have some sympathy with those jurors' sentiments and may themselves adopt a similar course.
In asking his Question, the noble Earl referred to a Mr. Peter Thompson, who is the honorary secretary of the Matthew Trust, which has over the past 15 years done much to assist patients and former patients of hospitals as well as the mentally ill in prisons and victims of violent crimes. In 1959 Mr. Thompson founded the Pakenham-Thompson Committee, which considered the problems of ex-offenders and whose findings paved the way for the setting up of NACRO (the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders), the incorporation of the after-care service into the existing probation service and the use of probation associates to establish contact with long-term prisoners prior to their release. Today, in the same spirit, the Matthew Trust has announced that it is setting up a national media study working party to examine ways that recommendations can be made to protect the mentally disordered from media excesses.
One proposal which the Matthew Trust is examining is an amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which could provide measures to curb media mis-reportage on a legal basis. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health might be persuaded to examine this thought and to support the trust's media working party, for it might be argued that few official measures have been initiated to assist the mentally disordered in terms of the national media.
Through Mr. Thompson the Matthew Trust has considerable experience in these matters. Five years after setting up the Pakenham-Thompson Committee, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, wrote in the Month magazine, and strained with the overwhelming problems of ex-offenders, Mr.
518
Thompson, following a serious attempt on his own life, committed an offence and was himself detained under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959. He was in Broadmoor Hospital for four years. Since his discharge in 1969 he has re-established himself, as noted in the Guinness Book of Records. In this House he has been attributed with:
"having done more for the mentally ill than any other layman",
although he, more than any other ex-patient from a special hospital, has been a victim of media excesses.
For example, when he was put on the Conservative Party's candidate's list the Daily Express reported that that party:
"was scraping the bottom of the barrel".
When he was political adviser to an international relief agency and working in Uganda, Mr. Thompson was arrested, wrongly as it transpired, as a Kenyan spy. A press report in this country had the headline:
"Ex-Broadmoor patient arrested".
In September last, as has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the Independent newspaper reporting on a speech made by Mr. Thompson before a distinguished audience, described him as coming out of:
"Broadmoor. the Criminal Asylum".
As we have heard, that newspaper has unfortunately refused to correct that description of Broadmoor.
Of course not all matters of the press are wholly bad. The then Sir William Rees-Mogg, now a Member of your Lordships' House, when editor of The Times wrote to Mr. Thompson and said:
"I will support anything you are associated with".
It could be argued that the number of letters from Mr. Thompson published in The Times on the subject of the mentally disordered while the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, was editor of The Times bore out that sentiment.
Recently, on 6th August last, Mr. Thompson had another letter published in The Times. With the leave of your Lordships I will quote the last paragraph:
"a large proportion of those with mental illness histories have a higher IQ, are more creative and, because of their previous illness, are more discerning and through their illness have become wiser and more mature as well as understanding the many dimensions of human nature".
Mr. Thompson's letter was published at the time that Michael Dukakis, the Democrat contender for the White House, was alleged to have had depressions. Mr. Thompson in his letters to The Times argued that, depression or no, this should not bar a person from any leading activity in public life. I am happy to say that since the date of that letter Mr. Thompson has been invited to do 11 radio programmes for both the BBC and independent radio.
The mentally disordered do not deserve contempt. They merit understanding, not scorn; a hand of friendship, not isolation; and assistance to resume normal lives and be accepted—as indeed should all those who have been mentally ill.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, many speakers have already said that my noble friend has brought forward many questions relating to penal issues, but

519
we would all agree that the matter before us this afternoon is perhaps the most sensitive and poignant of all.
My noble friend put forward some very important proposals to the Minister and I await his answers with keen anticipation. For example, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about my noble friend's very worthwhile proposal that we should establish a mental offenders review tribunal similar to the Mental Health Review Tribunals. My noble friend also asked how many mentally disturbed people who are at present held in prison should be transferred to hospital. As he said, that is a difficult question to answer, but I hope the Minister will attempt to do so. My noble friend expressed concern that there are prisoners, with a high proportion from the ethnic minorities, who are transferred towards the end of their prison sentences to a mental hospital under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act. That too is a worrying aspect.
My noble friend and subsequent speakers have presented a picture of an extremely serious situation developing. As I said, I look forward to the Minister giving a positive and hopeful reply. I shall endeavour to add to the interesting contributions by presenting just a few observations and putting a few general questions to the Minister.
When I was preparing for this debate I wondered what the known figures in this sphere were. From my research I found the 1988 Home Office figure for those people in prison in spite of the fact that they satisfy the criteria for detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. I understand that the figure is 235. However, MIND, NAPO, Women in Prison and the New Bridge (of which I am chairman) all expressed concern about people in prison who have mental disorders which do not fall under the designated categories of the Mental Health Act.
I understand that in 1985 and in 1986 two special censuses were carried out by the prison medical officers of inmates serving sentences of six months or more who were considered to require specialised therapeutic facilities to deal with mental abnormalities which are not classified under the Mental Health Act. These censuses reveal that in 1985 there were 1,583 such people and at the end of 1986 there were 1,340. However, NAPO fears—and this has been repeated time and again in this debate—that there are thousands of offenders who suffer from depression, personality disorders, withdrawal, eating problems and so on. Those problems become aggravated as they go unrecognised and untreated in prisons. That subject was specifically referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
In the light of those figures I understand that the Home Office has commissioned a study, a psychological profile of the prison population, which is due to report in 1990. I should like confirmation of that from the Minister. I agree that that is to be welcomed, but in the meantime surely it would be wise to heed the request of my noble friend Lord Longford that the Government should presently monitor all those offenders in prison with mental
520
health problems to try to assess their needs and provide some sort of treatment.
There is also concern about the high number of prisoners with mental health problems who are held on remand and the sharp rise in the number of those held in prision cells. Indeed, we have had some chilling reports in that respect in recent times. We all agree that this is a deplorable situation. In that context I ask the Minister, first, why a greater use of bail hostels or special hospital beds is not made for those remand prisoners. Secondly, why in the short term could not a system be introduced whereby there is always a doctor or trained police officer available who can identify and prioritise mentally abnormal prisoners when they arrive at police stations?
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, spoke with his usual level of authority and enormous experience—perhaps I should say expertise—about special hospitals, how these have been in a great state of turmoil and that important decisions on their future have to be made. I look forward to the Minister's reply to those questions.
In view of the concern of MIND about the adequacy of the patient's complaints procedure in special hospitals I ask the Minister one more question. What stage has the preparation of the complaints procedure for special hospitals reached? Is it envisaged that other agencies, apart from the Mental Health Act Commission and the Prison Officers Association, will be consulted about its content?
I should like to make a few comments relating specifically to mentally ill women who commit offences. The voluntary agency, Women in Prison, has made several suggestions on how to ameliorate the situation. To illustrate the problem the organisation has cited the case of a young woman which I think is typical of many cases. This young woman has a history of violence, mainly associated with a drink problem, and has suffered severe bouts of depression. She received psychiatric treatment in the past and she was discharged from hospital 12 months ago. Some months after being discharged she committed another offence and she was further recommended for hospital treatment. Her previous hospital refused to have her back and no other hospital would take her because of her offences. The special hospital would not take her. They said that she was unsuitable. There is no regional secure unit in her area so the judge had no alternative but to sentence her to a term of imprisonment.
The problem is that everybody agrees that she is ill and needs treatment which she will most certainly not recieve in prison. There is a high probability that she will be unable to cope with her prison sentence and that she will deteriorate sufficiently so that a special hospital will accept her and by that time she will be further damaged. She will then remain for an indefinite period. An example has been given of what can be done. Barnet General Hospital has a unique scheme operating between its psychiatric ward and the local police station.
When the police apprehend a woman or a man who is showing distress or bizarre behaviour, they contact the hospital before charging the person. The

521
pyschiatric social worker and doctor go to the police station and assess whether the person is in need of psychiatric help or needs to get away from stresses at home or the community. If the doctor and the nurse feel that this is the case, they will take the person voluntarily into hospital for a few days or for a longer period.This scheme appears to work very well. It is a great relief to the police who are relieved not to have in their cells distressed and disturbed people, but most of all, it stops the most vulnerable people going to prison.
A suggestion was made which is very much in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said in her very interesting speech. It was said that what is needed in many cases is not hospitals or remands to prisons for reports, but crisis centres which might well be run by the community. Those would be houses where women can go for varying periods of time for respite, and to receive practical help and counselling. In many cases, the women are caught up in an endless spiral of disaster, unhappiness and of matters going wrong, and if they were given some time to come to terms with their problems they might overcome them without further recourse.
I visited Holloway Prison a few days ago. I went to the C1 unit which is for mentally disturbed women. I was very happy to discover that the situation has very much improved since the adverse publicity of 1985–86. Now the nursing staff administer the unit themselves with the discipline staff only involved in a minor capacity. It is run more on the lines of a medical psychiatric ward. The women are out of their cells for very much longer periods and they make use of the therapeutic facilities available. The medical officer in charge with whom I spoke stressed the vital necessity of being permitted to employ sufficient numbers of nursing staff to maintain the improvement. He described how otherwise the present improved system could not be carried on. He also advocated the necessity for constant monitoring of the circumstances which lead to women appearing in court in the first place.
He made what to me appeared to be a very astonishing revelation. He finds himself, and others like him who have been in the mental health field for a long time now find themselves, treating in Holloway and Risley the very same women whom they had formerly treated in mental institutions in years gone by. "Fashions have changed", he said in a very philosophical way. While profoundly regretting this new and entirely inappropriate setting for the treatment of the mentally sick, he nevertheless made some very pragmatic suggestions as to how best to protect the interests of those vulnerable and highly unfortunate women in their new environment.
He stressed again the need for constant monitoring as regards the new circumstances in which those women were now finding themselves; how they had arrived there and what had led to it. He also stressed that there should be very much closer co-operation between the health and social services, the penal establishment, the police, local government officials and all the other bodies concerned. He feared that at present each body worked too independently of each
522
other and that no clear picture of the new situation was evolving which would help the other bodies concerned.
This matter leads me to my last point regarding mentally unbalanced people and the policy of care in the community which has not been touched upon very much today. I believe that there can be little doubt of the direct connection between the over-accelerated dispatch of people from mental institutions, the rise in the crime rate and the prison population. Many voluntary organisations working in the field are extremely worried that the services in the community for such care are often—not always, they stress—grossly inadequate and underfunded with a lack of supporting social workers and of planned accommodation.
NAPO claims that this situation has reduced the options available to courts when sentencing the mentally-disturbed offenders. The courts have fewer non-secure mental hospitals to which to refer the less mentally-disturbed offender. Some courts will end up committing such offenders to prison which is exactly where they should not be. NAPO states that those who have been turned out into the community from hospitals will suffer a great deterioration in behaviour due to the lack of proper care. That could lead them to petty crime and land them in court facing a prison sentence.
The National Schizophrenia Fellowship is also very anxious about the number of schizophrenics who have left institutions and finished up in the courts and sometimes in prison. It has stressed that there was an important inquiry made into the care and aftercare of Miss Sharon Campbell and the results were published in July. There were many important recommendations. In particular, it was asked that the Government should accept recommendations, first, for DHSS clarification of the duties of health and local authorities under present legislation to provide aftercare for discharged mental hospital patients. The organisation wishes to know what duties they have.
Secondly, it is asked that health and local authorities should have a duty to provide aftercare for all former patients who have been suffering from mental disorders. Acceptance is asked for the recommendation for a specialist training course for social workers dealing with mentally-ill people in hospital or outside. Many social workers ignore the importance and the significance of schizophrenia. I believe that to be very important.
I hope that the Minister will have some answers bearing in mind the fundamental truth that no seriously mentally-disturbed person should be in prison and that those with less serious mental problems should be provided with adequate medical facilities or counselling while in prison. Many speakers have said already that it must be recognised and accepted that administering a system of punishment while at the same time procuring the health of those being punished are entirely incompatible objectives. To attempt to do so is not only to the detriment of a group of vulnerable people, but it also reflects a total failue on the part of a society that likes to think of itself as civilised.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on putting down this very apt Unstarred Question. It further demonstrates the level of determination on penal matters which has long been associated with the noble Earl.
We all know that the prison system cannot pick and choose the people it receives from the courts, whether on remand or after sentence. Some people who are mentally disturbed do commit criminal offences. If they are brought to court, the court will weigh the relevant issues, including the protection of the public and the mental state of the offender, before judging the most appropriate disposal.
The key questions are these. Should more people who are suspected of having committed criminal offences and who appear to be mentally disturbed be filtered out of the criminal justice system altogether, or at least, if in fact charged, be diverted into the health and social services? Secondly, is adequate provision made within the prison system for the mentally disturbed people who are sent there? I should like to set out the Government's policy on these questions and to describe the efforts being made to carry it out.
To begin with, it is the Government's policy that in all suitable cases mentally disturbed offenders should be kept out of or transferred from prison. That is nothing new, but it bears repeating. In support of this, close liaison is maintained with the Deprtment of Health. Secondly it is the Government's intention to provide a level of care for mentally disturbed inmates consistent with the fact that they are in prison at all. In a number of cases, persons who are mentally disturbed may be diverted from the criminal justice system at an early stage. Especially when the alleged offence is quite a small one, and the person is already receiving psychiatric treatment, the police may exercise their power not to press charges. And, even if criminal proceedings are brought, the mentally disturbed defendant still has the same right as other defendants to be released on bail pending trial.
Non-custodial options are encouraged whenever possible, and many of these are designed to help offenders who need psychiatric support. In 1986, for example, the courts made 1,030 probation orders with a condition of residential or non-residential psychiatric treatment; and in the same year 836 hospital orders were made. Nevertheless, while the condition observed here happens to relate to psychiatric treatment, the courts' power to impose conditions at all is a general one and affects offenders in general regardless of their state of mind.
On the other hand, the Mental Health Act 1983 is specific. And it is through that Act that the judiciary has a range of powers for dealing with mentally disordered offenders without recourse to prison. It goes without saying that the courts should be fully aware of these powers. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for reminding us of this. Judges and magistrates also need to know what kinds of facilities are available in the community for the treatment, care and support of mentally
524
disordered people. This was one of the areas on which the Home Office and the DHSS interdepartmental working group made recommendations. These departments are collaborating in the preparation of suitable guidance.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked me whether the Government now have plans to remove the category of psychopathic disorder from the Mental Health Act 1983. The Government carefully considered the response to their consultative paper on psychopaths and decided to retain the category of psychopathic disorder in the Act. We see no reason to change that view.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, has drawn attention to the modest use by the courts of Section 35 of the Mental Health Act. Section 35 can be used by magistrates and Crown Courts when they wish to remand the accused to hospital for a report on his mental condition. In 1986, it was used in only 304 cases. I contrast that figure with the 7,055 reports prepared by prison medical officers on people remanded to prison for psychiatric assessment. This underscores the need for guidance to which I have already referred. I shall touch on that point again in a moment.
As your Lordships will know, the regional secure unit programme was started following the recommendation of the Butler Committee. By the end of 1982 all regional health authorities had interim secure arrangements. Now there are permanent units in all but one of the 14 regions, and I understand that plans are under way for facilities in this last region. The regional secure units are intended to take patients whose treatment can be effected within two years. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, regional secure units have developed skills to care both for mentally disordered offenders and mentally disordered people who have not offended but need care in security.
The total number of places currently available—518—is much less than that recommended by the Butler Committee. The Department of Health is firmly encouraging regional health authorities to develop in their regions a comprehensive range of facilities including, where the need has been shown to exist, additional RSU places. The department is also encouraging the development of places for people who need care in lesser security over a longer period of time than two years. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, there may well also he a need by the longer-term patient for some form of sanctuary. This is a matter into which the Department of Health and the Home Office are looking.
I should like to turn to the special hospitals service run by the Department of Health. Your Lordships will know that there are now new management plans. These plans have already affected Broadmoor Hospital. The prime objectives of this service are to protect the public and to give the patient the right treatment and a good quality of life. The special hospital service is intended to be closely linked to the psychiatric services provided by district health authorities. Special hospitals themselves are to be used as training centres to encourage trained staff in

525
various branches of psychiatry. The hospitals will also be used for research into forensic psychiatry and related conditions. A new special health authority is planned to oversee the operations of the four hospitals. Perhaps I may give some details to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who inquired about them.
As well as overseeing the four hospitals, the new special health authority will also be able to appoint their managers. These general managers have yet to be appointed but they will provide much needed leadership at hospital level and will head multi-disciplinary advisory groups. The managers will be accountable to the special health authority for the performance of the groups as a whole in achieving the SHA's priorities. Before general managers are appointed, Ministers intend to promulgate a new statement of national policy for the special hospitals service, building on the aims and objectives that I outlined a moment ago. With the safety of the public always in mind, this will, so far as possible, minimise the existing geograpical, professional and service isolation of the special hospitals by emphasising and strengthening the existing vital links to the full range of psychiatric services provided by the hospital and community health services, the family practitioner service, the social services, and to the prison service, the prison medical service and the courts.
Once the new special health authority is in place and the general managers appointed, the intention is to abolish the Special Hospitals Services Board within the Department of Health and to adjust the role of both the department and the three local hospital boards. The new arrangements will be kept under constant review to ensure that they are working properly. Ministers are considering placing a time limit on the operation of the new special health authority with the aim of forging even stronger links with the National Health Service and the prison service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked me about the special hospitals' complaints procedure. This is still under active consideration and will be introduced as soon as possible.
I should like briefly to refer again to Broadmoor, about which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has spoken. The activities of the Broadmoor Hospital Board were suspended during August and the operational management of the hospital is in the hands of a specially formulated task force whose best known member is Dr. Jimmy Savile. Dr. Savile has been involved with the work of Broadmoor Hospital for many years and is now devoting his considerable talents to ensuring that the hospital functions smoothly during this difficult interim period before the new special health authority comes into being.
On a more general point, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, mentioned the working party of the Matthew Trust. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Home and Health Departments will of course be happy to look at the Matthew Trust proposals if such proposals are sent to them.
As I have already observed, a person directed to prison by the courts cannot properly be turned away.
526
The prison population grows relentlessly and the feeling of prison staff is that the segment of the prison population who are mentally disturbed also grows. Many will not be detainable under the Mental Health Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, reminded us. A census taken by prison medical officers on 1st October 1986 of sentenced inmates serving six months or more considered to require specialised therapeutic facilities (whether or not they might be detained under the Act) produced the figure of 1,564.
Some commentators have sought to demonstrate a causal link between the planned closure of psychiatric hospitals and the numbers of mentally disturbed offenders in the prison system. The Government's policy of "Care in the Community", sets out to do three things, whenever it can—to help those suffering from mental illness to get well more quickly; to help people to stay well longer; and to help people avoid becoming ill in the first place. We are going about doing this by trying to identify ways of preventing mental illness, and by creating a comprehensive range of services within each district for those who fall ill.
As a consequence of the policy of creating locally-based services, some of the old mental hospitals have closed, and others are scheduled to close. But I cannot emphasise too strongly that hospital closure is not an end in itself. Closures should only ever occur where better alternative facilities have already been developed.
As your Lordships are aware, there are concerns about the Government's policy and its implementation. In particular, that patients are discharged without proper trouble taken for their future care. And that our policy does net do enough for those whose need might he described as "sanctuary", sometimes in conditions of security.
I have to tell your Lordships that we do not know to what extent these criticisms are justified but we have an uneasy feeling that they are justified, at least in some parts of the country. And we recognise that our lack of systematic information is, in itself, a major defect. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health has set in hand work to get a clear picture of the situation throughout the country.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether there will be an independent element in this research, or is it being done exclusively by officials of the department?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be an independent element in the research as it is carried out.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, so we can all be quite clear about what the noble Earl is saying perhaps I may ask this. As I understand it, he is saying that there is an independent element and, that being so, presumably the results of this will be published and be publicly available. Is that correct?
The Earl of Dundee: No, my Lords, I do not think that that will in fact happen. Indeed, I cannot say that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, why not? Why should the results not become publicly available? What is the secrecy as regards this?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord encourages us to make everything as open as possible, which is what he should be doing. I do not think there will be anything secret about the matter; but when I say that the answer is no, that is my information and I take it that it is a procedural matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as I understand it, the information will not be published. However, as the noble Earl is also saying that there is no secrecy in the matter, perhaps he can relate his observations directly to that apparent paradox.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord. It is a factual matter and I shall write to him explaining the details.
I turn now to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I am well aware of her experience and work in this general field and most grateful to her for her comments. She suggested—indeed her remarks were reinforced by the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Soper—that the departments and voluntary organisations should get together to examine the need by the homeless and rootless former patients of some kind of sanctuary.
The valuable work undertaken by many voluntary organisations is well recognised. The suggestion is an extremely important one which I welcome and I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of both departments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to prisoners in police cells. Industrial action by some branches of the Prison Officers Association has pushed the number of prisoners in police cells to very high levels in recent months. The Government find that situation quite unacceptable. On 29th September the Home Secretary invited the POA national leaders to work with prison service management to bring a rapid end to industrial action across the prison system. He made clear the Government's intention to take vigorous action if a significant improvement was not shortly forthcoming. Encouraging progress has since been made. The POA branches in the four prisons recently involved in industrial action ended their refusal to admit prisoners two weeks ago. The prisons are now building up to capacity again and that is causing the numbers in police cells to reduce also.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again, but when he says "building up to capacity", in my opinion they have not been below capacity for the last 10 years.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I do not think that I would wish the noble Lord to infer that.
Six-monthly returns by prison medical officers of the numbers in prison who are considered to be detainable in hospital show a downward trend with occasional marked fluctuations. The latest figures
528
available show that at 31st March 1988, there were 235 in this seriously disturbed category, comprised almost equally of sentenced and unsentenced inmates. This was 110 fewer than reported for September 1987. Your Lordships will be glad to note that reduction.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, cast some doubt on our method of computing those figures and, in introducing references to the USSR, he slightly suggested that we might be using some political criteria. Indeed, I thought that he was reminding us of Darkness at Noon by Koestler. However, I can reassure the noble Earl that although our figures may not be perfect, they are arrived at professionally and I believe that the reduction which I have just mentioned is a genuine one.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Earl's figures are totally unconvincing; they are quite meaningless. I do not know how he has obtained them. If it was by asking medical officers—most of whom are certainly not psychiatrists—what they feel about the prisoners, I am afraid that is not in any way good enough.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I accept the point of view that the noble Earl has put forward. I also respect the fact that it is a point of view which he has not put forward for the first time. There is always an element of doubt in figures of this nature that we give. All we can do is to attempt to give them in as professional a way as we can and to try to arrange that it is only professional and independent people who arrive at them.
I am also able to report a welcome continuing increase in the number of mentally disordered offenders who are transferred to hospitals under Section 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act. One hundred and three were transferred in 1982 and 208 in 1987.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised questions about the timing of transfers under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act and the ethnic origin of those transferred. That information is not readily available but I shall write to him on the matter.
The noble Earl also raised the issue of review tribunals for mental offenders. Leaving aside the absence of detailed proposals, we see no compelling need or advantage in such tribunals. However, I shall certainly draw the suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend.
There are at least two good reasons for obtaining the numbers of mentally disordered offenders in prison. They can let us know whether there is enough of the right kind of provision within the prison system itself. They can also show the extent to which the policy of diversion from the prison service is working. From them we learn how valuable existing specialist facilities are, such as those of Grendon Psychiatric Prison—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for what he has said about Grendon. The interest of the noble Lord in this important establishment, and his contribution to its work as a past Chairman of the Board of Visitors over many years, are well known to Members of this House, and have

529
been much appreciated by the management and staff of Grendon, by the prison department generally, and by successive Home Office Ministers. As the noble Lord has indicated, there has been a number of wholly beneficial developments recently. I join with him in looking forward to further progress. I assure the noble Lord, and the House, that Grendon continues to occupy a valued place in the prison service.
The censuses also showed the desirability of recruiting into the prison medical service more nurse qualified officers, and especially those trained in the care of the mentally disturbed. There is another fact that we should keep before us. Certainly the prison medical service has a distinct role. But equally we should avoid duplicating the range of facilities which exist in the community. The prison medical service uses many specialists from the NHS. In 1986 to 1987 almost 12,500 inmates were referred to NHS consultant psychiatrists for opinion or treatment. The two services work closely together.
Of course, not all is brightness and light. On occasion, prison medical staff may feel, with justification, that it takes far too long for some consultant psychiatrists to visit patients when the object is to enable the court, or the Home Secretary, to authorise removal to hospital under the Mental Health Act. In that context the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the coroner's recommendations following the inquest on the suicide of Samuel Carew. The coroner was particularly concerned that no specialist psychiatrist from the NHS had seen Samuel Carew in Brixton prison before his death, despite four requests from medical staff there for such a visit.
Your Lordships are aware of the interim letter sent by the department to the coroner in response to his recommendations. A copy was placed in the Library. The most important of the recommendations were directed at speeding the response of NHS specialists when prisoners are considered to need their attention. The departments are looking into ways in which that can be achieved. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned one useful development, which is to have duty psychiatrists at courts on the model of a scheme presently in use in Peterborough.
We may well then need more nurse qualified staff in the prison medical service. Yet that implies no criticism of existing staff. Their work and care, especially with this particularly challenging group of inmates, deserves a great deal of praise. Some 40 per cent. of full-time medical officers have a qualification in psychiatry. Recruitment policy is geared to building upon that figure. I am also glad to be able to report that the hospital and nursing staff of the prison medical service includes at the moment 109 trained to varying degrees in the care of mentally disturbed people. The Director of Prison Medical Services is introducing a more carefully planned distribution of future recruiting with that training. And that measure will also affect how inmates themselves will be allocated across the prison system.
But of course we must strike a balance. It is one thing to recognise that the existing capability needs
530
strengthening. At the same time it is vital that the courts are not misled into believing that eventually this capability will amount to an alternative disposal to hospital in the community.
For the development of policies for the long term, we await the commissioned report of Professor Gunn. This report is on the psychiatric profile of the sentenced prison population. It is well underway. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that it will take a further two years to complete. Professor Gunn's terms of reference also invite him to comment upon existing arrangements in the prison service for the management, care and treatment of mentally disordered inmates and to suggest ways of doing better.
Possible future research under consideration includes decision-making by the courts in relation to Section 37 of the Mental Health Act in making hospital orders. This would cover the question of the number of orders which would have been made had facilities been available.
A second possible study would be into the remand prison population with particular reference to procedures for courts to obtain medical reports on defendants; the working of Section 35 of the Act and the scope to speed up the process—for example, by the use of duty psychiatrists at court.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the report of the interdepartmental working group of officials to which I referred earlier. Alongside the implementation of the group's recommendations, consideration of how best the Government's objectives can be effected continues.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the need of those who have been in one form or another of mental institution to enjoy the same degree of confidentiality when they come out as that enjoyed by inmates of prisons. I was very interested in that suggestion, as indeed I was in the whole speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, when he gave examples of how people who have been in mental institutions have a lot to offer society when they come out. I shall certainly pass on those comments to my right honourable friend.
Finally, I hope that I have been able to get across that the Government have a clear policy in respect of mentally disturbed people who commit or are accused of having committed criminal offences. We make no pretence of satisfaction in the present level of implementation of that policy. We are complacent neither at the extent of their diversion from the prison system nor at the quality of arrangements for their care if sent to prison. But we are able to demonstrate a resolve to put into effect and build upon the improvements I have described.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the Minister for having answered so many of our questions. But I put a few questions to the Minister—I refer particularly to those questions put to me by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship—which have not been answered. I should be grateful if he would read what I have said and write to me on those points.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, and indeed to other noble Lords if they put questions which I have not addressed. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness and to any other noble Lord whose question I have left unanswered.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past six o'clock.