Lords Sitting of 14 November 1989

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

Hong Kong
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making with regard to matters currently of concern to the people of Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we are working vigorously on a range of issues of concern to Hong Kong. In particular we are rallying international support for the territory as part of our efforts to restore confidence and we are intensifying our efforts to find a humane and durable solution to the problems of Vietnamese boat people.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is it not the case that the purpose which Her Majesty's Government have in mind of trying to establish some kind of selective passport scheme is in order to maintain the stability and economic progress of Hong Kong? In those circumstances will the Government ensure that the number in receipt of passports is generous; by which I mean at least half a million? Will he make it clear that the issue of passports is designed to keep people in Hong Kong and to discourage them from leaving Hong Kong in order to find their own salvation elsewhere? Therefore, will the Government associate the passport scheme with the waiving of resident rights?
Very briefly as regard the Vietnamese boat people, will my noble friend agree that the numbers coming into Hong Kong have increased from 1,000 in 1985 to 33,000 in the first nine months of this year? In those circumstances, surely urgent action to repatriate them to their own country is now essential.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend asked a number of questions. On the progress of the nationality scheme we are working urgently on a scheme to give the assurance of right of abode to some people in both private and public sectors on the basis of value of service to Hong Kong as well as connections with the United Kingdom. Our aim is to give to those people whose professional, administrative, technical and managerial skills are essential to the continued success of Hong Kong confidence to remain in the territory, which was a point raised by my noble friend.
As regards the suggestion about numbers, I must ask your Lordships to be patient. We hope to be able to announce details around the turn of the year.
I must also point out that there are now almost 57,000 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, of
1216
whom about 40,000 are likely to be screened out as non-refugees. As I said in my original Answer, we are working urgently to find a humane and durable solution to that problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question concerning the position of the Basic Law. Is it not the case at present that the Legislative Council is asking for more elected members in the elections to the Legislative Council to be held in 1991? Can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government are adhering to the original 10 or are they prepared to concede that the Legislative Council has a good case when it asks for more than that; for example, as many as 40 per cent. of the total?
Secondly, can the Minister say whether he has seen the newspaper reports yesterday and today which make serious allegations; namely, that Her Majesty's Government have given secret assurances to the Chinese Government that there will be no meaningful political reform before 1997? Will the noble Lord deny that categorically?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first point on the representative government, that whole subject is under very active consideration both here and in Hong Kong. We need to reconsider the present plans for the Legislative Council elections in 1991. However, we shall want to ensure that the decisions which we take are the right ones and reflect the wishes of the community as a whole. Of course, since June there has been cause for a faster rate of change but no clear consensus within Hong Kong has yet emerged. The OMELCO proposals are a significant development which has helped to stimulate debate in Hong Kong. We shall wish to see what comes out of those.
The Basic Law, which the noble Lord also mentioned, is a different matter from the one to which I have just referred. That is a matter for the Chinese Government. However, we are right to satisfy ourselves that the provisions of the Basic Law fully accord with the terms of the Joint Declaration.
Regarding the noble Lord's last question, I have no knowledge that what is reported in the newspaper has any basis of truth. I shall certainly look into the matter and I hope to take a suitable opportunity to give the noble Lord the reassurance which he seeks.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister be so good as to inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government have made a direct appeal to the Commonwealth, to the European Community and to the United States to take in, in the worst possible case, the inhabitants of Hong Kong? If the Government have made that appeal, will he tell us what the response has been?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since June we have done everything possible to rally international support for Hong Kong, including the idea of a multinational safety net, as part of our efforts to restore confidence in the territory. We have raised the matter on numerous occasions, including the Madrid European Council, the Paris Economic

1217
Summit and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, as well as in bilateral contacts with, among others, the United States, Canada and Australia.
In both the Paris summit and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting our partners publicly acknowledged that the international community has an important role to play in maintaining confidence in Hong Kong.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, to reinforce the point made in the first supplementary by my noble friend Lord Eden, does my noble friend agree that there is a close parallel in the recent example of East Germany where citizens of that country, having gained freedom of egress and right of abode, have apparently chosen to either stay in or return to their country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the comparison between Hong Kong and East Germany is not entirely relevant. The Federal German Government consider that all Germans have a right to settle in the Federal Republic, where in any case many of the newest arrivals already have family or friends. British dependent territory citizens, however, do not have a right of abode in the United Kingdom in accordance with the British Nationality Act. The point my noble friend makes —that having been given the right to come they may perhaps return —is quite a good one.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, concerning the Minister's words on finding a humane solution to the problem of the Vietnam refugees, can he say whether a forced repatriation could be part of that solution? Alternatively, are there any plans to give economic and development aid to Vietnam in order to encourage the voluntary repatriations which we should all like to see?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course we wish voluntary repatriation to go as far as possible, and a number of people have already returned voluntarily. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that voluntary repatriation alone cannot provide the comprehensive solution. That is why the international community accepted that all those screened out as non-refugees should in due course be returned to Vietnam.
In regard to the use of force, normal deportation procedures will be used. These are similar procedures which are applied world-wide in deporting illegal immigrants. We certainly do not rule out reintegration assistance to Vietnam as part of a comprehensive repatriation programme.
Lord Morris: My Lords, as part of the restoration, or rather the maintenance of the confidence of the people of Hong Kong in their future, will my noble friend comment on a recent summary dismissal from the committee on the draft laws by the Peking Government? I refer to Mr. Martin Lee and one other member of the Legislative Council whose name I cannot pronounce.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, the Basic Law is a matter for the Chinese Government and members of the Basic Law drafting committee are appointed by a standing committee at the National People's Congress. Suspension of the two gentlemen concerned, therefore, is a matter for the Chinese authorities. We have made clear to the Chinese authorities on a number of occasions our hope that they will take account of the full range of opinion in Hong Kong in the drafting of the Basic Law. There still remain 18 Hong Kong members out of a total of 51 on the drafting commit:ee. The point my noble friend makes regarding confidence, which I made in my original Answer, is a valid one in this case.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord go a little further than simply not ruling out aid to Vietnam? Is it not the unique denial of international help which has placed Vietnam in a situation which people run away from rather than stay in? In these circumstances would not a positive endeavour to bring international help to Vietnam reverse that situation and be one of the best things that could be done to bring about a willingness to return to that country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we do not rule out reintegration assistance, but to qualify for a full programme of aid Vietnam must first fulfil its responsibilities towards its own people and to its neighbours. There is a lot the Vietnamese themselves could do to bring themselves back into the international community and to become more suitable recipients of aid.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, is it not clear that approximately 90 per cent. of the boat people now coming to Hong Kong are very poor peasant farmers, fishermen and others from North Vietnam who are in search of El Dorado and who in no way come within the interpretation of Aricle 14(1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have in percentage terms the figure to which my noble friend refers, but, as I said earlier, there are 57,000 people in Hong Kong of whom approximately 40,000 are likely to be screened out as non-refugees.

Wheel-Clamping Policy: Effect
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Ewart Biggs Baroness Ewart Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the traffic conditions in London have improved as a result of their wheel-clamping policy and how much revenue has been raised thereby.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, wheel-clamping has substantially reduced illegal parking in the parts of central London where it operates. That is its main objective. Income from fees to recover costs was £2·7 million in 1987–88 and £3·2 million in 1988–89.

1219
Studies by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory suggest that traffic speeds in central London would be slower in the absence of clamping.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that useful information. Will he agree that many of us who drive around London have seen no kind of improvement in traffic flow as a result of wheel-clamping? In some cases it might even hamper the traffic flow. Is the Minister aware that very extensive plans are being made in many other European capitals to take on their traffic problems?
Does the Minister agree that when the Government make their plans the following practices will be very important: first, loading and unloading should be banned during peak hours because it undoubtedly creates many jams? Secondly, responsibility for traffic enforcement should be taken from the present hotchpotch of private companies and the police and given to the local highway authorities? Thirdly, will the Government also bear in mind the strong relationship between car use and public transport?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, wheel-clamping is a proven success in deterring illegal parking. It will continue to be a major part of the department's policy towards the effective enforcement of parking controls. Since wheel-clamping was privatised it has been much more efficient and effective.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend impress upon both the police and local authorities the need to mark clearly any change in the parking rules and particularly the suspension of resident parking areas which sometimes occurs in a very obscure way?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of my noble friend's remarks and I shall certainly pass them on.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that there are very few people who will accept his interpretation of the benefit of wheel clamps and car towing? On the contrary, most of us consider those measures to be counter-productive in that clamped vehicles are left for days on the side of the road at the point of the original obstruction. The towing vehicles themselves are an obstruction for an hour or more while it is sorted out which vehicle should be taken away. Nobody I know will support the views expressed by the noble Viscount.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not agree. A report by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory shows a substantial reduction in parking on yellow lines and less illegal parking in residents' bays and at meters. The number of cars illegally parked has decreased since wheel-clamping was introduced from 150,000 vehicle hours spent on yellow lines each day to 70,000 vehicle hours each day, which is half the original figure.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the main benefit of wheel-clamping is the protection of the single yellow line which is supposed to be used by trade vehicles for unloading? If there is no place for such vehicles to park at the kerb they double park and thus hold up the traffic. My noble friend is quite right in saying that there have been significant reductions in breaches of the yellow line regulations and in the amount of double-parking by trade vehicles.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for confirming what I have just said.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Viscount's figures were very impressive but somewhat mystifying. Can he tell us who goes round measuring exactly how many illegal hours are spent by vehicles on yellow lines?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not, but somebody does!
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend explain how it came about that last Sunday night there was a traffic block in Park Lane which lasted one and three-quarter hours? Does he know the cause of it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not believe that it was due to wheel-clamping.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if the figures that the noble Viscount has given have been achieved, is it not because there is a deterrent effect? Does the Minister agree that there is still the problem to which my noble friend referred; namely, that where there is illegal parking on main highways and bus lanes and also dangerous parking, it is far better to remove a vehicle than to clamp it? Is the noble Viscount aware —I am certain he will be —that when the clamping procedure was introduced in the 1982 Act one of its main purposes was to catch the persistent offender? Is he further aware that in the area of the Gwent police authority new technology has been introduced called "intelligent ticketing terminals"? The system enables the police immediately to identify the persistent offender. Will the Minister say whether the system is being monitored and whether it is likely to be discussed with other chief officers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was kind enough to give me notice of his last question, we have been in touch with the Gwent police who state that they have no such system. However, the noble Lord may be referring to the computer-based system which is being developed by some local authorities in order to keep records of parking offences. It involves punching in car registrations to find out whether the car or the owner is guilty of a previous offence. As the noble Lord said, wheel-clamping is a deterrent. I believe that it is unlikely that anyone who has been wheel-clamped once —certainly twice —will become a persistent offender.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Viscount has said I shall check my source of information. However, I have in front of me a leaflet describing the scheme in printed advertising form.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the point is that at the moment wheel-clamping takes place only in London.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the inevitable increase in traffic, will my noble friend agree that the time will come when traffic entering cities will be limited and that there must be restrictions imposed in time, if not now? Can the Minister say how much study has been put into this matter? Does the Minister agree that such measures must be taken sooner rather than later?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not prepared to speculate on that matter. I can assure my noble friend that the problem is being studied in depth.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Viscount mentioned an improvement in the situation. I have been motoring into London for the past 30 years. I come down from the Angel to the Smithfield Market and the traffic has become increasingly worse every year. I drove in the other day and it was appalling to see the number of vehicles parked on yellow lines in that area.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot comment on individual travel.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there is a growing feeling that wheel-clamping is just another bit of tinkering with a growing problem and that, sooner or later, the Government and others must accept that principal roads are intended for movement and not for use as parking lots or as delivery areas during rush hours?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has a point, but at the moment I cannot go further than I have done already.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as I see my noble friend the Leader of the House on the Front Bench, is my noble friend aware that we have already taken 20 minutes of the time intended for all Questions? Does he not agree that it is time for us to move on?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, it is time for the next Question.

Interest Rates: Policy
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their policy on interest rates remains unchanged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government's policy remains to set and
1222
hold interest rates at a level which will bring down inflation. There are clear signs that this policy is working.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that at their present level interest rates continue to cause great hardship to individuals, particularly those with mortgages? Does he further agree that the problem is now spreading to industry and trade as demonstrated by the latest CBI returns issued yesterday? Is the noble Lord aware that on 31st October, in another place, his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was absolutely right that all practicable measures should be used to deal with inflation and that they included fiscal measures? Will the Minister therefore indicate to the House whether those steps portend a change in policy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no change in policy. The Chancellor has said that it is right to use all practical levers available to bear down on inflation, and only one of those is fiscal policy. The key lever as regards inflation is monetary policy through interest rates.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Lord's attention been drawn to an interview given to Le Soir, a Belgian newspaper, on 1st November by the chairman of the Conservative Party, in which he said:
"The differences arose"—
the differences between the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister —
"on general economic policy and the whole level of interest rates"?
In view of the fact that the present Chancellor is widely expected to continue the policies of his predecessor, can the noble Lord say whether there is still unanimity in the Government on this point?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not interested in alleged disagreements between past Chancellors of the Exchequer and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the policy remains the same.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, have the Government considered varying interest rates in relation to their regional policies? Is the Minister aware that their present policy on interest rates, which will obviously continue for some time, will affect the regions first, not least the northern region? Is he further aware that the suggestion I am making is a well-established practice in the EC? Will the Government give consideration to it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not practical to have two-tier interest rates between different regions. As to the noble Lord's point about the regions being affected first, he will be aware that one of the signs that the interest rate policy is working is the cooling down of house prices. They have cooled off considerably more in the South than in the North.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, with the appointment of a new Chancellor, many of us expected to see a change from the policies which have so patently failed up to now? Are the Government not aware that the continuing problem is the growth of credit? Will they now take some direct action on credit and require the banks and financial institutions to make special deposits with the Bank of England?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. Credit is not a problem. Only 15 per cent. of personal sector debt comes from credit. There are no plans to change that situation.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, is the Minister aware —
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, the Clerk of the Parliaments has announced the next Question.

Small Businesses and Payment Delays
3.2 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of reports that a number of large firms propose to counter the burden of a 15 per cent. base rate by deliberately delaying payments due to smaller suppliers and sub-contractors, and whether they intend to protect small businesses from such behaviour.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government would be extremely concerned should the delayed payment of bills be adopted by large firms as a systematic strategy. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this practice is widespread or that it is more likely to be pursued by large companies in the present economic climate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, although I fear that it is a somewhat overoptimistic one. Is he aware —I am sure that he must be —that the Government have very commendably and very effectively encouraged an enormous growth in the number of small businesses in this country? Substantial numbers of redundant miners, steel workers and others have been encouraged to start a new life by becoming self-employed, which by and large they have managed very successfully. Does he not agree that it would be a tragedy if these people were driven to the wall by the high interest rates, about which we have just been speaking, accentuated by the unethical tactics of a few mainly monopsonistic large organisations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to show that there is a link between business failure and late payment. I must point out to him that business failures are not caused by one specific factor. Indeed, if VAT registrations are examined as a sign of a healthy growing economy, they have accelerated from 500 a week in 1986 to 1,200 a week
1224
in 1988. That is not a sign that companies are being put out of business by the problem of late payments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that small businesses have been responsible for some employment growth? Would it not be an awful pity if this employment creation were to be inhibited because of present interest rates?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is truly magnificent to hear a member of the Labour Party talking about small firms in such glowing terms, especially when one considers that, under the Labour Government, the number of people in self-employment actually fell. We of course agree that small businesses are fundamental to the growth of the whole economy.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that noble Lords on this side of the House have always supported employment creation, whether through small firms or large firms, and that that remains the policy on these Benches?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, self-employment fell in the 1970s.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, in view of the resolution on sub-contracting adopted by the Council of Ministers on 26th September, which expresses a need for a much sharper legal framework, with particular reference to periods of payment, does my noble friend agree that legislation is now required?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government believe that the best way forward is through negotiation between individual commercial organisations, not through legislation. To that effect the Government have published two documents —Payment on Time and Prompt Payment Please, both of which are in the Library.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, apart from the firms mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his Question, a large number of health authorities are deliberately, as an act of policy, delaying payments for bills in a desperate effort to make ends meet? Does this not involve the Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no clear evidence that organisations have adopted a systematic strategy of late payment. If there is such evidence, we shall be pleased to hear about it.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am surprised, because it is a well-known fact that health authorities are delaying payment as an act of policy.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is up to those who supply health authorities to take them to court to reclaim the amount of money that they have not been paid.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, does my noble friend remember that the question of statutory interest was debated at length on 6th April 1982 during consideration of the Administration of

1225
Justice Bill, not least because statutory interest was recommended as a way forward by the Law Commission in its report No. 88? Can my noble friend say whether the Government now support that Law Commission report, or —this is perhaps a rather frivolous suggestion —are Law Commission reports not in fashion today?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is nothing frivolous about Law Commission reports. There is a good deal of disagreement within small firms themselves as to whether legislation would be helpful. For instance, the CBI's Smaller Firms Council and other lobby groups are against legislation or have serious reservations about it. Under current law there is provision for individual companies to get their money. They do not use that legislation very much. There is no reason to believe that they would do so if there were additional legislation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that where there is a monopsony —where a sole purchaser of goods is supplied by a large number of fiercely competing producers—one cannot negotiate on equal terms?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord can produce scientific evidence that this is a major problem, the Government will be delighted to hear it.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whereas it may be true that certain companies have a bad reputation in regard to paying smaller companies, a good many more companies have a positive policy of paying their smaller suppliers early as part of their social responsibility?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the base rate standing at about 15 per cent., what conceivable objection can there be to the proposal in the Law Commission report to introduce statutory interest? After all, it does not have to be used in litigation by anybody who does not want to use it. However, it would exist. What is the objection?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the conceivable objection is that it would be an interference in commercial freedom.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, is it not a fact that small businesses simply do not have the means to defend themselves in the courts when their goods and services are taken from them and not paid for?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes said a moment ago, the majority of firms experience no such problems. The Government, who are very keen on small firms, have no evidence to show that this is an outstanding
1226
problem. However, if this really is the position, we should like to hear about it.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I rise to ask for the support of the House in challenging a preliminary decision of the Leader of the House, who turned down a request this morning for a Statement to be made on the White Paper on community care. This Question has been put down because in today's edition of The Times there is an article which states that the White Paper on community care will be published this Thursday after the House has prorogued and that it will be followed by a Bill which is to be introduced next Wednesday. Obviously this would give the House—and, indeed, the country —no opportunity to debate the White Paper before the Bill is presented. We should also bear in mind the fact that no Green Paper has been produced on the subject.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is the case that the noble Baroness informed me this morning that she would like to ask a Private Notice Question on the matter which she has just outlined and that I said I felt this was not of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply.
The situation we are in is that we have known since 12th July, when my noble friend Lord Henley repeated a Statement in this House on community care, that the Government intended to publish a White Paper on the subject in the autumn. The position we are in at present is that the Secretary of State has not announced that he is publishing the White Paper.
I must say to the noble Baroness that, although I understand her interest in the matter, I really do not think that this is an occasion for a Private Notice Question.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said. However, since this White Paper has not been published and since Parliament prorogues on Thursday, what are we to assume from his reply? Are we to assume that the White Paper will be published some time after the loyal Address? If that is to be the case, can he give us a guarantee that there will be an opportunity for consultation on the White Paper before a Bill is presented to the House? Further, will there be opportunity for a debate in this Chamber, which is customary procedure after a White Paper is published, or are we suddenly to receive a Bill following the publication of a White Paper which no one has had any opportunity of considering? Will the noble Lord kindly clarify the issue?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is in exactly the same position as all Members of the House; namely, that we all know the publication of a White Paper is intended by the Government during the autumn, but the

1227
Secretary of State has not, as yet, announced that he is about to publish the document.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord use his offices with his right honourable friend to suggest to him that, if it is his intention to publish a White Paper, then he should do so tomorrow before the House rises so that there can be an opportunity for some discussion before such matters are introduced into a Bill next Wednesday—if that is also the intention?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in the matter. However, I think that we are now beginning to stray into general discussion on the question of the forthcoming White Paper. We know that it is forthcoming because the Government have promised that a White Paper will be published in the autumn. If I may say so, the correct action to take would be to await an announcement by the Secretary of State that he is about to publish the document.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House saying that the statement in The Times is not correct? Is that the position? No doubt he has seen the statement in question.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I never comment on reports which appear in newspapers.

Local Government and Housing Bill
3.14 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have to notify the House that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government and Housing Bill, has consented to place his interest as Duke of Cornwall, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
[References are to the Bill 64 as first printed by the Lords]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
"Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members
" —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations authorise or require any such relevant authority as may be specified or described in the regulations to make a scheme providing for the payment of—
1228

(a) basic allowance for every member of the authority who is a councillor;

(b) an attendance allowance in relation to the carrying out by any such member of such duties as may be specified in or determined under the regulations; and

(c) a special responsibility allowance for any such member who has such special responsibilities in relation to the authority as may be so specified or determined.

(2) Regulations under this section may also authorise or require a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations to include provision for the payment to appointed members of allowances in respect of such losses of earnings and expenses as —

(a) are necessarily sustained or incurred in the carrying out, in connection with their membership of the authority or any committee or sub-committee of the authority, of duties specified in or determined under the regulations; and

(b) are not of a description in respect of which provision is made for an allowance under any of sections 174 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 46 to 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) above, regulations under this section may contain such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for requiring a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations —

(a) to make it a condition of any payment by way of allowance that, in the financial year to which the payment would relate, the aggregate amount which the authority has paid out or is already liable to pay out under the scheme does not exceed such maximum amount as may be specified in or determined under the regulations;

(b) to make provision for different maximum amounts to be applicable, for the purposes of any such condition, in relation to different allowances or in relation to different members or members of different groups;

(c) to make provision in relation to claims which cannot be paid by virtue of any such condition and provision for the payment to members of the authority who are councillors of an amount by way of supplement to the basic allowance where, in any financial year, the aggregate paid out or owing under the scheme is less than an amount specified in or determined under the regulations;

(d) to provide that the amount authorised by virtue of subsection (2) above to be paid by way of allowance in any case shall not exceed such amount as may be so specified or determined;

(e) to contain such provision as may be so specified or determined with respect to the general administration of the scheme, with respect to the manner in which, time within which and forms on which claims for any allowance are to be made and with respect to the information to be provided in support of any such claim;

(f) to contain such provision as may be so specified or determined for avoiding the duplication of payments or of allowances, for determining the bodies by which payments of allowances are to be made and for the apportionment of payments between different bodies.

(4) Regulations under this section may—

(a) prohibit the payment, otherwise than in accordance with sections 174 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 46 to 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or in such other cases as may be specified in the regulations, of any allowance to a member of a relevant authority who is a councillor or to any appointed member of a relevant authority;

(b) impose requirements on a relevant authority with respect to the publication, in the minutes of that authority or otherwise, of the details of amounts paid in pursuance of a scheme made under the regulations; and

1229

(c) contain such incidental provision and such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision in connection with the other provisions of the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) In this section "relevant authority" means —

(a) a local authority of any of the descriptions specified in any of the paragraphs of section 20(1) below, other than paragraphs (d) and (j), or in section 20(2) below; or

(b) any body on which a body which is a relevant authority by virtue of paragraph (a) above is represented and which is designated as a relevant authority for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and references in this section to an appointed member, in relation to a relevant authority, are references to any person who is a member of the authority without being a councillor or who is a member of one or more of the authority's committees or sub-committees without being a member of the authority."

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
2 Line 77, leave out second 'or'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to Lords Amendment No. 1. At the same time I shall speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to Lords Amendment No. 1, Commons Amendment No. 24 to Lords Amendment No. 23 and Commons consequential Amendment No. 25.
These are all minor technical amendments to the provisions on councillors allowances which this House agreed at Report stage should be included in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to the new clause to be inserted after Clause 17 ensure that appeal committees set up by governors of maintained schools continue to be able to receive allowances under the new arrangements.
Amendment No. 4 enables the Secretary of State to provide that members of bodies to which the provisions apply are to be treated as councillors for the purpose of the new allowances. Without this members of the London and metropolitan joint authorities would not be able to receive attendance or special responsibility allowance as they do at present. Finally, Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 make minor changes to the repeal of the existing provisions for allowances for members of the Broads Authority.
The amendments are necessary if the new arrangements for councillors' allowances are to operate effectively and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to Lords Amendment No. 1. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have no objection to the content of these amendments. They do indeed remedy errors which were made when earlier amendments were introduced during the passage of the Bill. However, we are reaching a stage where the Government are rethinking a Bill as it proceeds on its course and the situation has got beyond a joke. It is bad enough for this enormous number of amendments to be introduced during the
1230
Bill's proceedings in this House, but when we find that we do not even have it right when the Bill leaves this Chamber and that it must be corrected during consideration of Commons amendments to our amendments, the matter has really gone too far.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 1
3 After Clause 17, line 81, at end insert 'or (c) any appeal committee so designated which is constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 or 3 or Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980'.
4 Line 86, at end insert—
'(6) In this section any reference to a councillor includes a reference to a member of the authority concerned who, in accordance with regulations under this section, is to be treated as if he were a councillor.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg 'to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 106, page 98, at end insert "and

(b) where an application for an HMO grant is accompanied by a certificate under section 102(7) above; and

(c) where, by virtue of section 128 below, sections 101 and 102 above do not apply to an application for a grant; and

(d) where an application for a grant is a landlord's common parts application"

AS A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT 10 THE BILL
6 The Commons agreed to the above amendment and proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Page 99, line 8, at end insert— —
'( ) In a case where the application is a landlord's common parts application, each of the dwellings in the building concerned shall be taken into account under paragraph (b) or paragraph (bb) of subsection (2) above so as to determine an aggregate rent for the purposes of that subsection.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to Lords Amendment No. 5. I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 8 to Lords Amendment No. 7 and consequential Amendment No. 9.
The purpose of these three amendments is to clarify the operation of the common parts grant. The first is a consequential amendment to Clause 106 which sets out the matters to which a local authority should have regard in assessing the amount of a grant in the case of a landlord's application for common parts grant. It inserts a new subsection which parallels part of an amendment moved at Committee stage in this House dealing with HMO grants and provides for the rental income of each dwelling in a building to be taken into account. Without this amendment there is doubt as to whether the aggregate rental income could be assessed.

1231
The second is a minor amendment to another amendment moved in Committee. It clarifies the persons from whom grant can be recovered in the event of the sale of a building in respect of which a landlord has received a common parts grant.
The third is a consequential amendment to Clause 117 which provides a similar clarification in relation to the voluntary repayment of grant.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to Lords Amendment No. 5. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may make a point on Amendment No. 9 to which the noble Lord has just spoken. There is a misprint in the third line of the wording. I must ask whether it is within the competence of the draftsman to put this right. Obviously the draftsman cannot make any alteration which alters the sense of a parliamentary provision. However, equally he has full entitlement to do what he wishes about paragraphing and punctuation so long as it does not alter the sense of the wording. But in this case the intended insertion of the words "successor in title" is quite meaningless. I hope therefore that the draftsman can make the correction on his own initiative.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. I believe that I am right when I say that the draftsman can make the correction.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is too modest in his own defence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was reading a version that I have and which was published last Thursday. If the Minister looks at his white copy which was published today he will see that the error has already been corrected.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House and in particular myself are extremely grateful for the accurate observation made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
7 After Clause 115, insert the following new clause —
"Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application
.—(1) This section applies where a landlord's common parts application has been approved by a local housing authority.
(2) It is a condition of the grant that where the applicant makes a relevant disposal (other than an exempt disposal) of the building within the initial period, he shall pay to the local housing authority on demand the amount of the grant.
(3) A condition under subsection (2) above is a local land charge and shall, subject to subsection (5) and section 117 below, remain in force with respect to the building for a period of five years from the certified date.
(4) So long as a condition under subsection (2) above remains in force with respect to a building it is binding on any person who is for the time being an owner of the building.
(5) On satisfaction of the liability arising from a demand under this section, any condition under subsection (2) above shall cease to be in force with respect to the building in question.
(6) The expressions "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal" have the meanings assigned by section 116 below."
8 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 13, leave out 'an owner of the building' and insert 'a successor in title to that interest in the building by virtue of which, under section (Common parts grants: preliminary conditions) (2)(b) above, the applicant made his application'.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AS A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
9 The Commons proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Page 107, line 37, at end insert—
In the case of a grant condition imposed on a landlord's common parts application any reference in subsection (2) above to the owner of the building is a reference to the applicant or any such successor in title as is referred to in section (Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application) (4) above.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 After Clause 140, insert the following new clause —
"Charges: temporary traffic signs
.Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary, or the provisions of sections 138 to 140 above, a highway authority may not impose a charge for permitting temporary traffic signs to be placed on or near any road in their area by an organisation representative of road users under section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by the Roads [Scotland) Act 1984 in its application to Scotland."
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Insert the following new clause—
'Charges: temporary traffic signs
.—(1) In section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (powers and duties of highways authorities and roads authorities as to placing of traffic signs) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) No charge may be made—

(a) in England and Wales, by a highway authority which is the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London, or

(b) in Scotland, by a local roads authority, with respect to the exercise of their power under subsection (1) above to permit a traffic sign to be placed on or near any road in their area if—

(i) the sign conveys information of a temporary nature or is otherwise intended to be placed only temporarily; and

(ii) the sign is to be placed by a body which is prescribed for the purposes of this subsection as being a body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the interests of road users or any class of road users."

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where, before this section comes into force, the payment of a charge has been agreed.'.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof.
At Report stage on 25th October, we accepted an amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Erroll of Hale to prohibit authorities from charging for permitting the erection of temporary traffic signs. We did so in the expectation that a code of practice could be evolved between each of the parties to ensure greater consistency in the exercise of the statutory powers to allow such signs for sports meetings, exhibitions and other public gatherings attracting considerable volumes of traffic. I understand that talks to that end have already begun. The Government also undertook to look closely at the wording and to come forward with a government amendment, if necessary, at a later stage. Amendment No. 11 fulfils that promise. I have only a few comments by way of explanation.
The amendment, in the form of an insertion to Section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in substance reflects Amendment No. 10; that is to say, it prohibits local authorities from charging for permitting the erection of temporary traffic signs by organisations like the RAC, the AA and the CTC. It does so in a slightly different and, we believe, improved form in the following respects.
First, it makes quite clear which authorities are affected. The charging exemption is limited to local authorities in their capacity as highway authorities, or, in Scotland, roads authorities. It would be beyond the scope of the Bill to fetter the Secretary of State's powers in that respect, although I hasten to add that, in his capacity as highway authority, he has never sought to impose charges in connection with the matters under discussion.
Secondly, it defines more clearly what is meant by a temporary traffic sign, for the purpose of the charging exemption. The information may be of a temporary nature, or the placing of the sign may be for a temporary period. Both are covered.
The amendment leaves open to the Secretary of State the matter of prescribing in detail those bodies which are to benefit from the charging exemption. That is thought preferable to the reference in Amendment No. 10 to
"organisations representative of road users",
which is too imprecise. The bodies that the Secretary of State may include in any prescribed list would be those appearing to him to be representative of the interests of road users. They would certainly include the AA, and the RAC. Prescription would be by regulations, by virtue of the application of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and would be subject to consultation in the usual way. That is a better approach and will ensure that the right people are included. Application to Scotland is automatically
1234
provided by virtue of paragraph 93 of Schedule 9 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
Lastly, provision is included in subsection (2) to deal with any necessary transitional arrangements before the new clause comes into force.
With those few words of explanation I hope that your Lordships will be happy to accept the Government Amendment as a suitable substitute for Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
12 Before Clause 145, insert the following new clause—
"Housing accommodation
.—(1) Part II of the Housing Act 1985 (Provision of Housing Accomodation) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 32 —
"32A —No condition shall be attached by the Secretary of State to the payment of grant to a local housing authority, or to the giving of a consent to:

(i) the disposal of land, or

(ii) the use of funds, or

(iii) the payment of grant to a housing association

by a local authority, which would require such authority or housing association to grant occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3,000 people or less."
(2) Part II of the Housing Act 1988 (Housing Associations) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 50 —
"50A —No condition shall be attached by the Housing Corporation to the payment of grant to a housing association or to the giving of consent to the use of funds by a housing association, which would require such housing association to grant to occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3,000 people or less."
13 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
because it alters the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed to be sufficient.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13 but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
13A Before Clause 161, insert the following new clause—
("Housing accommodation)
—(1) Part II of the Housing Act 1985 (Provision of Housing Accommodation) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 32—
"32A —No condition shall be attached by the Secretary of State to the payment of grant to a local housing authority, or to the giving of a consent to —

(i) the disposal of land, or

(ii) the use of funds, or

(iii) the payment of grant to a housing association

by a local authority, which would require such authority or housing association to grant occupiers a right to

1235
acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in an area eligible for investment under any programme designated by the Housing Corporation for development in rural areas, or such other area as the Corporation may consider it appropriate to designate, except in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) No condition as specified in subsection (1) above shall be specified except where the Secretary of State has certified that no funding available from the Corporation to a housing association for the purpose of repurchasing that dwelling at a subsequent date is or would be funding which would otherwise be available to a housing association for the purpose of providing housing in an area other than an area eligible or designated in accordance with this section."
(2) Part II of the Housing Act 1988 (Housing Associations) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 50 —
"50A —No condition shall be attached by the Housing Corporation to the payment of grant to a housing association or to the giving of consent to the use of funds by a housing association, which would require such housing association to grant to occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in an area eligible for investment under any programme designated by the Corporation for development in a rural area, or any other area which the Corporation has designated for the purposes of section 32A of the Housing Act 1985, except where a certificate has been issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with that section".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter came to our attention only at the last stages of the Commons consideration of our amendment on Wednesday evening of last week. Some noble Lords will recall that we had a considerable debate throughout almost all stages of the Bill on the Government's initial proposal to extend the right to buy to dwellings which were particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age. The amendment was first brought in late at night on a small vote. We then altered it on Report by a much larger vote.
Subsequent discussions took place between all parties concerned. I understand that the proposals which the Government have now made are acceptable to those parties and, in particular, to the noble. Lord, Lord Stanley, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association which were most concerned about the matter.
I must apologise for what I have just said about the right to buy for the elderly. I did not mean to talk about that subject; I meant to talk about the right to buy in staircasing circumstances in rural areas. I was confusing the matter with the next debate. The principle is the same and the issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
What the noble Lord proposes to do as a result of his amendment being overturned is of course his affair. I understand that he is satisfied with the result. I can confirm that if the amendment affected only rural areas we too would be satisfied with the result. Unfortunately it does not, because the Government's solution to the problem of affordable housing in rural areas is to give the Housing Corporation the right to divert to rural areas some of its finances from other purposes in its approved development programme. By definition, that means that unless the Housing Corporation's approved development programme is increased by an appropriate amount, damage will be done to housing
1236
provision in urban areas. It is for that reason that we have tabled the Motion which, although it appears at first glance to repeat the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, does not do so. It refers only to the issue of maintaining investment in housing in urban areas.
The matter is of considerable importance to all who are concerned with housing and has been recognised as important by the Housing Corporation which lays great stress on its regional allocation policy (the regional allocation of its funds). The Housing Corporation has pointed out that there are unacceptably high levels of statutory homelessness. We know that 70 per cent. of the homeless are found in London and the metropolitan areas. For example, of the 12,000 people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, 7,500 are to be found in London; of the nearly 15,000 people in temporary accommodation, 10,000 are to found in London.
The Housing Corporation recognises that there are regions of stock shortage which need to be tackled with the highest priority. It has been criticised by the National Audit Office for its failure to target expenditure to areas of greatest need.
The difference in monetary terms of the proposals for repurchase schemes in rural areas may not be great. The Housing Corporation said that it did not expect the repurchase scheme to have a significant impact for some years. Nevertheless, unless specific provision is made in government expenditure plans to recoup for urban areas that money which they would otherwise lose as a result of the welcome concessions to rural areas, justice will not have been done; the aims of the Housing Corporation will not have been achieved; and the criticisms by the National Audit Office of the Housing Corporation will be reinforced. I appreciate that tomorrow we are to have the Autumn Financial Statement. I appreciate that it will be impossible for the Minister to anticipate that Statement, and I do not expect him to do so. However, I ask him to help the House so far as he possibly can.
I wish to ask first whether he agrees with the Housing Corporation and the National Audit Office on the importance which should be given to areas of greatest need in the distribution of government finance towards housing. I should like him to deny, if possible, that it was the intention of the Government, in proposing these Commons amendments, to penalise urban areas. I cannot believe that it really was. I should very much like to be convinced that it was simply an oversight or something which could not be dealt with until the Autumn Statement had been made.
If by any chance there is no help that he can give to the House, I should like him to urge his right honourable friends —even at this late stage —that in the Autumn Statement they should seek to protect the areas of greatest need from what would otherwise be a loss of financial provision for housing in urban areas. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13 but agree to Amendment No. 13A in lieu thereof. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as well as to Amendment No. 12, which I moved at Report stage.
I am prepared to accept for a trial period the Government's alternative to the amendment proposed at Report stage by your Lordships. This is not least because of the increasing concern and the actions that the Government have taken over rural housing during the past 18 months. We —or perhaps I should say they —have come a long way and it would be churlish not to accept that the Government wish to continue to improve matters. Assuming that my noble friend will repeat the Statement made by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard in another place, I have just three queries on that Statement.
First, my honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard said in another place that he had invited the Housing Corporation to increase its programme. Perhaps my noble friend will say whether that is a definite commitment by the Government and that the Housing Corporation has accepted it. Secondly, am I correct in thinking that the repurchase arrangements will apply to the current year's programme? If so, when will the Housing Corporation implement the arrangements? Time is not on our side; we are reaching the end of the year.
Thirdly, are the Government committed to a review of the scheme in 18 months' time, if there is sufficient evidence? I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I had a feeling that there would be sufficient evidence, particularly in the urban areas if not in the rural ones.
That leads me to comment briefly on Amendment No. 13A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It suggested that the Government may be tempted to rob Peter to pay Paul, or whichever way it is. I do not believe that the noble Lord's concern is justified. I sincerely hope that it is not, but I suppose the noble Lord would suggest that I would say that anyway. He knows that I was originally concerned about the matter; he also knows why I withdrew the amendment.
I have to tell your Lordships that not all the 19 organisations that supported your Lordships' amendment at Report stage are as content as I am with the Government's scheme; so it will be essential to review these proceedings. I know that my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Jopling will do that in another place.
However, the main reason I do not wish to press the original amendment which your Lordships supported so strongly is that I only think that our amendment was better than that of the Government. I do not know. Therefore I strongly encouraged those organisations to accept the government scheme. I do so again today to your Lordships.
Finally, I reiterate my thanks to those organisations which asked me to move the original amendment, although at times I felt that I had a tiger by the tail; which tiger I now happily give to my noble friend Lord Hesketh and his advisers. I
1238
wish to acknowledge their courtesy and help throughout.
Lord Walston: My Lords, it is good that this compromise has been worked out. As other noble Lords have said, it is reasonably satisfactory. It is also certainly good that it has the agreement of all those who are concerned and knowledgeable about this very important matter. I think that we should be deluding ourselves if we did not realise that there are considerable doubts in many minds as to whether these new arrangements will deliver the goods in the way that we in this House wish them to and —judging by the speech of the Minister in another place —in the way that the Government wish.
I should like to emphasise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, made —that the whole matter should be reviewed within 18 months. It is very important that we should not give a blank cheque today and allow this compromise to be accepted and then forget all about it. We should not then say to ourselves, "Everybody has agreed, so we needn't worry any more". Although everybody has agreed, there are doubts and reservations. I hope the Government will be able to say firmly that within the next 18 months —by which time there will be ample evidence on whether the scheme is working or not —they will review the situation and that if necessary they will propose steps to put matters right if the scheme is not going right.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I wish to deal with one or two points which have already been raised. This is allegedly an acceptable compromise, although we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, say that not everybody is satisfied with it.
I wish to quote from an article in the Housing Associations Weekly which appeared on 10th November. That is a weekly publication which goes round all the housing associations. The article states:
"The government last week threatened to withdraw funding for shared ownership schemes in rural areas, forcing rebel Conservative MPs and housing lobby groups to abandon attempts to restrict staircasing".
It is stated later in the article:
"Barney Holbeche, parliamentary advisor of the NFU, said"—
he is much involved in these matters, as noble Lords will know —
'If we had successfully insisted on the amendment staying in the bill, of course it would be an option available to the government to turn off the tap for shared ownership in rural areas'
Moira Constable, director of the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust, said in a letter explaining her organisation's decision to drop its opposition: 'It does not take long 'or anyone to work out that, had the clause to remove the right to staircase survived, government would have needed no statutory powers simply to cut off Housing Corporation funding for rural shared ownership schemes.
'The powers to withhold consent for district councils to assist shared ownership also exist. We believe that there was a very strong risk that these powers would have been quickly invoked' ".
I hope the Government can say categorically that those strong-arm tactics were not used in getting this compromise on to the Marshalled List this afternoon. If they were used in any way, I think it

1239
would undermine the confidence that many people have expressed in this compromise. It seems to me that this is a workable compromise, provided that there can be assurances that the money will not come from the urban areas. I recognise that the Minister may have difficulty in saying that to the House today.
It is very important that we do not rob Peter to pay Paul in the way the money went in the other direction only a couple of years ago. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, among others, complaining about the way in which the Housing Corporation was forcing money from the rural areas to the urban areas at that time. I believe that in the Isle of Wight there were particular problems. There were certainly problems in the West Country, where I live. The Government are not against robbing Peter to pay Paul as a matter of principle. They have done it once in one direction and I hope they will not do it in the other direction in order to fund this scheme. I am extremely leery about the compromise that has been reached. We would be wise to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in this matter.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should make it quite clear that at no time was I threatened and to the best of my knowledge at no time was the NFU threatened.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as I have not sat down, I should say that I have published material in front of me. I am asking the Government to deny that what is in the material happened. If that is the case, the Government are being seriously misrepresented.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have already had two extremely full and frank debates on the subject of rural shared ownership in this House and the matter has also been debated extensively in another place. The debates have reflected widespread concern about the provision of low cost housing for local needs in rural areas. This is a concern that the Government share. We all recognise the needs of people whose families are growing up and whose children now want to establish separate homes and of people who are coming in new to the local workforce such as our teachers and our nurses and others who are vital to the survival of the rural communities.
The question is how we can best achieve this. Following the amendment which was carried against the Government on Report, we held discussions with those most closely concerned to see whether we could come up with a better scheme than the one we had already, one which met the concerns that had been expressed in debate and which would at the same time meet the Government's objective of enabling those who wished and could afford to do so to own their own homes. I am happy to say that we have done so. I am most grateful to those people for their assistance. Without that I am sure that the scheme which we propose to operate would not have been nearly as focused or effective as it is and will be.
Let me recall the main elements that my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning outlined in another place. He made it
1240
clear in terms that funds to operate the pre-emption scheme would be available from the Housing Corporation at the time they were needed. Let me repeat that assurance today. The Housing Corporation will fund on demand housing associations which want to repurchase properties within the scheme. It will do so with the full authority of the Government from the approved development programme. It will make it absolutely clear in writing when a property is first accepted into the scheme that the repurchase arrangements will apply. In the helpful words that my noble friend Lord Vinson used to me in discussion, there will be a site-specific undertaking indicating that the shared ownership housing on a particular site is subject to the repurchase arrangements.
The amount of Housing Corporation funding will normally be that which is necessary to enable the property to be resold for shared ownership, with the shared owner buying the same proportion of equity as the first shared owner had originally bought. Concern has been expressed that the Housing Corporation would expect associations to use their reserves to fund that repurchase. That is not so with one exception which I think is a very fair one. Where an association has in its reserves moneys clearly attributable to the purchase by the shared owner of additional tranches of equity, it is only right that the proceeds it has realised on that specific property should be ploughed back into its repurchase. Otherwise the Housing Corporation will fund the amount that is necessary for the association to return to the original proportion of equity. In appropriate cases the corporation will be prepared to make additional grant available so that the new purchaser can acquire a lower share. It may be, for example, that the initial purchaser acquired a 50 per cent. stake but that a subsequent purchaser for whatever reason can afford only a 25 per cent. stake. That is something which the Housing Corporation will look at very carefully in the light of all the circumstances of the time.
The Government strongly support the case for an expanding programme of low cost housing in rural areas. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning showed that commitment when he invited the Housing Corporation to propose a significant increase in its special rural programme for rented housing to allow 1,000 approvals next year, 1,200 in 1991 to 1992 and 1,500 in 1992 to 1993. He invited it to identify separately for the first time a rural element within its low cost home ownership programme to allow 250 approvals next year, 300 in 1991 to 1992 and 350 in 1992 to 1993. None of these approval targets would be affected by the demand for repurchase funds.
Concern has been expressed that the funds the corporation will need to operate the repurchase scheme could erode the amounts available for rural housing. I assure the House that repurchase funds will not be found from the amounts set aside within the Housing Corporation programme for rented accommodation or shared ownership in rural areas. They will be additional to it. The funds will form part of the approved development programme.

1241
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed his concern this afternoon that this measure would be at the expense of the housing needs of the inner cities. Housing associations have been in the forefront of improving conditions in inner city areas from the earliest days of the movement. They have achieved much but there is still a great deal to do. The Housing Corporation first designated urban stress areas to which investment would be targeted in 1985. This has been reflected in its allocation policies. Since they were first designated, stress areas have received annually well over 70 per cent. of the corporation's investment programme. That is a substantial proportion. The Government have already demonstrated their commitment to the housing association movement by planning significant increases in the Housing Corporation's capital expenditure.
I must not anticipate the Autumn Statement which is to be made tomorrow, but I have no doubt that it will further demonstrate the continuing and substantial commitment on the part of the Government. On our best estimates the cost of the pre-emption scheme in the middle of the next decade will be less than one half of 1 per cent. of the ADP —that is an ADP whose level will have been set in the knowledge of the way in which the pre-emption scheme works. I must make it absolutely clear that this has been allowed for in our expenditure provision. This expansion of the resources available for schemes in rural areas is perfectly compatible with a continuing and increasing programme of activity in the inner cities and elsewhere. We believe it would not be wise to make separate provision for it.
The noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Walston, drew your Lordships' attention to the review of the pre-emption scheme. It has been suggested that 18 months could be too early and a period of two to three years possibly more appropriate. The reason for that possibility is that the two main points of review which are essential to assess are the amount of land that is available and the success of the pre-emption scheme in its workings. I suggest that within a period of 18 months not a great deal will have happened. However, the department can always be convinced by reasonable argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to strong-arm tactics. I was very grateful for the references of my noble friend Lord Stanley to the fact that he had not come across any such tactics. I must say that during the tortuous negotiations that I entered into on this issue I felt that I was at the end of strong-arm tactics rather than the reverse position that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, described.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must ask the noble Lord whether he will specifically deny the allegations that were made in the quotations that I read out.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have been involved in the negotiations for a considerable length of time and I deny categorically that any of the occurrences
1242
that have been described happened. We shall of course implement the scheme and I shall direct the Housing Corporation immediately, so that if cases can be brought forward this year they can be dealt with. Finally, the crux of the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made was whether we were robbing Peter to pay Paul. I can say that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may take a moment to deal with the relatively minor point of the trial period before moving on to the major impact of what the Minister has just said.
The problem with the trial period, as will be obvious, is that many landowners will delay acting on the new provisions in order to see how the trial period works. The effect, paradoxically, will be that the trial period will not work. However, we are grateful to the Minister for his indication that the Government are still open to argument and that the period and nature of the trial are not necessarily set in stone.
The important part of what the Minister said lies in his description of the way in which the authorised development programme of the Housing Corporation will be set. I appreciate, and have appreciated from the outset, that he could not anticipate the Autumn Statement. He said that the authorised development programme will be set in the knowledge of the scheme which is proposed by the government amendments and that the sum required has been allowed for in the authorised development programme. I do not believe that I could ask for more than those statements. It is clear that our arguments have been recognised. It is clear from the final words of the Ministers speech that it is not the Government's intention 1hat housing in urban areas should suffer even marginally from the concessions which have been made for rural areas.
In the circumstances, although what has been said is to be found not on the face of the Bill but only in statements from the Government Dispatch Box, it would be wrong for me to seek the opinion of the House on the matter. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 13A, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
14 After Clause 146, insert the following new clause—
Removal of exception to the right to buy
".—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy) paragraph 11 (dwelling-house particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age etc.) shall apply to a dwelling-house as thereunder determined by the Secretary of State only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of

1243
Royal Assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify.
(2) The operation of subsection (1) above in relation to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 does not affect the operation of that paragraph in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the repeal comes into force unless, at that time, no notice in response had been served under section 124 of that Act (landlord's notice admitting or denying the right to buy).
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes)."
15 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Insert the following new clause—
Exceptions to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age
'.—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy), for paragraph 11 (certain dwelling-house for persons of pensionable age) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that it is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house.
(2) The Secretary of State shall so determine if and only if he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and

(b) was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).

(3) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this paragraph disregard the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.
(4) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within the period for service of the landlord's notice under section 124 (notice admitting or denying right to buy).
(5) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1st January 1990."
(2) Subsection (I) above does not apply in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15 in lieu thereof. At the same time I should like to speak to consequential Amendment No. 16; Lords Amendment No. 17 and the Commons reason numbered 18 for disagreeing to it; Lords Amendment No. 19 and Commons Amendment No. 20 in lieu thereof, and Lords Amendment No. 26 and the Commons reason numbered 27.
This group of amendments is about the right to buy as it concerns dwellings particularly suitable for elderly people. The Commons amendment proposed as an alternative to Lords Amendment No. 14 fulfils the commitment that I gave at Third Reading to bring forward amendments reflecting the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Report and carried against the Government.
1244
Amendment No. 15 would give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the task of making determinations to exclude from the right to buy individual dwellings which are not sheltered housing but which are particularly suitable for people of pensionable age. Such determinations could only be made, however, in respect of existing housing. Housing for elderly people which was first let on or after 1st January 1990 would be within the right to buy unless it was part of a sheltered scheme with special facilities. I believe that we have arrived at a reasonable compromise on the basis of the amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Report.
The Secretary of State's jurisdiction to make determinations excluding existing properties from the right to buy will extend to elderly persons' housing in small communities which has been provided with some form of call system but does not fit the definition of sheltered housing. If an existing dwelling is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly people, and has been so let, the Secretary of State will be required to exclude it from the right to buy. I think that that goes a long way towards meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, about housing in rural areas which is almost sheltered housing.
Amendment No. 15 brings within the right to buy dwellings which are suitable for elderly people but have been let for occupation by a disabled person. Amendment No. 15 thus supersedes Lords Amendment No. 17, which derives from an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, at Third Reading. The noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), also drew the attention of the House to the position of disabled people who are not of pensionable age but have been denied the right to buy on the ground that their homes are particularly suitable for elderly people. Amendment No. 15 meets the point, because the Secretary of State will only be able to determine that a property should be excluded from the right to buy if it is particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age and has been let for occupation by an elderly person.
The consequential government amendment, Amendment No. 16, provides for the new provisions to come into force on a day appointed by statutory instrument. As the Bill stands they would come into operation on Royal Assent, which would not allow enough time to set up arrrangements for landlords to apply for determinations.
Commons Amendment No. 20, in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 19, provides that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, housing for elderly persons other than sheltered housing first let before 1st January 1990 should not be sold if the Secretary of State so determines in respect of a particular dwelling. I should explain that there is no reference to the Secretary of State on the face of the Bill because, in relation to Scotland, he already has the function of making determinations under Section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Amendment No. 26 was consequential on the original proposal to repeal Section 69, and is therefore no longer necessary.

1245
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, commented at Third Reading:
"I think that we have reached a satisfactory result of quite complex negotiations and a complex debate on the Floor of the House." —[Official Report, 1/11/89; col 317.]
I believe that the House as a whole will share his view, and I commend Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 20 to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15 in lieu thereof. —(Lord Hesketh.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the situation is now far better than it was when we debated the Bill and the right to sell applied to houses that had been adapted for the elderly. That was a point about which many of us felt very strongly.
I have only one regret and that is that Section 11(5) of Amendment No. 15 does not apply unless the dwelling-house was first let before 1st January 1990. That means that the number of houses covered by the exemption is limited. After January 1990 houses that are built or specially adapted for the elderly, involving a great deal of investment by the local authorities, will be available for sale like any other housing.
Although I accept that in the circumstances my noble friend Lord McIntosh obtained the best compromise, I cannot let the amendment go by without saying that I feel that it is a great pity. It means that there will be a severely limited and reducing number of houses designed specifically for the elderly which can be passed on to others without passing out of the system entirely, as will happen if they are allowed to be sold. That will be the situation after January 1990.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to see that the Government, in Commons Amendment No. 15, have removed all reference to dwellings particularly suitable for disabled people, because by the removal of my Amendment No. 17 disabled people would still have had considerable difficulty.
I am delighted by the assurance of my noble friend that from now on disabled people will have the right to buy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will appreciate the depth of interest and concern which my noble friend Lady Birk has expressed. She has been involved in the frequent debates on the issue which have taken place over the past decade. She was involved on the first occasion on which the Government were defeated on this matter in a Division in your Lordships' House. But she confirmed what I confirmed; namely, that, as the Minister reported in his speech, it is not perfect. There are still things which we should like to have done, but we believe that we have come to a conclusion of the matter which is substantially better than that originally proposed by the Government. In those circumstances, I shall not oppose the
1246
amendments that the Commons have proposed to our amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
16 The Commons proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Clause 164, page 146, line 3, after '146 insert lException to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age)'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 16. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
17 After Clause 146, insert the following new clause—
("Amendment to exercise of right to buy with respect to certain dwelling-houses
(1) Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act (which deals with exceptions to the right to buy) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In paragraph 11(1)(b) the words "or physically disabled person" shall be omitted.
(3) The amendment by this section of the said paragraph 11(1)(b) shall not affect the operation of that paragraph in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the coming into force of this section, unless at that time no notice in response had been served under section 124 of the 1985 Act; landlord's notice admitting or denying the right to buy.)
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the 1985 Act (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).")
18 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
because it is inconsistent with the Amendment offered in lieu of the Lords Amendment to insert a new Clause (removal of exception to the right to buy) after Clause 146.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 18.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 18.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
19 After Clause 154, insert the following new clause—
"Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland
(1) Section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (Secretary of State's power to authorise refusal to sell certain houses provided for persons of pensionable age) shall apply to a dwelling-house only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of Royal Assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify.
(2) Any application under subsection (2) of that section received by the Secretary of State before the date of commencement of this section but in respect of which no offer to sell under section 63 or notice of refusal under section 69(4) of that Act has been served by the landlord by that date shall be treated as if it had never been made."
20 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Insert the following new Clause—
'Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland.
In section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (Secretary of Slate's power to authorise refusal to sell certain houses provided for persons of pensionable age) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection
"(1A) This section applies only to houses first let on a secure tenancy before 1st January 1990.".'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20 in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20 in lieu thereof. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
21 Schedule 5, page 173, line 35, leave out "In Schedule 11, in" and insert "Schedule 11 (tribunals) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2 (jurisdiction) the following paragraph shall be inserted at the end —
"(c) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4A above,"
(3) In"
22 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 5, leave out '5' and insert '4'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this is simply a drafting amendment to correct an erroneous cross-reference. It ensures that a ratepayer's appeal against a completion notice served on him by a charging authority can be heard by a valuation and community charge tribunal. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22 to Lords Amendment No. 21.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22 to Lords Amendment No. 21. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Schedule 11, page 219, line 18, column 3, at end insert —
"In section 177, subsection (2A) and in subsection (3), the words "(but not for the purposes of subsection (2A) above)". Section 17A. In section 178, in subsection (1), the words "and 177A"."
24 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 6, at end insert 'and subsection (5)'
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24 to Lords Amendment No. 23. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AS A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
25 The Commons proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Page 223, line 4, at end insert—
'1988 c. 4. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. In schedule 6, in paragraph 10, sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 25.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 25. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
26 Schedule 11, page 222. line 55, column 3, at beginning insert—
"Section 69."
27 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason —
because it is inconsistent with the Amendment offered in lieu of the Lords Amendment to insert a new Clause (Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland) after Clause 154.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Habitat and Species Protection: ECC Report
4.3 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Habitat and Species Protection ( 15th Report, HL Paper 72).
The noble Earl Said: My Lords, in August last year the Commission of the European Communities proposed a draft directive on the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats and wild flora and fauna. I understand that this was the subject of three working group meetings last autumn, but it was not tabled at the November 1988 Environment Council as had been expected. The history of the document is laid out on page 2 of the evidence of the Department of the Environment in the report that is before us this afternoon.
Sub-Committee F of the Select Committee on the European Communities felt that the subject raised issues of real importance to the environment of the Community and also one of considerable public interest. The sub-committee therefore resolved to undertake an inquiry, but agreed at the start that it should not concentrate on the detail of the Commission's original draft because it seemed likely that this would be subject to considerable amendment before it was ultimately considered in Council.
Those invited to submit evidence were asked to consider their evidence with regard to two issues.
The first was the extent to which the United Kingdom and other member states of the Community were meeting their obligations under the existing Birds Directive and under international conventions; namely, Bonn, Berne and Ramsar. The second issue upon which witnesses were invited to give us their views was the role that the European Community should play in the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats of wild flora and fauna within the Community.
For the inquiry our specialist adviser was Mr. Robin Grove-White and we owe a great deal to him for his assistance. I believe that I saw the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, in his place a moment ago. I note with regret the unfortunate omission of his name from the list of noble Lords who took part. He was a valued member of our committee and his name was inadvertently dropped from the list which appears in Appendix 1. The individuals and organisations who submitted evidence are listed in Appendix 2 and their evidence is printed with the report.
The sub-committee also visited the Commission of the European Communities in Brussels and paid a visit to Italy where we met our opposite numbers, the Environment Committee of the Italian Senate. That was an extremely useful visit because it brought us face to face with problems encountered in a southern member state of the European Community which are of a totally different nature from the problems of conservation and protection of the environment with which we are familiar in our own country. A description of the visit to Italy is found in Appendix 4 and a transcript of our evidence session at Brussels is found on pages 165 to 203.
It became clear in the course of our inquiry that wild flora, wild fauna and their habitats are now facing increasingly acute pressures in many parts of the European Community. That was clear from the substantial body of evidence provided by, among others, the Institute for European Environmental Policy, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and Wildlife Link and from the Commission's own observation:
"that the range of wildlife and natural ecosystems present in the Community now is less than it has been for thousands of years; and the rate of decline and loss is probably greater than it has ever been".
In that respect there is a difference between the northern member states and the southern member states of the Community. In northern Community centres agricultural intensification, land drainage and similar developments have already led to diminutions of habitat, reduction in the ranges of wild species and population losses affecting both animals and plants. It has placed many supposedly protected areas under acute pressure. In the southern member states by contrast greater biological diversity persists; but it is here that industrial and agricultural changes are now producing new and severe pressures on the natural inheritance of wild plants and wild animals.
That difference was amply displayed during our visit to Brussels when we saw the CORINE
1250
programme which has been supported by DG XI. That programme has identified more than 5,000 sites which are considered to be of European significance. The majority of those are in southern member states.
The report looks first at the evidence on international conventions and the Birds Directive. Paragraphs 16 to 23 deal with the Berne Convention, paragraphs 24 to 28 with the Birds Directive, paragraphs 29 to 31 with the Ramsar Convention and paragraph 32 with the Bonn Convention. I shall leave noble Lords to read the evidence that we received on those international conventions. The report next looks at the evidence received from witnesses on their opinion of the appropriate role for the European Community in this field.
I can say that there was universal consensus that Articles 130R and 1305 of the Single European Act now provide an undoubted legal basis for Community environmental measures,. It was put to us by the Institute of European Environmental Policy that the real issue now is how responsibilities are to be shared between the Community and member states.
The important issue of habitat protection versus other Community policies was also raised. It was noted by our witnesses that developments that are being sponsored by the Community's structural funds —notably, the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the guidance section of the Agricultural Fund —are now a growing source of concern for environmental reasons. Examples are given in the evidence.
The significant point is that spending under the structural funds is to double between 1989 and 1993. That will involve a total expenditure of around the equivalent of £35 billion. It will account for more than 30 per cent. of the Community's budget by 1993. Given the impact that so me of these developments will have, particularly in the southern member states where, as I have already pointed out, there is greater richness but also greater sensitivity and more threat to the environment, this is a matter of great importance. The committee did not receive evidence that sufficient attention was being paid to that point.
We noted that the Commission has recently drawn up what are called "internal instructions" which are aimed at screening member states' proposals for plans, programmes and projects under the structural funds. These have come into force since April this year in a non-obligatory way; but the Commission's staff is quite inadequate to deal with the proper monitoring of the environmental impacts of this very large expenditure.
Witnesses also brought before us evidence to show that the Community's agricultural policies have already led throughout the Community to serious losses of habitats and species and that the pressure of Community-funded agricultural change is now escalating in the southern states and in Ireland. The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) drew particular attention to gaps in Community and national legislation which concern the protection of individual landscape features such as hedges and walls, as well as broad tracts of semi-natural

1251
vegetation. Some of the evidence that we heard emphasised the importance of the conservation of the wider countryside, particularly in the southern member states.
We noted that, in the European Parliament's debate on the implementation of the Berne and Bonn Conventions, the issue of hunting dominated. In Italy we found that this issue divides the nation. While we were there a message was brought from the Straits of Messina, where migrating honey buzzards were crossing that morning and being shot as they reached landfall on the toe of Italy. That brought home to us very vividly the position of conservation in Italy.
Our witnesses felt that it was essential to have Community funding to encourage and support nature protection both by national authorities and individuals. That was regarded also by DG XI as an essential ingredient in the successful completion of a programme for the protection of the environment.
I move on to the opinion of the committee, which was convinced that, as we say in paragraph 71:
"Few aspirations of European Community environmental policy are more important than that of protecting the range of wild species and their habitats existing within the Community's boundaries".
The committee believes that member states, including the United Kingdom, now face a choice in that field: either member states equip themselves through their own domestic administrations with a genuinely European perspective or they will find it forced upon them by popular pressure. That will lead the Community to step in to fill the gap.
The committee was persuaded that there is a certain level of protection appropriate for Community action. Certain lists can be obtained of species and habitats that require protection at Community level. At this time of rapid social and economic change the Community must give higher priority to the conservation of its remaining wild flora and fauna. The committee believes that it is important that the Community, whose spending under the regional, social and agricultural guidance funds has been responsible for major losses in habitat, should allocate a proportion of these resources to the development of adequate protective programmes. We noticed with regret that within our own administration there appears to be no mechanism for assessing the environmental impact of developments supported by structural funds.
The committee accepted that in the Berne Convention, to which this country is a signatory, there are serious weaknesses. But we believe that it is a useful forum for discussions at the international level on general conservation, on lists of species that require conservation and on habitats generally. We believe that the Berne Convention provides a valuable forum. The first of our major recommendations is that the new directive should make the full implementation of the Berne Convention a Community obligation for all member states.
The committee believes that the Commission itself should prepare a comparatively short list of species and habitats which are genuinely of European
1252
significance. We believe that this system, developed through the special protection areas proposed within the directive, would lead to designations of super-protected sites —sites that receive both national and Community-level protection. We say in paragraph 91 that we believe that this new system of designations:
"should confer a degree of absolute protection".
We have been taken to task for that infelicity. We discussed it later in committee and decided that what we meant to say was that for such sites any potentially damaging development proposals should be vetted both at Community level and at national level. That means that there must be a Community apparatus for assessing environmental impacts and matching national procedures which would be applied to this key group of Europeanly —if that is a possible word —significant sites.
The committee also felt that the progressive erosion of habitats in the wider countryside was a subject that needed to be addressed in the new directive. We believe therefore that the directive should specify that the governments of member states should develop explicit policies and programmes for safeguarding substantial areas of semi-natural vegetation. We accept that there should be periodic reports from member states to the Commission to show how the directive is being implemented.
In paragraph 98 we deal briefly with the Community Inspectorate I note that the issue of the environmental agency has moved very far since we first looked at this subject. Last night it was debated in another place, so I do not think that I have anything else to say on that matter. However, I think that one point can be made with emphasis; namely; the value of non-governmental organisations within the system that is developing in the European Community. Without the evidence from non-governmental organisations I believe that our committee would not have been able to discover all that it needed to know about the impact of the structural funds and the interrelationship between nature conservation and development in other member states of the European Community. It is only through papers provided by NGOs that we were able to discover these facts. We believe that the NGOs have played an important part in developing public pressure leading to the proposal of this directive. We also believe that well-informed NGOs are and will be effective in helping the Community to achieve conservation goals.
It is a feature of the inquiries of this Select Committee that we are often shooting at a running target. In this case the initial target was more evanescent than it normally is. In Appendix 3 to our report we printed the draft as it was available to us. I have since had sights of various later versions dating from September, October and into November. The revisions materially affect both the substance of the directive and its annexes. It is clear that a very different draft is now in existence. The early November version that I have seen has an amended Article 2 which refers to:

1253
"giving priority to the habitats of species for which the Community has special responsibility and to types of natural habitat of Community importance which constitute the shared natural heritage of member states".
That is exactly the approach that your Lordships' Select Committee felt was appropriate. We feel that it reflects the notion of subsidiarity as it is outlined in the Single European Act.
The next Environment Council meeting is on 28th November. I look forward to the contributions of the 10 other Members of your Lordships' House who will speak after me this afternoon. In particular I hope for a firm statement from my noble friend Lord Reay of the Government's intentions with regard to advancing this extremely important European directive in the forthcoming Environment Council under the presidency of France.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Habitat and Species Protection (15th Report, H.L. Paper 72). —(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Earl has done his usual comprehensive job in presenting our report. Indeed, he leaves very little for other members of the committee to say on it. I thank him for the way in which, in his capacity as chairman of the committee, he conducted the inquiry. He is a constant inspiration to the members of his committee. His tact and patience with those of us who may not see the point quite so quickly as he does is commendable.
The United Kingdom has a better record on nature protection than most other members of the Community. We have reserves of experience and expertise which could enable us to give a lead at European level. Because of our experience we are more aware also of what needs to be done in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the Community. My few remarks will be aimed at highlighting the need for effective international action to safeguard our wildlife heritage.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act was a step forward but it has proved ineffective even in its protection of special sites; and for the wider countryside it does nothing. In its recent report, Losing Ground, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation draws attention to the serious degradation of our countryside since the Second World War. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation, as most noble Lords will know, is the parent body of 48 wildlife trusts. It has therefore detailed nationwide information on changes in the countryside —the loss of flower-rich grasslands, of heathland, and of broadleaved woodland. The destruction of hedgerows is accelerating. Official figures show that annual losses of hedgerows of 2,900 miles per annum between 1969 and 1980 have increased to annual losses of 4,000 miles per annum between 1980 and 1985. In terms of loss of habitat it is easy to see what a very serious figure that is.
In my own county of Cambridgeshire, the Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust reports that loss of rough grassland is forcing barn owls to hunt on
1254
roadside verges where over 20 per cent. of the population die in motor accidents each year.
Our common lands, many of which are valuable havens for wildlife, are being eroded year by year for development. The protective legislation we were promised in the election manifesto of 1987 is still not in sight depite many questions which have been asked on the subject. Even those sites designated for special protection are not safe. A Parliamentary Question in another place on 22nd June this year gained the information that between 1st April 1984 and 31st March 1988, 687 sites of special scientific interest had sustained damage. That is about 14 per cent. of the total. That is an underestimate because the monitoring staff of the Nature Conservancy Council is inadequate due to underfunding. We have to assume that were we to have the correct figure of damage to sites of special scientific interest it would be much higher.
None of our protective designations gives total protection. In paragraph 64 of the report the Department of the Environment sets out its reasons for supporting this position. Nevertheless, it is obvious from much of the evidence that we were given that stronger protection must be available if we are to prevent further destruction of our natural heritage.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is particularly concerned about the threat to wetland habitat in Europe generally by drainage for agriculture, and in the United Kingdom by development of estuaries. Some of the bird species wintering in our estuaries represent a significant proportion of European populations and we have an international duty to protect them. No fewer than 57 of our estuaries qualify for designation under the Ramsar Convention or as special protection areas under the wild birds directive. Yet so far only 16 have been so designated.
Eight years have passed since the introduction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Yet of the seven sites that were identified during the passage of that Act as being suitable for marine nature reserves, only one has since been designated. Question after Question on the progress of the second marine nature reserve —I have another Question down for tomorrow —produces evasive and unhelpful replies.
We are now contemplating the dismembering of the Nature Conservancy Council. That is the body responsible for nature conservancy in the United Kingdom. It is the body which has gained us such a good international reputation. Dismembering it in the way that is being proposed is bound to weaken the cause of conservation in this country. By this country I mean the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland, Wales and probably Ireland also, although I know less about that.
It is at a time when Europe is likely to look to us for guidance. As the noble Earl said in his introduction, we are fortunate in having a number of articulate non-governmental organisations without whose efforts our home scene would be so much worse. However, their efforts need to be backed by national and international legislation, I hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will be

1255
able to tell us today that the Government intend to take a firm lead and to demonstrate that their commitment to environmental protection is real and not just words.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I should like to add my word of thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and to the members of his committee for the time, the effort and the travelling that they have put in to produce this thoughtful and constructive report. There is a need for this habitats directive and I welcome it. This is of course just another directive but its guidelines are a necessary step to be acted on or ignored as this nation or the other nations feel.
It is nevertheless a stepping-stone to a progress that started perhaps with Ramsar only about 17 years ago, so recent is our realisation of the damage that we have been inflicting for more than a century. It is a worry, but understandable, that in spite of directives, laws and public concern much damage is still being caused by ingrained habits and beliefs, as exampled by the continuing destruction of birds in Italy to which the noble Earl referred.
The report rightly highlights the lack of laws and of the money to enforce them. The Home Office used to tell us that it is no good passing laws unless you can enforce them. But in connection with conservation matters laws are the essential starting point over the whole field of conservation. Not every provision in them immediately achieves its purpose but some do and the prohibitions gather force. The law is the adequate starting point of adequate protection. That is the lesson and that is the goal to seek. As regards money, the directive will not be effective unless there are adequate funds to implement it. The best practicable proposal may be, as the CPRE recommends, that a resolution should accompany the directive requesting the Commission to propose appropriate mechanism.
The committee comments acidly on the apparent lack of enthusiasm and narrow European outlook of Her Majesty's Government as compared with the NGOs who,
"have shown a helpful range of expertise and concern, complementing, and in some respects exceeding, that of the Government and the Nature Conservancy Council."
It continues that it was only through the expertise of the NGOs that it could discover what it needed to know about the structural funds and nature conservation in the member states. It adds later that it believes that well informed NGOs have been effective in achieving Community conservation goals.
That is quite true, but that comparison is unnecessary and unfair. The officials have to advise their Minister on what progress is practicable through our jungle of laws and regulations from other ministries, and their Minister has to advise his colleagues on what is politically practicable. The conflict between the lively strength of the NGO and the apparent inertia of the ministry is democracy at its very best. It is the organised voices of the people that must lead the way.
1256
Finally, the report quotes in paragraph 79 the words of Nigel Haig of IEEP. He said,
"nature conservation is not a purely national concern".
The committee observes that some habitats straddle frontiers and are affected by trans-boundary pollution of rivers and catchment areas in more than one country. Nigel Haig's simple, telling statement of the obvious now has wider implications than he would have believed possible when he made it.
Up to now there has been friendly co-operation and an exchange of ideas on conservation with the nations behind the Iron Curtain. But now the Iron Curtain is not there and that co-operation must now turn to action —action to persuade our own new, free neighbours to adopt some of the proved and successful provisions of the conventions. The new parliaments will have to pass new laws. This should be a deliberate campaign and as always, as the report encourages them to do, the NGOs should lead the way. The tools are there in the IEEP, WWF, EEB, ICBP, IIED and of course others, including, one would hope, Martin Holdgate of IUCN. If they have not already done so, let them all get together now, call a meeting and make a plan of action to visit, to make permanent contact and to produce draft headings for new laws so that for conservation at least the whole of Europe will have the same policy and a common aim.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, from these Benches I join the two previous speakers in congratulating the noble Earl and the Select Committee on presenting to your Lordships a very clear and persuasive report. It is perhaps just as well for our debate this afternoon that the Select Committee, anticipating that there would be considerable amendment to the draft directive, has looked at its work in general terms. That enables us to take a broad view of this draft directive and this proposal. That, too, is just as well, in view of the extremely short notice at which this item of business has been included in today's agenda.
If I may, I will pick up and rehearse a few of the points already raised by the noble Earl as pegs, as it were, on which to make my own observations on behalf of this party. First, I should like to say a word about the scope of the directive to which the Select Committee has given some attention.
In its evidence the CPRE has drawn attention to the obvious fact that wildlife and its habitats are really part and parcel of consideration of the wider environment and it would have liked —and I sympathise with it —to have had a broader ranging directive. After all, in 1981 Parliament embraced both aspects of environmental protection in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. But on balance, and with some reluctance, I agree with the Select Committee that if the directive were to be broadened it might create difficulty in getting agreement from all member states, and that there is advantage in having a narrower focus because that makes more impact. As the noble Earl said, safeguarding substantial areas of semi-natural vegetation and protecting particular landscape features, such as hedgerows, are examples of where both aspects of

1257
the environment can and should converge. I accept that and it is referred to in paragraph 94.
Secondly, is a new directive necessary? We learn that the Government tend to think that it is not. The Select Committee has expressed the clear opinion that a fresh directive is needed to "galvanise activity" —I quote from paragraph 85 —to give teeth to, and provide funds and legal backing for, the full implementation of the existing environmental nature protection conventions. In particular, there is the reference in paragraph 17 to the Berne Convention. We are told that that convention especially has not proved fully effective for full action by all member states to match the urgency of the situation.
On this matter of urgency, the Select Committee has pointed to the pressing need for further action now, because of the growing pressures on land use and, in particular, because of the influence on development of the structural funds, particularly in those areas which are still a haven for wildlife.
At paragraph 91, we are told that as regards certain habitats there is a need for absolute protection —a need for top priority —and that to balance that need against the need for economic development in those areas simply is not good enough. At paragraph 11 the committee described the accelerating decline of habitats and loss of species as "serious". That point is underscored very strongly by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation.
At paragraph 103 the committee has further pointed out the time limits of a new directive in view of the fund of goodwill within the Community for nature conservation and in view of the marked expansion in the European economy which is likely to follow the implementation of the Single European Act in 1992 and onwards.
The last and most significant point which I wish to raise in this debate, is that the Select Committee has underscored the part which the United Kingdom is playing and should in future be playing in this matter. Let me say at once that the Select Committee's advice to your Lordships to endorse the new proposed directive in principle rather than to "beef up" the existing conventions and the birds directive has firm support from these Benches. I believe the psychology which underlies the case for such a fresh initiative —a shot in the arm so to speak —is absolutely right.
Conversely, I am bound to say that on my reading of the evidence given by the Department of the Environment, I found the cautious, even reluctant and somewhat negative attitude of the British Government disappointing although not entirely surprising. There seemed to be little sense of the urgency of the situation on a Community level. Indeed, I seemed to detect a hint of indifference in regard to the European dimension.
As one who has been considerably involved in environmental matters between 1980 and 1987 —and I admit that I am now somewhat out of date —I am well aware of the initiatives taken by the Government beginning with the 1981 Act onwards. Those were steps in the right direction and of some,
1258
the Government have good cause to be proud. I can accept the opinion expressed within the Community —and I am referring to paragraph 74 —that the United Kingdom system of protection is:
"one of the best in Europe".
There are two points to be made; one is a caveat or qualification of that record and the other a deduction to be drawn from it. The caveat —and here I am echoing the points made in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol —is that our system is by no means perfect. It is not sufficiently protective of certain habitats and species. That is illustrated by the absence of control in conifer forestation which has destroyed much semi-natural vegetation; the destruction, as the noble Baroness said, of several hundred SSSIs within the past two years alone; and the sorry story of the marine nature reserves about which she and I have been much concerned over the whole period of the past nine years. Moreover, we understand from the report that progress in designating special protection areas for birds and in listing wetlands as required under the Ramsar Convention has been slow. Those are indicators of the inadequacy of United Kingdom action and legislation despite our relatively good record.
Britain could also benefit from the galvanising effect to which the Select Committee refers and which the draft directive purports to provide. There is no cause for complacency let alone indifference on our part.
My deduction from the good aspects of the Government's record, which I fully acknowledge, is, as the Select Committee has suggested, that we have an opportunity and a duty, if we are really committed Europeans, to offer our experience and methods to other nation states. It is my contention, as it is of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that such a constructive contribution cannot effectively be made from a position of semi-detachment. To carry conviction, the United Kingdom must submit itself to the same constraints, as well as receiving the same benefits, as all other member states. The British Government must be involved along the general lines adumbrated in this directive.
That leads me to wonder and to ask how seriously the Government are taking their part in Community action in that area. The Prime Minister has waxed eloquent about global pollution and its future consequences. However, I am less convinced as to the Government's concern about the degradation of the rural countryside in the here and now. I hope to hear a positive answer from the Minister that the Government accept that in this matter of protecting wildlife, national frontiers and sovereignty may be quite irrelevant to the actions which are necessary on a wider front.
If your Lordships will forgive a slight frivolity, few species of birds on the British list are British birds; they are European birds and some are international birds. They need to be protected wherever they go, wherever they land and wherever they fly. The dimension is either European or international.
To conclude, I am sure that the one aspect on which we all agree is the vital importance of the

1259
matter which the Commission's draft directive addresses. It concerns not only the safeguarding and survival of threatened and endangered species but the need to buttress certain human values which are themselves under threat in the face of the inexorable advance of material development.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was very glad to take part, as a member of the environmental sub-committee, in this exceptionally interesting and important investigation, in which we were very capably guided by our chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and greatly helped by our specialist adviser, Mr. Robin Grove-White, and our clerk, Mr. Tom Mohan.
The inquiry was particularly appropriate and timely because the Commission and Her Majesty's Government appeared to have fallen out and to be at loggerheads. The Commission had produced a draft directive which was too rigid and centralist and, as so often happens, had done so without adequate informal discussion with governments and experts in this sphere, especially those in this country. I do not believe that that was a sensible way to proceed. It frightened some governments, especially ours, with the spectre of habitat and species conservation run entirely from Brussels.
However, Her Majesty's Government went rather to extremes in their reaction. There was talk of bureaucracy run mad and in a speech on 18th November 1988 the then Environment Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said:
"We must keep control of the future of our own countryside and of our wildlife in our own hands",
and even suggested,
"the addition of the Brussels bureaucrat to the official pest list".
Those remarks were hardly judicious or well thought out and naturally upset the Commission. Consequently, our sub-committee's task was to see whether a Community directive was appropriate and necessary, and, if so, to try to bridge the prodigious gap between the Commission and Her Majesty's Government and put the train back on the rails. That involved us in a short but illuminating visit to Brussels.
We took a great deal of evidence from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and many others. The almost universal view expressed to us was that we ought to have a Commission directive on habitats and that it was urgently required. We received a mass of evidence about the very serious and continuing loss of habitat all over Europe and the threat to a substantial number of bird, animal, fish, reptile, amphibian and plant species. That loss is serious enough in our own country. To give just one example, the Prime Minister herself pointed out earlier this year that we had lost 120,000 miles of hedgerow in the past 40 years.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the loss of hedgerows, which I agree is very serious, is largely due to the common agricultural policy which has
1260
resulted in the encouragement of large prairie areas of wheat or barley with no hedges in between?
Lord Moran: My Lords, the noble Lord has a point and the common agricultural policy has certainly contributed to the loss. That loss is in fact accelerating at present. We have our system of sites of special scientific interest, but the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has spoken about that and, as the Nature Conservancy Council has pointed out, 117 of them were recently damaged or destroyed in a single year. There is continuing damage to habitats, dramatically illustrated in the Royal Society for Nature Conservation review Losing Ground, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. That paper assembled information from all over the country and I strongly commend it to those of your Lordships who have not yet seen it.
There are serious threats to our remaining prime habitats; no fewer than 30 estuaries are threatened by projected developments. The Government have been desperately slow in declaring Ramsar wetland sites. They undertook originally to complete their listing by the end of 1986. They have failed to do so. Out of 150 recommended sites they have declared only 40. Is it that they do not wish to impede development on the other 110?
Our record in Europe may be relatively good, but in itself it is nothing to shout about. Denmark appears to be a conspicuous example of good practice but in other member states the situation is often much worse than in the United Kingdom. In Belgium 50,000 birds are legally trapped every year, with perhaps another 50,000 being trapped illegally. The shooting of migrant birds still takes place on a vast scale in southern Europe. During our inquiry we learnt about the widespread consumption of thrush paté on the Continent.
It is clearly very important that we should strive to improve matters. Should we do this by way of the Community or nationally as suggested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness? We in the sub-committee had no doubt that it must be done through the Community, if only because it is already so heavily involved in changing the face of Europe through the common agricultural policy, through the structural funds and to some extent through the move to a single market.
I was personally very disappointed by the attitude of the representatives of the Department of the Environment who gave evidence to us. They struck me as somewhat negative and passive, showing few signs of taking an active line to secure the right sort of directive. Their line seemed to be that all that was necessary was for member states to implement fully the existing conventions. That is clearly important. I believe that France and Belgium have still to ratify the Berne Convention. But it is manifestly not enough. I hope things have changed and that the Government will now be prepared to take a more positive line.
Enormous damage has been and is being done to important wildlife habitats by development projects—mainly but not exclusively in southern Europe —financed by the Community's structural

1261
funds. These funds will increase massively in the next few years when there will be huge transfers of resources from northern to southern Europe. It is essential that we balance this with proper protection of important habitats and endangered species. For this a new Community directive is indispensable.
I hope that our report has pointed the way towards a sensible compromise. I hope too that Her Majesty's Government will now take a much more vigorous and constructive line on this question. Some progress has, I believe, been made under the French presidency. I have not seen the later drafts mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, but I am glad that they sound to be on the right lines. It is important that agreement should be reached soon on a text and that the new directive should enter into force with the minimum of delay.
Finally, there is the key question of money. A directive can only be effective if adequate Community funding is provided to enable it to be properly implemented. Public opinion in this country and elsewhere in the Community is rightly very much exercised about the conservation of our wildlife heritage in Europe. I am convinced that a habitat directive is badly needed to do this. We must look to member governments, and particularly to Her Majesty's Government, to bring a realistic but effective directive into force as quickly as possible.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, this is an excellent time to be debating the role of the European Community in protecting habitat and species because environmental issues remain high on the political agenda and all around us we are besieged with advice as to what should remain national concerns and what should become Community concerns. The Commission proposal which we are debating—on which our committee reported —reflects rather neatly the Conservative dilemma about Europe. We are all concerned with habitat destruction and threatened wildlife. The question is whether protection policies should be implemented at the national or Community level.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, it would not be fair to the Government to suggest that they misjudged their initial response to the Commission's proposals. Certainly it was proper to expose the technical and practical weaknesses of the Commission's draft. We drew attention to those in our report. We were also considerably struck by the weight and quality of the evidence presented to us cataloguing the loss of wildlife and habitat throughout the Community. In the face of that evidence the plea that those were national concerns satisfactorily dealt with in this country was hardly destined to strike a popular note. Fortunately we have all begun to learn that when a voice from Europe insists that our beaches should be clean, our water pure and our countryside protected, public reaction is overwhelmingly one of approval. If it happens to be a bureaucrat who is telling us to save our heathland rather than a politician, that is of no interest to most of us who are simply grateful that at least someone is saying it.
1262
Our committee therefore concluded that the European Community should have a positive role in assisting in the protection of wild species and habitat. There is a clear legal basis for a new Community initiative to do just that, and we appreciate the political imperatives of such action. I do not believe that we have set ourselves apart from mainstream opinion about the proper role of the Community in our national affairs. Inevitably, governments and parliamentarians become preoccupied with the fine questions of Community competence and national law; of directive and statute, of annexes and committees. I do not wish to trawl over this ground except to say in passing that the Commission ought to appreciate that it makes its task harder by presenting what amounts to a blank cheque for signature.
The draft Commission document we studied, upon which governments and voluntary organisations must rely, failed to attach the key annexes which are to specify the species of animals and plants to receive the various degrees of protection set out in the directive. However, I should like to concentrate instead on the two related concerns: first, what is the best mechanism for achieving the satisfactory conservation of wildlife and habitat, and, secondly, what is the role of the voluntary sector and the non-governmental organisations contributing to conservation policy? That point was emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
The committee was careful to note what is good and successful about conservation policy in this country. We have elaborate legislation to protect species, particularly the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have authoritative statutory agencies which act on a good science base. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said in her speech, not even this system —the envy of some of our European colleagues—provides the complete protection of SSSIs, as recent NCC annual reports have shown. The strength is in its emphasis on co-operation through the use of management agreements backed up with enforceable protection measures should agreement break down.
I believe we must recognise that such a system of management agreements needs the resources for it to be effective. Until very recently the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission have seen real increases in grant. I am disturbed that this trend appears to be changing, with cuts in last year's allocation. It is not just the effectiveness but also the credibility of the voluntary approach which is endangered when insufficient resources are available to make the policy work.
I should also like to emphasise, as did my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, the committee's observations that field sports in this country are closely regulated and close seasons and quarry regulations are widely respected. Much of the early debate about this proposed directive focused on its possible impact on country sports. I hope that policymakers in the Community are beginning to understand that properly managed field sports can play a vital role in conserving habitat and indeed wildlife.

1263
Any sensible proposal must recognise the interests and the conservation value of legitimate field sports, particularly when the annexes are considered. As their European organisation, FACE, reminded the committee, field sportsmen have as much interest as the rest of us in habitat protection. Indeed, all the responsible voluntary organisations with an interest in wildlife and conservation have a role to play in conservation policy. The committee noted that there are non-governmental organisations in this country which are significant landowners and land managers in their own right.
I have a particular interest in the voluntary sector as president of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, which mobilises an army of over 60,000 volunteers who carry out voluntary work on a practical conservation basis. They are perhaps one of the most striking examples of the interplay in British environmental policy between government and non-governmental organisations. Community policy must encourage this co-operation, not seek to replace it; and rather than fear bureaucratic intervention into the countryside the Government should seek to show to the Community that such intervention is not necessary for the effective operation of conservation policy.
Equally, I have been impressed by the argument of many leading voluntary organisations that the habitat directive could have a special role to play in conserving the wider countryside outside existing specially protected areas. I believe that we must work towards a coherent Community policy which provides the right balance of agricultural incentives to encourage farmers to manage their land in a way which provides positive opportunities for conservation while maintaining farm incomes and the production of food. Farm and conservation policy cannot possibly be considered in isolation from each other. Farmers are the custodians of our wider countryside, not government agencies.
I believe that the Government should view the proposed habitat directive not as an unwelcome interference in their national conservation policy but as an opportunity to meet public concern and persuade the Community of the sense of the principles on which British conservation policy is founded. Perhaps the Government accept that it will no longer do for them to say, "We're all right, Jack", or rather, "We're all right, Jacques". Let us work with our European partners to produce a sensible, effective directive which maintains the best of our conservation practice but puts an end to the disturbing catalogue of habitat destruction which concerns us all.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, members of the sub-committee who have preceded me expressed many of the thoughts that I wished to declare myself so I can be very brief. The issues addressed in this report are rather different from those found in reports customarily circulated to your Lordships' House by the Select Committee. They are normally issues such as employment, Community trade, finance, agriculture and the like. Nevertheless, I
1264
believe that the subject matter of this report is of real importance.
It is important because the priorities are changing. For the past generation and more, governments in the developed world have seen as their prime responsibilities issues such as social security, health, industrial prosperity, employment and so on. Nobody disputes the continuing significance of those issues but their relative importance has now changed as the environmental consequences of those policies become more clearly understood.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the European Commission, reflecting the anxieties of citizens throughout Europe as they were expressed very recently in the European elections, has produced a draft directive which is the subject of our inquiry. Harsh things have been said about the Commission's proposals in the course of the debate this afternoon. I remind your Lordships that the sub-committee welcomed the fact of the Commission's initiative and I certainly agree with that opinion.
The Commission has acted in response to genuine concern at both the popular and the scientific level at the deterioration of the natural environment which has been taking place. In the past governments of member states preferred in many cases to deal with these matters by national measures. But, as has been pointed out, the passage of the Single European Act and the changes which have been made to Article 130 of the Treaty of Rome now give the Community a clear legal responsibility to act.
This is not only a question of popular sentiment, of scientific evidence and legal niceties. It stands to reason that the protection of fauna and flora can only be undertaken effectively on an international basis. We already have in existence a number of international conventions on these matters and the Commission is building on that base.
Another particular reason for Community action is the fact that the Community itself has decided to spend large sums of money through the structural funds. We have a direct responsibility to ensure that this is done in ways which avoid environmental damage. The report explains that the sums involved are now very considerable by any measure and that they will be used in regions of special sensitivity; for example, in the Mediterranean countries.
So I see no difficulty in accepting the idea of a Community initiative. Indeed it is very appropriate. It came as a disappointment to me and to others on the sub-committee that the Government originally expressed some unhappiness, even distaste, for the Commission's proposal. I am glad to learn that the Government may now be adopting a more moderate approach.
I also believe that there are some strong reasons why our own country should take a positive attitude on this question and should involve itself actively in the formulation of Community policy on habitat and species protection. There are a number of reasons for suggesting why this is so. First, because of the enthusiasm and knowledge of our predecessors for the past century or more, we are lucky to have in Britain many voluntary organisations and individuals skilled and dedicated in this field. These

1265
experts and specialist bodies exist on a much larger scale here than in most other European countries, which accord them a good deal of respect.
It seems important that we harness this excellent human resource to the preservation of the European environment at a time when it is most needed, which is now. By doing so we should be able to make a significant contribution not only to a more knowledgeable treatment of the subject but to the development of Community policy. There are many ways in which this might be done since the Community does not seem to have decided yet what form the collective efforts and the directive should take —whether, for example, the Community should have an executive agency responsible for nature conservation, perhaps something like our own Nature Conservancy Council, an advisory body to help the Commission in its work or a centre for sharing scientific information.
It would be particularly unfortunate if our own authorities were to miss the opportunity to play a leading role at the formative stage of the Community's policy and in the evolution of its institutions in the environmental field. Too often in the past our hesitation has deprived us of the influence which we could have brought to bear at the crucial moment on the Community's affairs. In my opinion we are now at or fast approaching this very point in Community environmental policy. I am anxious that we should not miss the boat on this occasion.
I do not wish to leave the impression that I can give uncritical support to the Commission's proposals. There are, on the contrary, a good many uncertainties and some defects in what it has proposed so far, and our report describes them. But these faults can be put right by active participation. They cannot be corrected by hesitancy and opposition. To achieve the result that we are looking for will also require a more positive attitude of mind than we detected in some of our official witnesses, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has already said.
I suggest another reason why we need to be sympathetic to the idea of action by the Community. On the visit paid by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and myself to Italy it became evident how much southern member states of the Community will benefit from joint action by the Community —action which they are unable to take themselves. There are often profound social reasons in Mediterranean countries which make it difficult for national governments to act. Community governments working together can act as a means of social change in bringing about the protection for the environment which we all wish to see.
For all these reasons I submit that the report is an unusually important one. I have pleasure in supporting the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in its presentation to the House, and I congratulate him on his remarkable chairmanship of our sub-committee.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount Blakenham: My Lords, standards of conservation vary greatly between individual
1266
European Community countries. One of the most important themes of this absolutely excellent report, on which I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, is the growing awareness that conservation of species and habitat needs to be viewed on an international and not just a national basis. I should like to give an example of what I have in mind. In paragraph 28 of the report the experience of Duich Moss is referred to. Duich Moss is the wintering ground of the Greenland white-fronted goose. The report says:
"The experience of Duich Moss (Islay) in Scotland in 1985, when a Commission official visited the site to investigate a possible case of non-compliance, was regarded by the Scottish Office as having created unwelcome and unnecessary political controversy".
If that unwelcome visit had not been made the wintering ground of the white-fronted goose is unlikely to have remained protected.
The Government have done a great deal for conservation in the United Kingdom in the past decade. This makes me more sorry to read of the apparently unenthusiastic response to the EC initiative. It has been widely welcomed by the voluntary conservation bodies and could greatly help the raising of conservation standards throughout the Community. The existing international conventions carry no legal sanctions. A well thought through Commission directive could provide an important impetus to improve European conservation.
If I may speak personally rather than as a representative of the Nature Conservancy Council, of which I am a member, I believe that this attitude, described in the report as somewhat parochial, is reflected in the Government's plans to split the Nature Conservancy Council into three independent agencies at a time when the United Kingdom voice in Europe needs to be heard loud and clear. I hope that the Government will think again both about this point and about their attitude to the proposal for a European Commission directive.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I congratulate the chairman and members of the committee on an excellent report and also on their choice of a well qualified adviser, Mr. Robin Grove-White, who I am sure played a major part in drawing up the report. It is more than just a report of the House. It is a work of reference. I am grateful to the noble Earl for reminding us about the Bonn Convention, the Berne Convention, the directive on birds and the Ramsar Convention. They are all described fully and explained in this excellent document.
I have been much heartened by the speeches in the debate. I speak as chairman of Wildlife Link, which gave evidence to the sub-committee. I am an amateur among a great many professionals. But virtually a year ago, before the meeting at which the directive was to be discussed, I took a delegation to see the then Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It was one of the most disappointing occasions that I can remember. We got absolutely nowhere. I came away from there bitterly disappointed.
Members of the committee and noble Lords who have spoken tonight have rightly praised the work

1267
of the NGOs in this country. I have a high regard for their expertise. I listen to many of their representatives on a monthly basis. They have not only patience and drive but real knowledge. They fully understand the restraints, such as Treasury restraints, under which Ministers must operate. They know that Ministers cannot deliver the impossible. However, when we went to see the noble Earl, I do not believe that we were asking for anything other than common sense. The Prime Minister went to the United Nations and offered £100 million to save the rain forests—goodness knows, I support that action. That is part of an international effort, but we are surely interfering in the affairs of Brazil. Is it not right that we should also play a major part in the affairs of the EC; and not just the EC but the whole of Europe? The Continent still looks to us for a lead and finds our lack of enthusiasm puzzling. Continental environmental groups are desperately dismayed by our response to date.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to their visit to Italy. I found that part of the report very interesting indeed. The noble Earl described vividly the problems faced by conservation groups in Italy, particularly in regard to the shooting of honey buzzards over Sicily. Many brave people in Malta, in Sicily and in other parts of southern Europe are trying to do their best to stop this happening. They need support from this country and from bodies such as the RSPB which they hold in high regard.
The report was printed before the break up of the NCC was announced, which in itself adds to the concern about the future. Our European colleagues regard the Nature Conservancy Council as an excellent model to follow. I wonder what they are thinking now. In addition, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, the NCC's budget has been cut by 5 per cent. in real terms. When the report was published it received wide press coverage. All of it was favourable. This issue has enormous public support so it cannot harm the Government to be a little more forthcoming. They could do with a few friends at court just now. The public would go along with a change of heart by the Government on this matter.
It is refreshing to note that in its report the committee said —and it has been mentioned by many speakers this evening —that not everything is perfect in our own back garden, despite the rather self-satisfied remarks of the present Minister responsible in such matters in a letter to me dated as late as 22nd September. I think that I am right in saying that Mr. David Trippier is now in charge of these matters. He is a Minister for whom I have a very high regard. He played a major role in developing the enterprise agencies in this country. I am sure that he is a good choice to represent Britain in Brussels at the forthcoming meeting.
However, I have here his letter to me in reply to my request for a change in government attitude as regards the directive. It reads:
"I have to say that I was a little surprised to see your letter because I had the impression that the Government's position on the draft Directive had been spelled out on numerous occasions in the past: in correspondence, Parliamentary Answers, and in submissions to the House of Lords Sub-Committee Enquiry into habitat protection".
1268
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who said how disappointed he was with the evidence given by the Department of the Environment to the committee. Yet, in September, we were still following the same line. Further on in the letter Mr. Trippier said:
"Frankly it seems to me that you are confusng two separate issues here —one is what is needed in Europe as a whole; the second, which may or may not be the same, is what is needed in the UK. Our impression has been that your prime objective" —
this is a reference to Wildlife Link's objective —
"in this whole exercise has been to improve the standards of nature protection in southern Europe, where the pressures for harmful development are greatest and the protection mechanisms weakest".
That, of course, is absolutely true.
"If you take the view that a more advanced system is needed in the UK where we already have a much more established record of achievement in the conservation field we can debate that issue. But I see no reason why we need to conduct such a debate in Brussels where the emphasis should be on what member states can, and should, do collectively".
I believe that the Government still have—although I hope that it is changing —a too glossy view of what is the situation in this country; they are too self-satisfied in the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, gave some statistics to the House, and other noble Lords have done likewise, about the problems which we face in the UK at present. I shall not read out any more figures.
As regards SSSIs, evidence given to the committtee showed that about 389 such sites had been damaged during the past two years. That, however, does not mean to say that they have been written off. Indeed, only a few have been lost altogether. But if 389 have been damaged, that is a staggering statistic.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the loss of heathland, especially in Dorset. Lowland heathland is an exceptional habitat of which the UK has more than any other country in the world. We hold almost 40 per cent. of the lowland heathland remaining in western Europe —yet much of it has been disappearing because of the developments which have been taking place around Bournemouth and elsewhere. It is the home of the Dartford warbler, the nightjar, the woodlark and many internationally rare reptiles.
Heathland is threatened as never before from development proposals, agriculture, forestry and lack of management. Between 1830 and 1980 72 per cent. of the UK's heathland was lost. We have heard about the loss of the wet grassland and about the lack of funding to deal with such matters.
We have drawn such matters to the attention of the respective Ministers, expecially the problems concerning heathlands and fish farming in Scotland. I must say that when she came to one of our meetings Mrs. Bottomley was concerned and well-informed on the subject. But, of course, she has now been moved elsewhere so we must try again. However, we have Mr. Trippier who has accepted an invitation to come and meet Wildlife Link representatives on Thursday. I shall certainly be placing a copy of the Hansard report of this debate before him. I hope very much that he has read and inwardly digested the report before us and that this time he will visit Brussels with a rather more open-minded outlook.

1269
As has been said by my noble friend Lord Hunt, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was a major step forward and greatly welcomed at the time. However, one glance at the CPRE's leaflet, which I imagine Members of the House have received during the past few days, entitled The Changing Face of Britain must cause considerable concern and serve to remind us of many of the problems to which I have referred. Moreover, Wildlife Link recently circulated a similar broadsheet to all MPs, MEPs and many Members of this House —I believe that over 700 documents were sent. It is entitled Europe's Wildlife Under Threat. Therefore we are doing our best in the voluntary sector.
I think that we should also pay tribute to the Greeks. As I understand it, they played a major role in getting the draft directive off the ground in the first place. Presumably, therefore, they want action. It is now feared in many quarters that the original proposals may be so watered down in an effort to reach agreement as to be—I shall not say useless—not as effective and they might be.
The noble Earl referred to some proposals which he has seen. He reassured the House that these were rather along the lines of those contained in the report. If that is the case, then I reserve judgment upon the matter. I hope that it will be so and that what is proposed will not in fact be watered down.
The French now hold the presidency and the meeting of Ministers to which reference has been made is due to take place on the 28th November. However, for various reasons no firm agreement can be expected at that time because, among other things, the annexes must still be approved. Moreover, the matter must be returned to the European Parliament which debated the issue a month or two ago.
I shall say to our representative—indeed, I shall tell him personally when I see him—that we hope for a more supportive approach by the UK representatives at the meeting and that this could indeed be a crucial matter in achieving the progress which is so urgent.
No one should accuse Members of this House, or members of the Select Committee—the report of which is before us —of dragging their feet. Indeed, every speech which has so far been made has been critical of the Government's approach to date and has pleaded for a more forward-looking attitude. The problems and many of the solutions are set out in the report clearly and lucidly, and in good time. The timing is good. There is perhaps one slight quarrel concerning paragraphs 88 and 89 where one could perhaps be a little critical and say, "We only want a short-list of the major areas to which protection should be given". I think that many organisations —the RSPB and others —would say that they hope that such a list would not be too short and that we do not cut out many birds and other species which are on the danger list.
I believe that mention was made of thrushes. I think that I am right in saying that the song thrush used to be our fifth or sixth commonest bird. However, it is now our sixteenth and that is because the French like thrush pâté. Surely we can do
1270
something to try to stop this happening. It is so appalling.
As has been said by my noble friend, we on these Benches are proud to be associated with the report. We pray that it may persuade the Government of the United Kingdom to change course. It is still not too late. However, tomorrow it just could be.
5.28 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to join with all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in adding my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to all his colleagues, to his special adviser, to his clerk and to all of those who have given evidence to him, upon what is a most excellent and timely report. Unusually, I allowed myself the indulgence of reading it the right way round this time; in other words, I started with the minutes of evidence and did not turn to the report itself until I had almost completed reading the minutes.
I started by reading the "disappointing" and "parochial" evidence from the Department of the Environment. Those are not my words, they are those contained in the report. I then went on to read the fascinating evidence from the non-governmental organisations in this country. I was especially fascinated by the visits of the committee to Brussels and to Rome. I was also interested to read the final anguished evidence from the representatives of the Commission, who politely described themselves as being "puzzled" by the British Government's attitude and the response to the report.
As many Lords have made clear, there can be no doubt about the need and the danger. There has been the danger of increasing damage to our habitat and to our species in Europe ever since the Industrial Revolution, and probably ever since the agricultural revolutions which preceded it. The danger started earlier in Britain than elsewhere because our agricultural and industrial revolutions took place earlier. Therefore, the damage has gone much further and the need for protection is much greater.
In its evidence on page 107, the CPRE refers to the losses. Indeed, these have been referred to by other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lady Nicol. The Countryside Commisson, in its annual report published a few months ago, referred to the fact that we have possibly 10 years left to redeem, or at least to put a halt to, the damage which has gone on and which continues to go on to our countryside, to our habitat and to our species.
Particular attention should be paid to the damage brought about by European Community activity, the effect of intensive agriculture under the auspices of the common agricultural policy, and the effect, which will probably worsen considerably, of the intensification of the structural fund; in other words, of development projects, especially in southern Europe, and therefore in those parts of Europe which are underdeveloped and which retain a habitat that is closer to the original than that of the traditional industrial areas of this country.

1271
There has been unanimity in the House about the increasing need for protection and the fact that the dangers are worsening. There has also been unanimity about the inadequacy of the protection provided at the moment. Reference has been made to the advances resulting from the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but, after all, that Act was intended only to give effect in this country to the Berne Convention, which has still not been ratified by France and Belgium. The problem with such conventions is not that they are not worthy in themselves —I agree with the idea that in many ways it would be desirable for such directives not to second-guess the conventions but to reflect their best parts —but their enforceability. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, made that point effectively.
Even where there is national legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which purports to give effect to the provisions of the Berne Convention, the inadequacies of that Act have become clear over the eight years since it was enacted. It still has the idea that protection should be restricted to specific sites (the SSSIs). Many noble Lords have referred to the fact that even the specially protected sites, such as the SSSIs, are being damaged and threatened and have not been protected adequately against development.
However, the second and more important point is that it is now being recognised that if we are to protect habitats and species in Europe we must go beyond designated sites and have some sort of overall protection for the countryside as a whole. That is the view that Denmark has taken. Although it should not be held to the exclusion of the protection of specific sites, it is a valuable addition which has become part of policy-making in the 1980s. It is not part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and it deserves the Government's attention. Greater attention should be paid to it in the draft directive.
I am not at all satisfied that even the legislation that we have, let alone the conventions to which we have adhered, provide the necessary protection. Our inability to implement the Ramsar Convention was referred to again by my noble friend Lady Nicol. I am not convinced by the argument commonly used by government that planning controls are adequate to provide the necessary protection. I am reminded of an excellent short story by Fay Weldon. She describes a woman moving from London to live in the country. She has at the end of her garden a wood of which she is fond, but it is scruffy. It is then threatened by having a ring road built through it. She recognises that she will not get anywhere by filling the villge hall with protestors or marching to county hall, or with any of the normal planning protections, so she first cleans the wood and the pond in the middle of it and she then stocks it with rare orchids, toads and newts and other examples of protected wildlife; and she wins. There may be a lesson in that for us all.
I repeat that I am not happy with the protection that is given even in this country, let alone that given in other European countries, to our habitats and the species in those habitats. The complacency which shines through the evidence from the Department
1272
of the Environment is unworthy of it and should not be repeated in current thnking. I was disappointed to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that the Minister responsible still shows that degree of complacency and isolationism from European problems.
The other issue that we must address is that of funds, because it is clear from the report and the evidence that the funds available to DG11 to implement any policy, even if the directive were to be enacted, are inadequate. There is some discussion about the need for a common environmental protection agency. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has been advocating such an agency in this country for a number of years. He has now converted me to that idea. The need may be for a Community environmental protection agency and for some sort of Community inspectorate, or at any rate meta-inspectorate, to provide a common level of enforcement. That idea is not as outrageous as some people may think, as the report points out. The European Community's fisheries directives are enforced by an inspectorate which was set up largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom Government and so there is nothing especially outrageous about that idea.
When I think about funds on a wider scale, not just to appoint Brussels bureaucrats, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, so rudely calls them, but to provide compensation where that is appropriate, it seems to me that those funds are readily available. If the common agricultural policy and the structural fund contribute heavily to the damage, they should contribute heavily to putting it right. A diversion from common agricultural policy funds to protecting our environment might not just do good on its own; it might have the additional advantage of restricting the excesses of the common agricultural policy. It would also have the advantage of reflecting the view that the polluter pays.
I am convinced that the Labour Party will support the need for a revised proposal. No one is defending the wording of the draft. The principles behind the draft directive must be accepted, as they have been in the House this afternoon. They are the principles that the protection of our habitat and species should all be to the highest standards available anywhere in Europe; that there should be legal protection for specific areas; that the special protection areas proposed in the draft should be set up to a timetable, which, in the end, in default of individual government action should be enforced by the European Community; that in addition to special protection areas there should be protection of the wider environment; that there should be a link between protection of the habitat and the landscape as a whole, to which a number of noble Lords have referred; and that there should be public information on the objectives of protection of the environment and what progress is being made towards it.
Although the proposal needs to be revised, it does not need to be weakened. It nees to be strong enough not just to protect the environment in southern Europe but to deal with the deficiencies in our legislation and the policy-making for the environment in the United Kingdom.

1273
These are government obligations. It is the responsibility of government in their response to the Commission and the directive, and in legislation. As has been said on a number of occasions, the report is timely, first because of the meeting on 28th November. When we look back at the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in Oxford in November last year we realise how far there is to go before we reach a proper recognition of the needs of the environment by the Government. I was astonished to read that speech in the light of the fact that it was made only two months after the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society when she said, quite rightly, that we do not have a freehold on this planet but only a full repairing lease. It would have been as well if that very valuable insight had been reflected in the noble Earl's speech in November 1988.
There is an opportunity for Mr. Trippier, when he goes to the meeting on 28th November, to put matters right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, when he replies, will be able to indicate that he will do so. In the negotiations which take place at the official level, leading up to that meeting, and in Brussels and elsewhere there is also an opportunity for the Government to put right the very damaging impressions which were given by the submissions of the Department of the Environment to the committee.
Above all, we are promised a green Bill in the Queen's Speech. If the green Bill follows the bad examples of the past 12 months, as evidenced in the report, that Bill will need drastic amendment and strengthening. Judging from the debate this afternoon, I am sure that your Lordships' House will be in the forefront in seeking to remind the Government of their responsibilities.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the other members of Sub-Committee F on producing this excellent report and providing a most stimulating, knowledgeable and fairly like-minded debate.
It is an important feature of our parliamentary procedures that they require such detailed scrutiny of Commission proposals. The result is that no other member state has had the benefit of such an extended study by experts, taking evidence from all sides of the argument in Europe as well as the United Kingdom, and producing at the end of their work a substantial and balanced report showing all the evidence on which it was based. If we add to that the high regard in which the United Kingdom system of nature protection is held, as the committee itself records in paragraph 101 of its report, it is easy to understand why it is that the committee recorded in paragraph 75 that other member states have been looking to the United Kingdom to give a lead in the negotiations in Brussels.
So let me say straight away, to clear up any misunderstanding, that the Government wholeheartedly support the principle of Community action in this field —that is, provided that, as
1274
required by Article 130R of the Treaty of Rome, it is clearly understood that Community involvement must bring some added value over and above what member states can achieve by themselves. We believe that it can. So too does the select committee, and I shall return to the theme of added value later.
Before going into the detailed provisions of the draft directive, I should just like to dwell a little on the story so far, both in Brussels and at home, particularly in the light of the committee's criticism —a criticism which was reflected by several noble Lords —that the Government have been "unenthusiastic" and "parochial" in their approach to the prospect of Community action in this field.
When the Commission first published its text, it is certainly true to say that we approached it with caution rather than enthusiasm. My noble friend Lord Craigton explained very well why this was so. However, claims that we were the villain of the piece, pulling against the wishes of the majority of member states, are exaggerated. I believe that our initial lack of enthusiasm was soundly based. The report shows in paragraph 28 that the Community's previous involvement in nature conservation (the 1979 Birds Directive) has sometimes created tensions between the Commission and member state governments. The report also records in paragraph 66 the Government's view that the Commission's draft on this occasion was presented prematurely —without any prior consultation, without eight of the 11 annexes, and containing a number of features which had not been properly thought through. The absence of the annexes was particularly regrettable because, while some of them relate to matters of technical detail, most are of fundamental importance to the thrust of the directive. They set out matters such as the number of sites to be designated as special protection areas, and the list of species to be protected. Even now, over a year later, most of the annexes are only at early draft stage and are not generally available —the rest are not available at all. This is most unfortunate when they contain so much that is of fundamental importance to the directive.
As a result of this unsatisfactory situation, there has been a virtual stalemate in Brussels, with the Commission adhering to the original draft, while all —and it really is all —member states have consistently expressed deep dissatisfaction with both the content of the text and the continuing absence of the annexes. Indeed, dissatisfaction with the situation has spread to the European Parliament, which has refused to take a view on the environment committee's somewhat premature report on the grounds that the proposal is incomplete.
Clearly then, a means of breaking the impasse has to be found. I believe for three reasons that there is now light at the end of the tunnel. In the first place, the Commission has been showing greater flexibility —more over the past couple of months than in the whole of the previous year. It seems to us no coincidence that this greater flexibility has followed the publication of the select committee's report. We know that the report was circulating in capitals throughout Europe within a month of publication, and we believe that both the select committee's criticisms of the Commission's

1275
draft—which it described at different points "unsatisfactory", "unwieldy and overambitious", "rigid and mechanistic" —and the constructive suggestions which the report contained have had their effect.
Secondly, the current French presidency has tabled an alternative text as a basis for further discussion. I understand that a copy has now been deposited in the House and we shall be tabling a supplementary explanatory memorandum as soon as possible. Our initial reaction, like that of most other member states, is to regard the French text as an improvement on the Commission's draft. The purely numerical aproach to site designation, for example, seems to have been dropped, while the new proposal on environmental impact assessment is much less ambitious. However, most member states have tempered their general welcome for the French text with the reservation that a full and proper assessment of the draft still cannot be made in the absence of substantive proposals on the annexes.
The third encouraging factor is that the Commission is at last beginning to make progress on the annexes. Drafts have begun to appear over the past month, so there is a genuine possibility that we may have a full proposal to consider before long.
Against that background I can say that the Government feel that there is now a real basis on which to move forward and that we are looking to play a leading role in this process. I believe that the recommendations in the select committee's report are very helpful and I think that the best use of my remaining time would be to run quickly through the principal elements which the committee recommend should be incorporated in any directive.
First, on the Berne Convention, which was referred to by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we accept that full implementation should become a Community law obligation. In one sense I regret that this should be necessary because it might have been hoped that ratification of the convention should in itself mean that full implementation would follow as a matter of course. But the reality, as I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, is that two European Community member states have still, after 10 years, failed to ratify the Berne Convention. Furthermore, the fact that funding is not available under the convention to aid compliance is a serious deficiency. More effective implementation of the Berne Convention is therefore one area in which Community involvement might bring added value to member states' nature conservation efforts. I should add however that we shall continue to regard Berne as an important convention in its own right, and that we are currently participating in a number of ongoing initiatives to improve its effectiveness.
Secondly, we accept the proposition that it is possible to identify sites and species of international, as compared to purely national, importance. As I have stressed, the annexes are still being formulated but examples might include endangered species such as monk seal and important habitats such as The Wash. Taken together these habitats and species
1276
could constitute a European heritage in whose well-being the Community might take a particular interest. The question of the degree of protection that might be afforded is one to which I shall return in a moment.
Thirdly, as regards the annexes, on the basis of the text we have before us we support the select committee's proposal that the intial list should be brief. By brief we mean of manageable proportions and relating firmly to matters of truly European importance. If they are simply an aggregation of all that member states are already protecting, then the notion of added value is lost. Moreover one might find that the annex would include a species which was rare in one country, yet very common, perhaps even treated as a pest, in another. I believe that the pine-marten is such a case. We share the select committee's view that the contents of the annexes should be nominated by member states on a national basis, and subject to unanimous voting. Subsequent revision should be made by an adaptation committee, acting on qualified majority and relying on scientific qualitative data for its decision-making.
We are endeavouring to press this line in Brussels but at present the French text envisages greatly extended annexes. Commission involvement in site selection and what we regard as unacceptable powers for the proposed committee might lead, for example, to site designation from Brussels against the wishes of the member state concerned. So there is some way to go on this front yet.
As regards the degree of protection to be afforded to sites designated at the European level, the committee already recognises in paragraph 78 that there is a balance to be struck between economic, industrial and conservation objectives. Our planning system takes that into account and the relevant procedures which apply to all SSSIs are set out in Circular 27/87 to local authorities.
The Commission directive would seek to give designated sites permanent and absolute protection. The select committee talked about a degree of absolute protection and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook had more to say this afternoon about what he would like that to mean. I am grateful for the clarification that he brought to the matter. I can say that we are willing to explore to see what scope there might be for extending in some cases the degree of protection currently available under British law. However, much will depend on the content of the annexes. Plainly the greater the scope of the annexes, the less the degree of protection which could be considered for everything in those annexes. At present the Commission drafts are very lengthy.
This is a difficult area and it may be that another way forward will have to be found. One alternative and perfectly logical approach might be for the extended annexes to stand as they are, provided that they were based on sound scientific data, but for member states to make their own assessment of what measures were needed to protect species and habitats of European significance within their own national boundaries. I do not say that this is necessarily a better approach, but it shows that there are different ways of resolving this problem. We have to be

1277
flexible in our negotiating position so that we can consider alternative approaches. Once again of course this underlines the need for a complete proposal —text and annexes —to appear on the table as soon as possible.
We support the committee's comments about the need for pooling of conservation experience and expertise, and the need for regular reporting of performance under the directive. These are both features of the drafts under discussion.
As regards the question of providing a degree of protection outside the network of protected sites, many member states have expressed their opposition to the inclusion of any measure of this kind in the directive, on the basis it would seem that it is enough to get the site designation procedures in place. It seems unlikely therefore that anything beyond an obligation expressed in fairly general terms will feature in the final text of the directive. I recognise that this is less than the committee may have sought, but perhaps the important thing is that the subject is appearing in the draft directive at all. However, we remain ready to consider any firm and practicable proposals to do more.
We are of course always prepared to consider proposals for improvements to domestic British procedure regardless of developments in Brussels.
Let me turn now to the question of funding the directive. The matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Craigton, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and other noble Lords. Our position on this is that we know very well from our own experience that the costs of management agreements —my noble friend Lord Norrie referred to these —can be considerable, and we understand therefore why some member states are saying that they will not agree to the text of this directive unless the financial provisions are clearly established in advance. The ball is therefore very much in the Commission's court to produce a proposal. I understand that work is now being done on this. Meanwhile the department's officials are in contact with NGO representatives to discuss possible approaches. We shall certainly consider carefully any suggestions that may come forward, although I stress again that this would not form part of the directive itself.
There have been suggestions that NGO representatives should sit on the adaptation committee in Brussels. We very much endorse the Select Committee's view that the NGOs have a considerable store of knowledge on conservation matters and we very much value our contacts with them. Indeed only yesterday the officials in the department met representatives of the key organisations in this field to discuss both the draft habitats directive and the question of protection in the wider countryside.
However, I do not think that there is any likelihood that NGO representatives will become directly involved in the work of the adaptation committee itself because such committees normally consist of Government representatives only. However, the Commission has made it clear that it will expect
1278
to convene its own expert committees in order to produce recommendations for the Article 23 Committee itself. NGO involvement in the process is therefore virtually guaranteed. We shall do what we can to ensure that its involvement is effective. It would not however in our view be appropriate or necessary to write this in on the face of the directive.
As has been pointed out, the next stage in Brussels on this dossier will be the Council of Environment Ministers on 28th November. On that occasion my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, intends to adopt a constructive stance with a view to achieving a worthwhile measure, possibly under the subsequent Irish presidency. Where appropriate he will seek to support the French proposals, as a positive attempt to break the long-standing deadlock. If there are difficulties, for example, over the annexes, the select committee's report may well offer the Community a satisfactory way forward.
In conclusion, let me say —and I particularly have in mind the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt —that we believe in a shared European inheritance. We do not think that the fate of each nation's threatened species, and of the habitats necessary for their survival, is and should be the concern only of the nation within whose frontiers they are to be found. Through the structural funds the Community plays a vital role in the economic development of poorer member states, and this must be matched by a recognition of Community involvement in matters of environmental concern.
That applies particularly perhaps in Southern Europe where the wildlife is richest, the protection systems least advanced and the development pressures greatest.
However, we acknowledge also the right of others to know what we are doing in our own backyard. We accept that we can learn from the experience of others. We hope therefore that it will soon be possible to reach an agreement on this important directive which, as my noble friend Lord Blakenham said, could indeed raise standards of conservation throughout the Community. I should like to repeat my thanks to the committee for the valuable contribution that it has made to that end.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, there have been two threads in the debate this afternoon, one concerning nature conservation in the United Kingdom and the other appropriate action at the European Community level. I do not wish to pick up the first thread, but in thanking all those who have contributed to the debate I should like to wind up with a few remarks on the second, particularly in response to the speech by my noble friend Lord Reay from the Front Bench.
I have been strengthened by the warm words that have been spoken about our report this afternoon. It is more than reassuring—it is thoroughly heartening —to be told that the report has been widely read and is generally well received.
I note that my noble friend defined "brief", with reference to annexes, in a way that would be very

1279
much in accordance with the definition of the select committee. I suggest to him that the size of the annexes reflects the general concern that is widespread in the European Community about the threats to species and to habitats. I take note of his remarks that some of our cultural heritage, in the form of sites or habitats, is the concern of the wider Community and not merely of the member state in whose territory they may lie.
Therefore, I put it to him that at some stage in the development of the process in the European Community, looking beyond the near future and into the period when the directive is in operation, there will be and must be action at the Community level which may be against the wishes of some at least in a member state. That is an inevitable deduction and is one that we have to face up to as the debate grows.
I was somewhat disappointed by my noble friend's treatment of the important issue of financial provisions. The Government are waiting for the Commission to bring forward proposals. The select committee's proposals were very clear and I thought that he was moving towards them in his final remarks. It is important that a proportion of the vast sums that are being committed to the structural funds should be diverted to alleviate the serious threat to the European environmental heritage which is implicit in some of the proposed developments on which the money is being spent. That is a very central point in the arguments deployed by the select committee, and one that has been emphasised by noble Lords who have spoken this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wandsworth Prison
6.3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prison Wandsworth.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise tonight a recently published report by her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. The report is critical of the regime at Wandsworth; in a number of respects it is highly critical. However, as Mr. Hurd said in his response to the report, it is also constructive. I am sure that all who contribute to the debate tonight will want to be equally constructive.
Before I turn to the contents of the report I should like to refer briefly to the inspectorate. The prison inspectorate was established after Sir John May's report on the prison service. In my judgment it has been a remarkable success. The first chief inspector was Mr. William Pearce, a man of high ability and integrity whose early death was a great loss to the prison service. More recently it has been led by Judge Stephen Tumim, who, by a combination of firmness and good humour, has done a great deal to enhance its reputation.
The inspectorate consists of prison service staff seconded for a period of years to assist the chief inspector. Its reports are a model of what any
1280
independent inspectorate should endeavour to achieve. They are detailed and specific, sometimes critical —as on this occasion —but also balanced. The report we are debating this evening is just such a document. It is because it is so fair that its conclusions are so disturbing.
Consider for a moment two of its central conclusions: first, that the general regime at Wandsworth did not meet basic standards of humanity and propriety; and, secondly, that life there was a deadening experience broken only by conversation about routines or a future life of crime.
Those are harsh criticisms, but I accept there are special features about Wandsworth that make the task of the managers there peculiarly difficult. Not only is the prison itself 138 years old —an ancient, decaying building like so many in the prison system —but it also fulfills the role of the prison to which inmates in the South of England are sent if their behaviour is particularly tiresome. One question which, I believe, arises from the report is whether that role of Wandsworth should be reviewed. I hope that at some stage in the future that will be done by the prisons board. In addition, it is also a Rule 43 centre for prisoners who have to be removed from association either because of their offences or because of their conduct in prison.
These are undoubtedly two of the principal reasons why over the years the regime at Wandsworth has been so rigid. Many of the inmates see themselves as tough; and so do many of the staff. Those attitudes have spilled over into relations between management and staff. The new governor, who took up his post last December, told the inspectorate that when he arrived he had a strong sense that the staff culture was happy for him to take to his office, carry out the administrative and symbollic governor tasks but leave the real running of the prison to them.
That is the first matter I want to raise. I agree with the inspectorate that Wandsworth will not be a happy establishment until authority is both exercised and accepted throughout the whole of line management. I hope very much that we have seen the last of episodes such as the one that occurred earlier this year in which, because of a walk-out by uniformed staff, the Metropolitan Police had to come in and run the prison. Fortunately, since then there appears to have been some improvement in relations between staff and management. I very much welcome that.
It cannot be said too often that management has the clear responsibility for doing its best to create good relations with staff and for consulting them when appropriate. But in the final analysis its authority has to be accepted. It is impossible for a prison to be run satisfactorily if constant attempts are made to undermine the governor and his senior colleagues. That applies to Wandsworth and to other establishments in the prison service where unfortunately we have witnessed similar conduct.
I turn now to some of the other important matters which are raised in the inspectorate's report. First, I shall deal with some of the physical problems which are associated with the prison. One of the most

1281
urgent is internal sanitation. It is extraordinary that we are still discussing that issue. Everyone accepts that the process of slopping out is a shameful affront to human decency. At Wandsworth, as in some other prisons, the cells were originally equipped with integral sanitation, but that was torn out many years ago on the instructions of someone who has never been identified.
The inspectorate says that a reasonable level of integral sanitation could be provided within the prison within seven years. Unhappily, at present the Home Office plans to provide only 300 cells out of about 1,200 at Wandsworth with lavatories and washbasins during that period. Is it impossible to accept the inspectorate's proposal? I recognise that to do so would carry with it significant implications. The number of inmates at Wandsworth would have to be reduced substantially, but given the size of the present prison building programme, which I welcome, is it out of the question?
Is it right —this is the situation disclosed in the report—that 40 inmates must still share two lavatories, two urinals and two slop sinks? I should have thought not. Is it right that they must wash their eating utensils in the same bucket or bowl as that used for personal hygiene? Is it right for the one towel in each man's possession also to be used to dry those utensils? Again, I should think that both those practices are unacceptable. Are they to be ended? We look forward to hearing from the noble Earl on that question.
There is then the question of the central bathhouse or, as the inspectorate describes it, the ghastly central bathhouse. It seems that not all inmates even receive a weekly shower, mainly due to what is described as a shortage of kit. Again, I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will assist us on this point. Can he indicate whether, as a result of the Government's review of the report, a weekly shower can now be guaranteed? I should have thought that, in the deplorably overcrowded conditions at Wandsworth, it was not a great deal to ask.
I come next to the question of catering arrangements. Here there has been, as I am sure the noble Earl will tell us, a major refurbishment of the kitchen in recent years, costing about £1 million. At the recent inspection, the staff strength in the kitchen was only a governor grade five and four officers—just half the number of staff who are employed in dealing with the question of censorship. That is a matter to which I shall return. That small group of officers must control a work party of 44 inmates.
According to the inspectorate, the effect of that situation was that the general standard of cleanliness within the kitchen complex suffered, as did the overall supervision of the inmates. The inspectorate said that that was demonstrated by,
"the deplorable state of the wash-up area".
That had become so bad that the health and safety officer had recently recommended that it be closed because it did not meet the minimum standards required under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970. The waste food collection area
1282
was also in a poor condition and there was a problem of pest infestation. There was evidence of the presence of both mice and cockroaches.
This issue goes well beyond Wandsworth. We have had a stream of complaints on the issue from the prisons inspectorate. They have covered many prisons including Maidstone, Pucklechurch, Hollesley Bay, Dartmoor and Blundeston. It is now essential that just as Crown immunity was removed from hospitals after the food poisoning outbreak at Stanley Royd Hospital in Wakefield it should also be removed from prisons. The practice whereby prisons cannot be prosecuted, however verminous their kitchens may be, is in my judgment no longer tolerable.
I now turn to two other issues before coming to the final matter that I want to raise. First, on the question of censorship, when there are so many references in the report to staff shortages at Wandsworth I find it bizarre that 10 uniformed staff are employed full time in censoring correspondence. As I have said, that is twice as many as work in the grossly understaffed kitchens in the prison. The inspectorate says, with remarkable restraint, that it is questionable whether full censorship is required of all outgoing mail. The full cost of that practice at Wandsworth is no less than £150,000 a year. We must ask ourselves —it is a term which trips off the lips of Ministers —whether we are getting value for money with regard to that extraordinary level of expenditure.
I am well aware that in the past prison management has sometimes been hesitant about cutting back on entirely unnecessary censorship practice because of staff attitudes. I well remember an occasion at the Home Office when was present at a meeting with the then Home Secretary in which it was made clear to us that, if we extended the number of establishments where censorship was to be abandoned, immediate industrial action would be taken against us. I hope that, despite those problems, the Minister will be able to indicate whether there can be a sharp cut-back in the resources made available for censorship at the prison.
Secondly, there is the question of the library for inmates, who are, as we all know, sometimes locked up for very long periods of the day. One of the few ways of making their life more tolerable is to be able to obtain a library book. It is alarming —that is the term used by the inspectorate —that inmates have sometimes not been able to change their books for several weeks. The inspectorate's modest proposal is that that should be possible at least once a week. I ask the noble Earl: can that now be guaranteed?
I now come to the final issue that I want to raise. In some respects it is one of the most fundamental. It is the question of race relations. About a third of the inmates of Wandsworth are black. Yet, according to the inspectorate's report, of the 30 orderly jobs in the main prison —jobs which are some of the most popular with inmates —not one is held by a man with a black face, despite the fact that about 33 per cent. of the inmates of that prison are black. We must ask why that should be so. It is also clear from the report that people of ethnic minority background

1283
are overrepresented among the unemployed in the prison.
There is little doubt that one of the reasons for this is racial prejudice among a minority —I believe that it is a minority —of prison officers. Just as it was an initial assessment report at Wandsworth Prison some years ago that led ultimately to a judicial finding that an inmate at Parkhurst, Mr. John Alexander, had been unlawfully discriminated against, I believe that, despite all the efforts which have been made to eliminate those practices, some of them linger on.
Perhaps I may make quite clear what I am saying. I do not believe that the record of the prison service is worse than that of the probation service, the private sector, social work agencies, journalism or the profession of politics; indeed, in some respects it is a great deal better. But why is there still not one black orderly at Wandsworth? Why —I now refer specifically to paragraph 3.59 of the inspectorate's report —has management in the past allowed,
"many staff [to wear] unofficial insignia"?
The inspectorate makes clear that those insignia have clear racial connotations. The inspectorate adds that slashed peaks to uniform hats are no less intimidating.
I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Earl will take the same view of such practices as do the rest of us. They are unacceptable. If a policeman or a soldier wore a similar badge or defaced his cap, he would soon find himself on a disciplinary charge. Precisely the same principle should now be extended to the prison service and it should be done at once. I hope that it will be done not only at Wandsworth but at any other prison department establishment where similar practices exist.
In conclusion, I believe that there are many men and women in the prison service at Wandsworth and elsewhere who work with devotion to make tolerable the conditions for inmates. Some significant improvements have been made despite the huge number that this country holds in custody. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to reassure the House that prompt action is now being taken to rectify the serious shortcomings that have been disclosed in this report.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I shall pursue the argument of my noble friend in general but hope to offer some details other than those that he has so far given to the House. This report should be compulsory reading for every magistrate and judge in the country. Those who have the power and the duty to send people to prison should be aware of what they are doing. This objective and courageous report should act as an extra argument in addition to the many others for not sending anyone to prison if it can possibly be avoided.
I do not want to make attacks on the Minister or the Home Office but it is impossible not to lay some blame on the Government for the deplorable conditions revealed in this report. The Government have had 10 years of an alleged economic miracle in which to put things right. Deplorable building
1284
conditions can be put right only by money, so one would have thought that an economic miracle would have been just the job.
Not all prisons are as terrible as this report depicts Wandsworth to be. However quite a few of them are as bad. Several local prisons are far more overcrowded than Wandsworth, which has 25 per cent. overcrowding. Bascially overcrowding is the root of all evil in the prison system. In Wandsworth the crude building conditions are intolerable but even that could be lived with if the 25 per cent. excess over the CNA (certified normal accommodation) were removed and the shortage of staff, which is referred to all through this report, were made good. There would then be some chance of easing the bad conditions which, we are told, will not be put right until the next century and then only up to 87 per cent.
I am fully aware that Wandsworth takes largely men who have been difficult to handle, as my noble friend pointed out. Both officers and men seem to take a pride in being in a "tough nick", as they call it, and to some extent they play up to it. Overcrowding and staff shortages in such conditions cannot fail to lead to bad staff relations and trouble.
When this House discussed the prison department's on the whole excellent Fresh Start scheme for reorganising staff duties, almost every speaker said that it would succeed only if the recommended staff were in fact made available. It is now one and a half years since the change; yet in a prison which has the most unsatisfactory conditions and which holds particularly difficult inmates the recommended staff are still not available.
We were told in paragraph 2.28 that both management and staff were feeling badly let down by the department's failure to produce the 10 officers owing to the prison in April under Fresh Start; nor has the flexible working envisaged in the Fresh Start scheme been applied. Paragraph 2.31 speaks of a shortfall of 17 staff at officer level. Paragraph 2.33 refers to staff vacancies running at around 20 per cent. If there is a 20 per cent. staff shortage and 25 per cent. overcrowding, what can be expected? It seems to me that management and staff must be congratulated on keeping the lid on at all in such circumstances.
Let me turn briefly to the building side of the problem. The Government seem content to neglect current repairs to prison buildings as readily as they have neglected current repairs to museums and galleries, which have been a great deal in the news lately. Keeping up with current repairs is simply a question of men and money, not of prison psychology or anything else. Clearly both are inadequate.
Paragraph 2.08 of the report states that neither the current levels of work-staff nor the resources allocated are enough to maintain the prison in its present state, let alone deal with a heavy backlog of repairs. As my noble friend mentioned, the prison department has installed integral sanitation in eight cells as a pilot scheme. I gave notice to the noble Earl of my intention to ask the following questions, but an answer by letter will do as well as an immediate reply this evening. I want to know how

1285
much it cost, how many workmen were involved and how long it took. I want to know whether any prison labour was used, whether any work was contracted out, whether extra staff were taken on or whether the backlog of repairs was simply allowed to increase while this pilot job was done.
I understand that the Government have rejected the chief inspector's clear recommendation to make that 150-year overdue improvement within seven years. If that is not true I shall be very glad to hear it. This recommendation must be adopted, cost what it may. I hope that the noble Earl will explain why it cannot be done in three or four years rather than in seven. The building trade is slackening at the moment and the Government can exercise their favourite discipline imposed on local authorities to contract out for the whole job. I believe that it is simply a question of money and that the highest priority should be given to putting right what is so inhumanly wrong.
So much for the longer-term problems. A number of shorter-term problems have been referred to by my noble friend, and some of them can be put right very quickly. I shall not go through the list which I sent to the noble Earl but feel that I must refer to the question of two towels. That was a recommendation that was sent to the Director General. I hope to make it quite clear in this House that I believe that the Director General ought to agree to that recommendation, and jolly quickly. Secondly, there is the question of the two bowls to which my noble friend referred. That is elementary and obviously right. Thirdly, I shall speak about only one further matter which again was referred to by my noble friend; namely the question of baths, showers and lavatories. Slopping out is a great horror. We all hate it. But after a prisoner has slopped out, if he is then stuck with overcrowded baths and ill kept lavatories, the position becomes almost shameful.
I want to say a few words about the palliatives for strict confinement, the most important of which in my view are work, books and visits. Wandsworth seems to me to get no more than one or two marks out of 10 for any of them. With regard to work, we are told that the workshops in operation can cope with 400 or so persons, but once again owing to shortage of staff the average attendance over the past six months has been 215. That is out of a population of 1,500. At best two-thirds of the inmates are left with nothing to do. In particular, those in the G, H and K cells are on Rule 43; they are kept in the cell most of the time.
On the subject of books, why should access to the library be, in the words of the report, "only patchy"? Why should some men be unable to change their books for several weeks? In many prisons libraries give a very good service but not, it seems, at Wandsworth Prison.
Most important of all is the subject of visits. The recommendations to the governor, numbers 77 to 84, are all about visits and are a serious attempt to remedy the very unsatisfactory arrangements described in paragraphs 3.66 to 3.70 in the report.
Last week we had a most interesting talk at the NACRO AGM from Mr. Brendan Reynolds, who is
1286
number two in the Canadian prison service. I asked him about their visiting arrangements and told him that ours depended to a high degree on private charity. He replied that in Canada they regarded money spent on improving visiting conditions as a wise investment, as visits above all other factors tend to reduce tension, and tension is the most dangerous and ultimately expensive condition possible in prisons. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that point. It seems to me that throughout the prison service although some visiting conditions are good, many are very bad. To improve the visiting conditions is a very constructive way of making the situation better.
I wish to described what at the worst may happen to any man who finds himself incarcerated in Wandsworth Prison. He will be locked up for 23 hours a day in a cell designed 150 years ago for one person, sharing it with two others and their chamber pots. He may receive a change of clothing and have a bath sometimes as seldom as once in three weeks. Books are changeable sometimes as seldom as every three weeks. He has nothing to do. I do not pretend that this account describes every prisoner's lot all the time but it may apply to anyone for long periods and it applies to many quite frequently. If it were me, I should hate everyone concerned in any way with my imprisonment: the Home Office, the governor, the prison officers, the probation officers and the police. If I did not go mad I should commit murder or suicide.
All of us who have spoken today, and those who will speak, know very well that the problems confronting the noble Earl and his colleagues are real, formidable and not able to be solved without difficulty and expense. We know also that the noble Earl and his colleagues are just as distressed as we are at the seriousness of the problems, especially that of sanitation. My difficulty is that I have been speaking on this issue for 30 years and nothing has happened. Matters have become observably worse. As a so-called civilised nation, we cannot go on like this any more.
I do not expect the noble Earl to tell me that plans exist to put everything right in no time. However I beg him to persuade his colleagues in the Government to give real priority, with not inconsiderable sums of money, to the righting of this wholly unacceptable state of affairs. We must have a major effort to deal with the minor problems, and a major switch of resources to deal with the large problems of sanitation, building repairs and shortage of staff. Not many problems respond to money being thrown at them, but building problems will respond to nothing else. If tonight we can between us say anything that will hurry up such a priority, the time of the House will not have been wasted.
6.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, a number of debates have been held in your Lordships' House in recent years about the prison service and custodial sentencing. Each time we are faced with fundamental questions as to what prisons are for, how we value people who are imprisoned and what our grossly overcrowded prisons say about the state of British society and its legal system. This debate

1287
is about a particular prison. I therefore wish to observe, only very briefly, that Christian principles require us to hold together a belief in justice and values with a belief in mercy, because God is merciful and we all need his mercy. Morever, Christans, along with many others, believe in the funadmental value of each human being, in the possibility of change and reform and in the need to create conditions which make reformation possible.
The prison service of England and Wales has an aim in line with such principles. It issued a new statement of purpose at the beginning of this year which includes these words:
"Her Majesty's Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the Courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and to help them to lead useful lives in custody and after release".
It is against that background that I wish to speak very briefly about the report.
I am deeply sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark is unwell and is prevented from being here today. Wandsworth Prison is in his diocese. He has been there a number of times and he maintains regular contact with the prison chaplains to whom the report refers. However, in much that I say I shall echo his reactions to the report and his concern.
Appendix 1 of the report reproduces an "Agreed Action Document" for Wandsworth Prison 1988–89. It gives content to the statement of purpose to which I have referred. However, it is instructive to compare the two columns, which show where the specific aims contained in CI 55/1984 have been modified to suit the conditions obtaining at Wandsworth Prison. I note that under Function No. 17 the phrase,
"individual and collective leisure activities"
has disappeared, unless there is some reference to it in the unpublished annexes. Under Function No. 18, the phrase,
"to enable prisoners to spend the maximum possible time out of their cells",
has been considerably weakened to read,
"to provide, where possible, opportunities for prisoners to spend time out of their cells".
Reading the report it is quite clear that a great many prisoners spend almost the whole time banged up, as it is called, deprived of even the minimum fortnightly visits to a library and with little prospect of useful work or activity of any kind. There is a continuing failure to provide a regime at Wandsworth Prison which can be described as humane or reformatory in any meaningful way. Thus the report expresses the conclusion that for prisoners, life at Wandsworth was a deadening experience broken only by conversation about routines or about a future life of crime.
Paragraph 3.39 of the report is headed "Inmates' Perceptions". It is a list of those things which are experienced as being most difficult to bear and so induce the most negative feelings about the whole regime. Outsiders, including the press, tend to fasten more readily on the lack of adequate sanitation and hygiene and on the resulting need for slopping out —in the case of some inmates less frequently
1288
than need be. Noble Lords have already spoken at some length about this very distressing and dehumanising necessity —if it is a necessity —in the life of our prisons today and I share their distaste.
But it is the perception of many who work in the prison that what is most difficult to bear is the isolation, not only the physical isolation from other people inside the prison which results from the lack of work and leisure activity but isolation from family and friends because of the extraordinarily strict limitations on visiting and on mail. Chaplains spend hours and hours dealing with written applications for news of family or special visits, and these are almost always generated by anxiety and too much time to brood in loneliness.
Paragraphs 3.66 to 3.70 give a dismal picture of the inadequacies to be found in this area of prison life, inadequacies of which most people are quite unaware. Is there no way in which adequate levels of staffing can be obtained in order to break down some of this unnecessary isolation? Is there no way in which the prison authorities can be encouraged to approach local voluntary bodies, churches and so on to try to provide better facilities for visitors? And why on earth should new prisoners be deprived of visits for so long?
Whenever criticism is made of prison life there are always two immediate explanations—overcrowding and staff shortages. The report makes clear that Wandsworth already works under such dreadful constraints, and I doubt whether any of your Lordships would find it easy to work in such an institution; I know I would not. But the conclusions in Chapter Four spell out some things which can begin to change now and paragraph 4.08 states this unequivocally.
We must all be grateful to the judge and his staff for this honest report, to the Home Office for publishing it and to the many people inside Wandsworth Prison itself who gave frank replies to searching questions and who clearly want to see matters improve. It is a matter of great urgency. I believe that it is a matter which should concern us all, and we very much look forward to hearing the noble Earl as he speaks on these serious matters.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, reading the report on Wandsworth is rather sobering. Wandsworth is, of course, the peak of the pyramid of prisons, most of which are overcrowded. I believe that the Government are building a lot of prisons at the moment, and I have no doubt that we shall hear about that from the Minister.
It is often said that there are too many people sent to gaol by magistrates. I sit as a magistrate, like many other noble Lords, and certainly I can say that there is enormous effort made at all times not to send people to gaol. However, the fact is that, inevitably, it is necessary from time to time. But what one discovers is that there is a never-ending variety of crime, a never-ending variety of criminals and their backgrounds and only a very limited means of disposal.
Some people obviously have to go to prison because they are a positive danger to the public or

1289
their crimes are on such a scale that there is no alternative. But there are many other people who are eventually sent to prison, such as, for example, the persistent petty offender who repeatedly drives without insurance, who is continually fined, who then refuses to pay his fine, gets community service and in the end, because there is no alternative has to go to gaol. But such a person is not dangerous and gaol is not the right place to send him. He is often 21 years old, is unemployed, has a girl friend and two children and has no money with which to pay any fine.
We see people of this sort over and over again. Every magistrate must know them. Such people go to prison, they do little, they learn little, they learn to be even more idle than they were before, they learn expertise in crime and they learn degradation. We have heard all about this at Wandsworth. It does not do them any good, but what else can one do?
I believe that there should be more alternatives to sending people to prison. We already have community service, probation and so on. These can be used to a great extent and they are very good, but the more alternatives we can find the better. There should be more options than the extremes of fines and imprisonment. What is needed are methods of punishing people so that not only do they get punishment, but, if possible, they learn how to work, to get up in the morning and to get going, so that when they finish their time they are of some use to themselves and have the motivation to get a job and to get going in life.
What is needed are simple jobs which offenders have to do as a punishment. I am talking about repetitive stuff which can get them going. It is very difficult to find jobs of this sort, though community service goes some way towards it. But the point of my speech is to suggest just one such job. It relates to forestry. I want to talk about forestry for a moment. The Forestry Commission have cast acreages of forest throughout the country, most of which is unbrashed. It is like a jungle and there are branches not cut off. Because of that, the forest will remain a jungle and be of low value for the country in the future.
I believe that this could provide work as a substitute for prison. Certain unmotivated youngsters could be sent out to brash specific areas, which they would have to finish before they were allowed out into the community again. They would need little supervision and they would learn how to get up in the morning, because as soon as they had done their stint they could leave. There would be competition to get on and get the job done quickly. Having worked hard for so many acres, which might take weeks or months, they could then go, so they would learn to work quickly and to get on with the job.
There would obviously be a problem with unions, but this work, if it is not done by the equivalent of community service labour, will not be done at all. Having been done, however, the woods would then be available for thinning, which would employ more
1290
labour. So it would increase the paid labour needed by the Forestry Commission in the future.
I hope that the Home Office will give serious study to this scheme. I believe that it could be worked out and, if it would enable some people to be kept out of prison, that would leave more room for those who have to go to prison, and it would make a contribution towards solving the overcrowding in the prisons of this country.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, from everything that has been said so far, there is really no doubt at all that all of us who are concerned and involved with standards within our prisons are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris., for bringing this report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons to our notice. I should like to add my words of tribute to Judge Stephen Tumim for producing such a very excellent, frank report.
It is clear from what all speakers have said that it is a particularly damning report. Speaking for myself, I must confess that when reading parts of it, particularly its conclusions, I could hardly believe that it was a British institution which was being described. I could not believe that it was a British prison being described when the report stated —and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has already referred to this —in the first lines of the recommendations that,
"The regime for inmates does not meet basic standards of humanity and propriety".
To read such a description of a prison in this country has a very profound effect on all those of us who are very concerned about the standard of our prisons.
As the right reverend Prelate said, there is a cruel paradox between those words and the inscription on all our prison walls which described the aims of our prison service and which conflicts so very harshly with the words of the Chief Inspector.
I should like to speak as the chairman of the New Bridge. I should like to add that this critical report confirms many of the comments which I have heard from the New Bridge volunteers who visit those who they befriend in Wandsworth Prison. Indeed, some would maintain that however bad this report may be, much of it is not saying anything new. They would say that it effectively repeats complaints raised on countless occasions. Those volunteers —and I stress that they are very experienced in this field —describe the prison as a place apart with a regime, system and atmosphere of its own. They find it a very much harder place in which to carry out their befriending role.
Perhaps I may give an example. During the postal strike one of our volunteers who lived close to Wandsworth wished to deliver a letter by hand in order that his client should receive it. He took it to the gates of the gaol and was turned away with the words, "We only accept letters from the Royal Mail". That would seem to substantiate the report's description when it refers to adopting an attitude of giving nothing to prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and other speakers have made some very important points. I do not wish to repeat them all but I should like to stress

1291
some issues which have been raised and to give my support to many of the points mentioned.
First —and I think it is impossible to refer to this report without referring to the part on sanitation —I cannot understand why the prison department proposes to install integral sanitation in only 408 cells. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked: how on earth could it possibly take seven years? Indeed, I understand that it may take even longer. At that rate, it will be a photo finish between the building of the Channel Tunnel and the integral sanitation at Wandsworth Prison. It is inconceivable to think of anything which is so deeply needed taking such a very long time.
Again, how can it possibly be that the inmates, who already have so few showers, can only have clean clothes when they have had those very spasmodic showers so that they neither have showers nor clean clothes? As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the health risks brought on by the extraordinary practice described in the report of prisoners washing up their eating utensils in containers used for personal hygiene is quite appalling.
Perhaps I could just say a few words about visits. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, quote the example from Canada. I believe it is important that a lot of attention is given to visits as that is a very important part of the rehabilitation of the prisoner. From the point of view of the prisoner, I should also like to know how the practice arises whereby sometimes prisoners are denied visits twice per month until they have been there for three and a half months. That seems a particularly harsh practice and I wonder how that arose in Wandsworth Prison.
From the viewpoint of the visitors, what strikes me in the report is the lack of a visitors' centre. I have always wondered why it is the wives and children of our prisoners who are punished. Why do we make them wait such long periods in such terribly bad conditions to see their husbands, fathers or sons? That point is borne out by a letter to The Times from the director of the New Bridge in which he described his own visit to Wandsworth. He talked about the degrading conditions experienced by visitors to HM Prison Wandsworth. He wrote:
"Hardly a week goes by without a complaint from a New Bridge voluntary associate…about the circumstances to which all visitors are subjected. It seems incredible that for a 30-minute visit you have to spend up to two hours trying to get in and out of the place".
He then described the very successful plans being made in other London prisons for visitor centres which are being started up by volunteers. I believe that a visitor centre at Wandsworth seems absolutely imperative.
I should like to say a few words about staff training. There seems to be a rather strange feature that Wandsworth of all places should fill the national role for fielding inquiries about careers in the prison service. It runs initial assessment tests for applicants and also provides a 10-day orientation course before the start of training. Perhaps the Minister could explain why that very unrepresentative prison should have been chosen to fill that all-important function of providing an example to new entrants.
1292
That cannot be the right introduction for people entering into the prison service.
The section dealing with the medical staff says that of the 32 hospital officers, at least five are working exclusively on administration and do not deal with patients. That seems a terrible way of using medical expertise, if there are as many as five people working exclusively on administration.
The section which describes suicide prevention says that there is a serious defect in reporting self-injury on the Form 220. It says that the statistics were graded in five degrees of seriousness ranging from gesture to serious attempt. There was no record of what was actually done; for example, wrists slashed or attempted hanging. It says that those shortcomings should be rectified at once. I very much hope that the Minister will tell us that there is an intention to do that.
I was also surprised to see in the report that there was a 37-bed ward facility standing empty and yet the report talked about the presence of many inmates with psychiatric problems who were not receiving treatement.
Of course, there are many other important questions in this report and many have been covered today. I shall not cover any more specific points except I should like to give my very strong support to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about alleged racism among the staff.
I should also be very grateful to hear from the Minister what action has been taken on those members who, it is said, slashed the peaks of their caps and whether or not it is true that insignias have been worn on uniforms. I should have thought that it went right against the prison rules for members of the staff so to change their uniforms.
Will the Minister also comment on the very worrying point in the report which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has brought up, that black inmates, who total nearly one-third of the population, appear to be discriminated against and are treated worse than the white prisoners? This is a very serious question to which I feel we need an answer.
I conclude by saying a word about the staff of Wandsworth Prison. It is quite clear from the report that they operate a hard regime; but when one considers the ingredients, so to speak, making up this prison, it seems very much less surprising that they are constricted to such a hard regime. First, there is the building itself which was built in the 1850s and is of a "tired nature", as it is described. Secondly, Wandsworth was never intended to hold such a huge number of prisoners —450 Rule 3 inmates who are locked up 22 or 23 hours a day without treatment therapy, a structural programme of training or anything.
Thirdly, Wandsworth is a receiving establishment for difficult prisoners from other prisons. This brings to the staff all the problems which go with that. The chief inspector's report stated that two-thirds of the inmates were unemployed. The truth is that out of those 1,500 there are rarely more than 250 prisoners on a daily basis able to work. The report says:
"Both management and Staff Association felt badly let down by the Department's failure to produce the ten officers owing to the prison on 1 April under the Framework Agreement".

1293
I too believe, as previous speakers have said, that such a shortfall must be very difficult for the prison to carry. Those points have been brought out many times by the staff at Wandsworth.
All in all, when Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons described the impoverished regime, how nothing is given, the prisoners' attitude and how staff operated a thoroughly institutionalised routine by imposing many simple basic rules, he was quite right to add that by the same token the operation of such an inadequate regime blunts staff development and gives only limited job satisfaction.
As the right reverend Prelate said, this report underlines the lack of any kind of therapy, remedial or rehabilitation treatment. It strongly stresses the need for the public to take more interest in what happens in their prisons. The public take a great interest in what happens in schools and hospitals; if they focused their interest on what was happening inside their own prisons I cannot help but believe that the conditions which have come about in Wandsworth Prison would not be allowed.
I shall be very grateful for some answers from the Minister to my specific questions and I share a hope with all those who have spoken that Judge Tumim's very frank report, its recommendations and this debate will result in vast improvements to this prison and will remove what I can only see as a very grave blot on this country's reputation as a humane society.
7.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this subject today because it is one which exercises your Lordships and your Lordships have been traditionally concerned with prisons —what they are like inside and what happens to those who reside in them. That concern has been expressed again today. It is always difficult to get the balance right between removing people from society as a punishment or to protect society and then ensuring that they are not subjected to a waste of life when they are in prison. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made quite clear his concern about that. He gave us the benefit of the difficulties to which prisoners are subjected and to which his own pastors are subjected when they try to help the prisoners.
I was also interested by the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Gisborough of using prisoners for work in forestry. It is an interesting suggestion. There are nowadays fewer prisoners who are suitable to work outside the establishment without supervision. This has come about mainly because of the increased use in recent years of non-custodial sentences. In areas where there are open prisons agricultural work and contributions to local community work are carrried out by inmates and these arrangements are operating very satisfactorily. My noble friend is quite right, however, that it gives people an opportunity to do something constructive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that she wished more people would take greater notice of what happens inside prisons. One of the advantages of the publication of the inspector's report is precisely that; these reports are now published and
1294
are public knowledge. As has been quite evident today, those of your Lordships who have read the report are interested by what they have discovered.
The report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, his honour Judge Tumim, on his inspection of Wandsworth Prison in April 1989 was published on 20th October with a statement setting out the action which was being taken in response. Copies were placed in the Library. The chief inspector provided in the report a constructive —in some places critical —assessment, pointing to serious shortcomings in the regime and in the ethos at Wandsworth. He identified several areas where he considered that improvement was necessary. These included the overall management of the establishment, some aspects of the buildings, the regime for inmates and the facilities for visitors and staff.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his observation regarding the governor and his staff. He said that the governor must do all that he can to create good relations between himself and his staff but in the end the governor had to govern. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was quite right in that, if I may say so. He was right also to underline that very simple but very important point.
The chief inspector recommended that Wandsworth's functions should be more clearly defined and that priorities for management action should be set. As all noble Lords will agree, Wandsworth has always been somewhere which has housed what one might call the heaviest of criminals: those who have raped and mugged, Rule 43 prisoners and those who have been sent there from other prisons because they were not suited to their easier regime.
In that respect Wandsworth has always been a tough place. But its virtue is that its very toughness has enabled other prisons to house less hardened people and therefore to be able to have more enlightened regimes. One should not lose sight of that fact. In other words, it has enabled the rest of the prison system to function better.
Wandsworth is the main prison in London for long sentence prisoners, a function which it carries out very well. Long-term prisoners start their sentences at Wandworth and are allocated from there to other prisons. If a prisoner fails to respond at the prison to which he is allocated, it is clearly best for him to be returned to Wandsworth where he was originally assessed. He can then start again. This inevitably means that Wandsworth has more than its share of difficult prisoners.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford was worried about a prison's ability to reform and to understand its prisoners. I believe he said that prisoners were banged up with nothing to do. He rightly reminded us of the chaplain's difficulties in trying to help prisoners. Nobody denies that it is a difficult position. Governors can and should incorporate the help of voluntary services. I believe that this is a matter about which the right reverend Prelate was concerned. With the best will in the world there are roles which voluntary and Christian agencies can undertake better, more

1295
sensitively and more personally than even the best of the prison regimes. The governor of Wandswroth is making as much use of voluntary agencies as he can. These kinds of agencies are being involved in setting up arrangements for improved visitors' facilities. The New Bridge organisation, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, is the chairman, is also involved in that work.
The inspectors were not impressed with Wandsworth's agreed functions document. They considered that a vital early task should be to review the existing statement of functions, and in particular they considered that the function of the Rule 43 wings should be reviewed and the prison's role in coping with difficult prisoners who had failed in other prisons in the South-East region should be examined. This criticism was accepted.
The governor and his senior staff are completely revising the establishment's functions document and its priorities, with the assistance of headquarters specialists. They are drawing up what they call corporate objectives for all groups of staff. That is what one might call prisonspeak for the functions document. There are no plans in the near future to change the basic role of Wandsworth, which will continue to house Rule 43 prisoners in G, H and K wings and which will receive from other prisons in the region inmates who do not find it easy to accept the more open regimes which other prisons offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that it is only money that will put the prison business right. He has frequently said that, and I understand his concern to improve the prisons and his view that a great deal of money has to be spent. During the present year, 1989–90, £123 million is being spent on work in existing prisons. In addition, £200 million is being spent on building new prisons. At Wandsworth £5 million of building work is in hand and over £500,000 is for work due to start early next year. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may well say that that is not enough, but in his customary generosity he will accept that it is quite a lot of money and that a good deal is being done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the visits of relatives and said how important they were. They are important because they enable a prisoner to keep in touch with his family. I do not know how it came about that prisoners were being denied visits twice a month until they had been at Wandsworth for three-and-a-half months. The present governor found that this was the practice when he was appointed and it was then stopped.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked about the condition of the buildings. A major survey carried out at the end of 1984 showed that most of the buildings needed to be repaired and to be upgraded. A 10-year programme of work was prepared and that has started. The inspectors recommended that integral sanitation should be installed in all cells at Wandsworth within seven years, and that showers should then be installed in the recesses which have been previously used to
1296
house toilets. There is a programme to install integral sanitation in 300 cells at Wandsworth as part of the initiative which was announced by my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary in February this year.
We have considered whether the programme could be speeded up and expanded, but the overall building programme at Wandsworth in the next few years is very extensive, as the report points out. This work is essential if we are to maintain and improve the fabric and the services; if we are to upgrade security and if we are to provide new facilities, including a new reception facility which the chief inspector's report identified as being urgently required. Work is also in hand on the upgrading of the drainage system and is shortly to start on reroofing the wings.
This overall programme of work will extend the works department at Wandsworth to the full, and any additional work at this stage would jeopardise this vital programme. We have accepted the inspectors' recommendation that the works department should be provided with additional resources, and its complement has been increased by six. It is against this background that it would simply not be practicable to speed up the provision of integral sanitation at this time, notwithstanding the fact that it is desirable. I shall give way in a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, but this point is important. We have first to get the main drainage system and the water supply system upgraded before we can implement the new integral sanitation. It simply will not function until the other work has been done.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Earl has given me half the answer; namely, that certain things have to be done first. I hope that when they are done the noble Earl will try to get assurance that the work will not depend only on the existing staff but will be contracted out in order that the project may be completed much more quickly. Obviously, this work cannot be done before the more urgent work but it should be done immediately afterwards.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can quite understand the noble Lord's concern. He will realise that these undertakings have to move in progression. What we wish to achieve is to get the drainage work done first. Then it is our intention to have the sanitation work completed as soon as possible. I cannot give a guarantee to the noble Lord as to the method by which this will be done. It is planned to start the integral sanitation once the drainage system at Wandsworth —which at present is being totally disruptive —has been completed. One of the problems is the necessity to decamp prisoners into alternative accommodation while the integral sanitation is being installed. It is preferable that this should be done by closing a whole wing, but that merely compounds the difficulty of prisoner accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked about the pilot integral sanitation scheme which has already been installed at Wandsworth. He was kind enough to say that I could answer by letter, but I shall be

1297
quite happy now to give the noble Lord the answer which he requires. I am sure he will then be generous enough to say that I have given him the full answer and not only half of it.
Eight cells have had lavatories and washbasins with cold running water installed. The work took six weeks to complete and cost £925 per cell, £475 of which was accounted for by materials. It was undertaken by three prison work staff and six inmates. No contractors were involved in the work. In addition, the opportunity is now being taken, while refurbishing is being done in K wing, to install integral sanitation into 10 cells in K wing.
It is only right to point out that the prototype was installed into cells which are close to existing sanitary recesses where all the services are provided and which therefore makes for relatively simple and easy installation. Installation of integral sanitation throughout all the wings will involve more drainage, cold water tanks, boilers and pipes, and will be a much more complicated task.
We recognise that much needs to be done in order to improve the poor visiting facilities which exist at Wandsworth. The recommendations which were made by the chief inspector to the governor of Wandsworth have been accepted in full. The need for a visitors' centre and for facilities for nursing mothers was identified before the inspection report, and a committee was set up at Wandsworth in order to look at proposals for a visitors' centre.
The Butler Trust and the prisoners' wives representatives at Brixton Prison have been approached for suggestions as to how the facilities can be improved. It is hoped that a building close to the prison will be converted. This new visitors' centre will include a play area and an area for nursing mothers. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked when the visitors' centre will be open. I cannot give a date for that at present. The proposals are still at an early stage but they will be implemented as soon as it is possible to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to catering. The chief inspector made five recommendations. Catering staff at Wandsworth have increased by six in recent months. The staff now consists of one principal officer, two senior officers and seven officers. A board has recently been held to fill the vacant governor 5 catering post, and the one officer vacancy in the kitchen will also be filled soon.
Work on the major refurbishment of the kitchen wash-up area is due for completion at the end of this month and a full range of food samples is now being retained in case it may be necessary to subject the food to testing at a later date. Funds have been made available for the provision of sterilising sinks in the wings for the washing of trays and arrangements will be put in hand shortly for the installation of these. The relocation of the places from which food is served away from recesses which contain the toilets is a major works programme. This is still being considered. As an interim measure, toilet recesses are not used at times when meals are being served.
The issue of Crown immunity is frequently referred to. At present, the catering facilities of
1298
prison service establishments are exempt from the requirements of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970. These include the requirement which allows environmental health officers of the local authority the right of access to premises to carry out inspections. We are, though, acutely conscious of the need for food hygiene practice in prison establishments to be of a high standard. Despite the fact that prisons have, by tradition, received Crown immunity, it is the Government's policy that prisons should meet the same standards of hygiene as if they did not have that immunity.
To assist in this, a programme of inspections is undertaken by professionally qualified officers in the Home Office, all of whom hold the Diploma in Food Hygiene from the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene. Under this programme, the catering facilities of each establishment are the subject of a formal inspection at least once a year. This programme is supplemented by a series of 12 independent validation inspections each year by an environmental health officer from the Department of Health. Establishments receive no prior warning of either the internal or the validation inspections.
Governors and medical officers have a crucial role to play in the day-to-day monitoring of standards and in identifying shortcomings. Medical officers in particular have a specific responsibility for supervising hygiene standards in their establishments, and they are required to carry out full inspections twice a year. In order to help medical officers and line managers, comprehensive guidance on hygiene was issued in July of this year. Health and safety policy statements were also circulated to the service in August. These set out improved arrangements for monitoring standards and they impose a requirement that governors should include a section on hygiene standards in their annual reports on their establishments. I hope that this will help to improve the standards of hygiene.
There are no plans at present to consider the removal of Crown immunity from the kitchens of prison establishments, as we think that the present arrangements serve to set and to maintain the standards which are required by the regulations. We shall continue to seek ways of making improvements, and we will keep under review the whole question of Crown immunity.
I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the intrusiveness of censoring of inmates' correspondence and the effect which this has on relationships between inmates and staff. It is also, as he pointed out, a time-consuming and costly procedure. We recognise that there would be advantages in reducing censorship, not only at Wandsworth but also at all Category B establishments. Noble Lords may know that, in recent years, we have substantially reduced censorship at lower security establishments. There is now no censorship at open prisons, which are Category D prisons, and merely random monitoring of some 5 per cent. of the mail at Category C establishments. Where remand and other Category B prisoners are concerned, the implications for security and control are clearly more serious and will need to be examined in some detail before a decision

1299
on a possible reduction of censorship is taken. I can assure the House that this is now being closely considered.
The noble Lord drew attention to the chief inspector's recommendation concerning race relations at Wandsworth prison. The governors have accepted and have acted on all these recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked whether disciplinary action had been taken against staff at Wandsworth who were wearing unofficial insignia or who had slashed the peaks of their caps. I understand that no disciplinary action has been taken. The instructions which the governor issued on the matter were complied with, and there was no need to consider any further action. Disciplinary action is probably not the best way of dealing with this kind of problem, which is more a matter of staff attitudes. We should try to seek changes in other ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and other noble Lords referred to the position of black people in Wandsworth. The noble Lord said that there were no black prison officers. There are at least two black orderlies—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was asking why no black prisoners were used as orderlies. The inspector pointed out that there were 30 such jobs. In a prison where 33 per cent. of the inmates are black, there was not one black face in that group of orderlies. Is that question also being addressed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that there are at least two black orderlies, including the governor's orderly. The governor is now monitoring the employment of inmates and other activities in order to ensure that there is no discrimination. Allocation of work is now in the hands of a governor grade officer.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford referred to the difficulty of changing library books and asked why this could not be done at least once a week. That is the aim but there are certain logistical problems. Arranging for some 1,500 inmates to visit the library, escorting them there and taking them back presents severe logistical problems. The library can hold only 20 or 30 inmates at a time. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a library visit in favour of other activities such as taking prisoners to court. I can assure the House that it is the governor's aim that visits to the library should take place once a week.
The inspectors acknowledged that Wandsworth had carried out a difficult range of functions for more than 20 years without an escape or a major disturbance. But they stated that this had been achieved by imposing a most basic and restrictive regime which gave inmates a low quality of life and which blunted staff development. The right reverend Prelate, among others, referred to this matter. The chief inspector recommended that urgent steps should be taken to improve the regime for inmates. We agree. But progress on the regime will need to be made in stages, and by looking at each group of prisoners separately. This process has begun.
1300
The first groups to receive attention were the vulnerable prisoners in G, H and K wings and the long-term population. Prison officers now lead courses in G, H and K wings in order to help prisoners cope with living in prison and to prepare them for their release. There are also plans for further courses for prisoners in mid-sentence. Cell hobbies, evening chess clubs and hobbies clubs have been introduced. By the end of this month, prisoners on these wings will have access to showers there. The governor, with the help of regional office at Woking, is now examining proposals in order to improve the regime in other parts of the prison.
However, the chief inspector also found some positive features in the existing regime. He commented on the large amount of devoted work which is being undertaken by the staff. This was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. As I say, he noted the large amount of work carried out in a devoted fashion. He mentioned favourably the industries at the prison, which has spacious workshops providing some 450 places in tailoring, textiles, carpentry, brushmaking and contract services, as well as work being undertaken in the laundry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked why 37 beds in the hospital were not being used. The chief inspector and his team criticised the prison hospital because they found that ward facilities were under-used and that hospital staff were employed on administrative rather than nursing duties. A thorough appraisal of the hospital accommodation, staff and facilities was recommended.
This recommendation has been accepted by the Director of Prison Medical Services, and a thorough appraisal of the hospital accommodation, staff and facilities has been carried out. There happened to be no particular call on some of the ward facilities. The opportunity has been taken to have a thorough review in order to use the space which is available more efficiently.
The medical director has also taken steps to strengthen medical management within the establishment, and it is expected that at least two hospital officers who are at present engaged on administrative duties will be released to nursing duties shortly.
These measures, taken together, will enable the hospital facility at Wansdworth to play a significantly greater part in the medical and nursing care of prisoner patients in the South-East region. I am most grateful to the chief inspector for the impetus he has given to furthering that desirable objective.
We welcomed the wide-ranging nature of the chief inspector's report. Work was put in hand on many other matters which the report brought to the attention of the director general, the regional director and the governor.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was kind enough to give me advance notice about the points about which he was concerned. He highlighted some of the recommendations, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I can assure your Lordships that the Government have been acting

1301
upon them. For example, a second bowl and a second towel will be issued to each inmate as soon as supplies are received. The recommended improvements in the arrangements for showers and for changes of clothing are being met.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether we can guarantee one shower a week. I can tell the noble Lord that that is in fact the aim. However, the question of unforeseen staff demands, such as escort duty and so on, may on occasion make this difficult. I cannot give him a guarantee but I can tell him that it is our aim that this should be so.
A project is being started on the introduction of a personal kit system. Inmates can now buy stamps from their private cash and there are also proposals further to improve the canteen facilities by providing separate facilities for G, H and K wings and for the rest of the prison.
As your Lordships will be aware, the prison department has a thorough procedure for following up inspection reports. This report itself will be followed up by the Deputy Director General of the Prison Service, and he has arranged to visit Wandsworth in the near future in order to do so. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons will be informed of the progress on his recommendations.
The chief inspector commended staff at Wandsworth for coping as well as they do, and he noted a determination in the senior staff to see through the alterations which had been started. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also commended the work carried out by the staff at Wandsworth. I am grateful to him for his remarks because the staff receive some fairly robust treatment at times. It is good to know, despite the difficulties, that their work is appreciated. Moreover, I should certainly like to express my thanks to them for their work.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask the Minister about the part of the report which refers to the department's failure to produce the 10 officers who under the framework agreement were owing to the prison on 1st April. He has spoken on several occasions about the shortages of staff and what would happen should the situation continue. Can he comment on that part of the report?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have tried to cover most matters in my response. If I may, I should prefer to leave that part of the report for the moment. However, if necessary, I shall investigate the matter and write to the noble Baroness accordingly.
We all recognise the fact that there is much to be done at Wandsworth. The chief inspector's report provides a generally realistic and encouraging prescription. We are all concerned to put this into practice as soon as possible. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that our discussions this evening have shown just how valuable this kind of a debate can be. He has been good enough to put the matter forward and I must say that it has given noble Lords the opportunity to express their concern. I hope that it has given me the opportunity of, if not allaying such concerns, at least telling your Lordships what is being done and how the Government see the matter.

Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.] shall, have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time.
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill shall, have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time.
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall, have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time.
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.