Lords Sitting of 20 December 1990

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

M.3 and M.4 Motorways: Road Works
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why simultaneous disruption of traffic by road works on corresponding sections of the M.3 and M.4 motorways was permitted; and who was responsible for this decision.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, programming of recent road works on the M.3 in Surrey and on the M.4 in Berkshire was agreed by my department's South East network management division. On major maintenance works the department tries to ensure that, where there is a reasonably convenient alternative route and significant volumes of traffic will use it, the alternative remains free of traffic restrictions. It is not considered that the M.3 and M.4 operate as alternatives to each other for a significant volume of traffic.
I hope that my noble friend will accept my apologies for any inconvenience that he, and others, may have been caused.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, having wished my noble friend many happy returns of the day, perhaps I may ask him whether that episode indicates that, just as the Government are right to legislate to secure co-ordination when roads are dug up by public utilities, a tighter grip is needed on highway authorities. Is he aware that he has not been wholly accurately informed in respect of the considerable volume of traffic which, in view of the proximity of parts of the M.3 and M.4, uses one or the other if it is known that one or other of them is clear? It is for his department to see that there is proper co-ordination not just between public utilities but between highway authorities.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind wishes. I shall make it my birthday aim to try to improve the situation he describes. So far as concerns co-ordination, since 1985 the department has had guidelines on the length and spacing of road works and has required its agents to co-ordinate works on trunk and local roads. Since 1987, design standards for road carriageways have been changed to give them a much greater chance of exceeding their design life. I hope that a combination of those factors will greatly increase the life of new and newly strengthened carriageways.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in wishing the Minister many happy returns of the day, and also
910
commiserate with him that over the years having a birthday so near to Christmas must have been a distinct disadvantage.
Will he apply more widely the important considerations that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, drew to our attention, because I have already found that on the A.1 one moves from one road blockage to another three or four miles further down the road? The Secretary of State and the department are responsible for motorways and trunk roads. When they authorise the letting of contracts centrally will they ensure that there is the minimum of inconvenience to motorists and the minimum loss of economic wealth to the country which delays inevitably cause?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we will. Our aim is to separate major works by at least 10 kilometres and keep their lengths to no more than four kilometres. There have been four major sets of maintenance works on lengths of the M.3 and M.4 between London and the A.34. All have used the form of contract known as lane rental, in which the contractor is paid a bonus for early completion and charged if he is late. That has proved to be an effective way of reducing the time taken to complete road works.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I wish my noble friend many happy returns of the day, but is he aware that at this time of year the motorways are unusually congested by the hazards caused by teams of reindeer driven by men with white beards and wearing red coats?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not spotted any myself, but I take the point made by my noble friend. She and the House will be pleased to know that, as usual, there will be a two-week break on those contracts over the Christmas period and all contraflow and lane restrictions will be removed.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us are staggered and amazed that no one seems to be working over the weekend at the so-called road works that go on all over the country and that the moment it becomes dark everything packs up except motorists and pedestrians, who are in a terrible state? It does not matter about them. Can the people who are digging holes in the roads be asked to work at the appropriate time so that the task can be completed as quickly as possible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. I have just referred to the lane rental contract system. I drove through the road works to which my noble friend's question referred on a Sunday morning at about nine o'clock and I was glad to see that the men were hard at work.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that it is important to clear motorways when they are blocked? I had to draw his attention recently to the blockage lasting six hours, over 14 miles of solid traffic, on the M.4 between 6.20 in the morning and 12.30. No one was able to move. There

911
were no directions. There seemed to be no effort to clear it quickly. Six hours is a big hazard, with an enormous cost to many people.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. I have written to him on the subject and will follow up the correspondence. The unfortunate circumstances involved in that accident made it more difficult than normal to clear.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although I do not know the circumstances of the occasion to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, refers, I looked carefully at the map when I saw the Question? It is wrong to say that the two roads are not close to each other. They are close to each other for a fair distance from the centre of London. Does he appreciate the point that the noble Lord made, that we have spent a great deal of time on the New Roads and Street Works Bill dealing with advance notice, co-ordination and street works registers, which we all accept? Will he make certain that he discusses the subject with the officials to ensure that the same principles apply to maintenance work on the motorways?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, they will apply. As I said in an earlier answer, we try to co-ordinate them. As concerns the M.3 and M.4, a large amount of maintenance work is required on the two motorways over the next few years. It will not be possible to avoid working on both motorways simultaneously except by having more simultaneous work on one motorway.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his point about the introduction of lane rental charges on motorway construction is soundly made? I recently saw a schedule of the savings that had been made in both time and money. It runs into many tens of millions of pounds as a result of the scheme. It has undoubtedly given the necessary incentive to contractors to study not only their interests but also the interests of traffic. Therefore the similar system introduced for public utilities under the current Bill will be much welcomed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, lane rental has been a great success. We go further. We have tried on stretches of the most heavily trafficked parts of the M.3, for example, to use tidal flow arrangements. So we are doing our best to try to minimise inconvenience.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord's department give consideration to the continental practice of using mobile coning, where the disruption is limited to a small area in which the work is being carried out, instead of the present practice of coning off a half-mile stretch where road works may be done within the next couple of days?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, we are moving towards the system of having mobile coning arrangements for minor works. Obviously for major road works we have to cone off a considerable part of the motorway.
Lord Elton: My Lords, could we commence simultaneous work on the next Question on the Order Paper?

BTEC
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of first-year students enrolled on polytechnic and college degree courses in engineering and construction have BTEC qualifications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the latest available data from November 1989 show that 31 per cent. of first year students enrolled in English polytechnics and colleges on engineering and construction degree courses had BTEC qualifications. Almost one in 10 students entering all degree courses do so via the BTEC route.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging reply. I hope that the figures will continue to rise. Will she do all she can to ensure that the DES encourages schools to run BTEC first courses and nationals so that those young people who are not attracted by academic courses and who may be ambitious can take up these excellent pre-degree qualifications which are both broad based and vocationally oriented? That will enable them to enter further and higher education in the future and further swell the numbers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am pleased that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Education and Science announced last Thursday the introduction of BTEC first courses in schools. Of course there are no bars to schools offering BTEC diplomas at present. Our hope is that more schools will take advantage of it. As I am sure my noble friend will agree, it is important that these technical courses should have parity of esteem with the many educational subjects that parallel them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, could my noble friend inform those of us who do not know what a BTEC is?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, they are business and educational courses. They involve business studies, administration and much of the technical and basic pre-vocational engineering courses.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister say what the Government intend to do not just to encourage schools to run the courses but higher education institutions, including the universities, to accept students with these qualifications? While perhaps encouraging, the figure of one in 10 is still a tiny proportion of all those entering degree level courses. Can the Minister say what the Government intend to do to increase the figure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the BTEC first courses come in the curriculum in schools we hope that the higher education institutions will do much more to accept these young people. I said that we

913
wanted parity of esteem for the courses. We find that in the polytechnic sector much more has been done than in the university sector. We hope that the latter will take up the courses. As foundation courses for business and finance, engineering, design, construction, science and the distribution industries such as the hotel and catering and leisure industries, computing and agriculture, they are fine first pre-vocational courses. We hope that the universities will be much more enlightened in their admission policies.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister think that it would be a good idea to get rid of school regulations altogether? Then there would be no question of whether or not people in schools and sixth form colleges could take courses such as BTEC which provide another avenue for entrance to higher education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer is no. If all the regulations were abolished we should lose the important framework of the national curriculum. We do not wish to see the new courses excluding or precluding the foundation courses of English, maths, history, modern languages and so on. The technical courses ought to be part of the flexibility that will be introduced in post-14 and certainly 16-plus education. It is important that the best of the framework of the national curriculum is retained but there should be flexibility for young people to choose to go down the engineering and the more technical route.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very important never to distinguish between the intellectual and those who use their hands? There is a great danger in that respect. We must never separate them. You have to be just as intelligent to take any of these courses as you do to take the classics. Will the Minister also accept that a group like the Engineering Council, which does absolutely sterling work for women, should be encouraged to make more visits to schools and talk to the girls about careers which they would enjoy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to the Engineering Council. It has done much work in promoting engineering courses for women. However, I should say again that we believe parity of esteem for these subjects to be very important. For too long the idea has prevailed that going into engineering is somehow a second-class profession when compared with other professions such as law, accountancy and so on. We believe that they are all very important and that the manufacturing base in this country is also exceedingly important.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister clarify two matters? First, surely I am right in saying that BTEC is not about using one's hands; it is about approaching things in a practical way. That is a more sensible way of describing it. Secondly, can the noble Baroness further clarify her answer to the question put by my noble friend Lady David? Is she saying that there a re no restrictions within the school regulations which prevent schools using BTEC in any way that they like? I understood that there were still problems about introducing BTEC into our schools. It may well
914
be that the department is doing something about the matter, but I believe that there are problems at present.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the first formal step is to introduce BTEC initially at 16-plus. It becomes an option at 16-plus. Active consideration is being given to formally introducing BTEC courses that would dovetail with the national curriculum at 14-plus so that there is more technical vocational education taking place. I am sorry if I keep using acronyms but if, through the introduction of TVEI, the prevocational course, the CPVE, which is now to he overseen by City and Guilds and further developed and improved, and also through the introduction of BTEC and Royal Society of Arts courses and City and Guilds, flexibility can be achieved in order to retain the best of the national curriculum, our young people will be much better served.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we will never attain parity of esteem for BTEC while Ministers keep referring to A-levels as the gold standard?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Ministers from the Dispatch Box have claimed that A-levels are very important. The standard of A-levels is sacrosanct. However, that does not mean to say that BTEC is not important and that it should not be at a standard which is acceptable to our young people.

Health Authorities: Membership
11.23 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that health service users are sufficiently represented at meetings held by health authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, all members of health authorities are users, or potential users, of health services. The members of the newly-constituted health authorities have a wide range of individual experience and abilities. Their knowledge and links with the local community make them well equipped to ensure that the needs of patients are sympathetically understood and that an effective range of services is provided to meet them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware that until the latest reorganisation took place, about 90 per cent. of community health councils were allowed to attend the full meeting of their health authorities but that following reorganisation the figure is now barely 35 per cent? So the interest of the patients which they were statutorily established to represent is being neglected. Will the Minister correct the situation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am certainly not aware of the statistics put forward by the noble Baroness. In fact, there has been no change in the legal status of community health councils. I am aware that the Association of Community Health Councils recently issued a survey. However, as the new

915
authorities were only constituted in September, it is rather early days to come to a conclusion as to how things are working. It is probable that many authorities have met only once during that short time and that some meetings have been taken up with confidential matters such as appointments. That is not necessarily the pattern which will be followed at future meetings.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the abolition of the house committees in national health hospitals is making itself tragically felt? I should declare an interest in that I served on two such committees. Further, is she satisfied that the community health councils which are much larger and which do not have so much local representation really fulfil the requirements implied in the noble Baroness's Question?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, authorities are being encouraged to test consumer opinion and to act upon their findings. In addition, the department is funding various initiatives and working with health authorities to develop effective ways of ascertaining consumer views which we recognise as being most important. Community health councils play a key role in representing the local community and channelling the views of consumers to health authorities. We are very much encouraging collaboration between the community health councils and the health authorities.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure that she is not—that in the past year I attended hospital twice for interviews? On one occasion I waited three hours and on the next occasion I waited for four hours from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m? Does she feel that that sort of experience should be represented in health authority meetings?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am now aware of the noble Lord's personal experience. Of course it is the role of community health councils to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with five members of district and regional health authorities now working as paid officers for the first time, does the Minister think that the authorities may seem rather bureaucratic and remote to the communities they serve?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords. Our impression is that a very wide range of individual experience and abilities is now evident in the composition of the boards all over the country. There is also a wide representation of local knowledge. People have been appointed for the personal contributions that they can make. We believe that they will be extremely effective in that respect.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that many health authorities open their meetings to the public? Is my noble friend the Minister aware that I serve on such an authority? Is she further aware that it is not only a matter of members of the community health council attending; indeed, any member of the public may attend? In addition, there
916
is considerable consultation with local people on any issue both through the community health council and directly through the health authorities.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course, health authorities are subject to the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. It has been made clear to them that they have legal obligations under that Act and that there should be a presumption in favour of open and public discussion. However, it must be left to authorities to decide how often they meet and what should be discussed in public or in private. I have already quoted the example of appointments which require confidential arrangements. The authorities concerned bear the responsibility of deciding whether the public and press should be excluded from meetings, bearing in mind the requirements of the 1960 Act.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say how she equates the statements made when the National Health Service and Community Care Act was going through Parliament that there would be no change to the observer status of community health councils with those in the new guidance circular No. EL(90)185 which indicate that the rights of community health councils to attend the confidential parts of meetings have apparently been withdrawn?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already said that the legal status remains the same. That is true in relation to admission under the circumstances to which the noble Countess referred.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am chairman of the South West Thames Regional Health Authority. Is my noble friend the Minister aware that I held a meeting with all my community health council chairmen three weeks ago at which I asked them whether they were less involved in such matters and they replied emphatically, no? Does she agree that there are many other initiatives taking place involving the public, including, for the first time ever, question time at the end of health authority meetings; seminars held for voluntary organisations and the public; exhibitions mounted in shopping precincts to involve the public; and consumer surveys which have now become commonplace within all FHSAs and district health authorities?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend who speaks from direct knowledge and responsibility in this area. I would also point to an example where the secretary of a CHC has been appointed to the board of a health authority. Flexibility and the adoption of a variety of solutions are the keynote.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do not know who it was that the noble Baroness invited. To be invited to a meeting is quite different from being involved in decision making. Does the Minister accept that much of the public's lack of confidence in the Government's disorganisation programmes for the NHS is due partly to the fact that people feel that decisions are taken over their heads and that they are not brought into the process of decision making?

917
Secondly, in view of the fact that the new Minister, Mr. Waldegrave, is, in a welcome way, considering which parts of the NHS reorganisation should be scrapped and which should be kept, is this not a good time for him to take a new look at the role of consumers in the decision-making process in the NHS in the future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have always been aware of the noble Lord's lack of confidence in our reforms but I am not aware that there is a general public lack of confidence in them. I believe that the reforms have wide support. As to the latter part of the noble Lord's question, I reaffirm, as we have always said, that the whole process is evolutionary. We shall monitor closely how the reforms develop, and we shall make sure that the public and users of the health service have the best possible service.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister seen a single public opinion poll that suggests that the public is other than opposed about three-to-one to what the Government are doing?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we shall have the most valuable public opinion poll of all within the next couple of years. I can guarantee that.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government rely very heavily on local voluntary bodies to help to keep the health service going? Does it not therefore follow that the health authorities' constitution should be enlarged to include representatives of local opinion rather than, as at present, appointed individuals who are not necessarily involved with local hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, members who are appointed are all expected to live, work or have some other link with the local community in which they serve. The results of the appointments show that to be true.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can we make a happy return to the Order Paper by taking the next Question?

British Aerospace: Redundancy Counselling
11.33 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider having discussions with British Aerospace and the relevant trade unions and professional associations with a view to helping those who will be made redundant by British Aerospace in the near future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, local officials of the Employment Department, Employment Service and relevant Training and Enterprise Councils have held discussions with representatives of the plants concerned to discuss how best to help those affected by the restructuring recently announced by British Aerospace.
The Employment Service has already announced a package of help and advice which will include mini
918
jobcentres on site, special redundancy counselling and a vacancy canvassing service. The Training and Enterprise Councils will focus on the training needs in their particular areas consequent upon their restructuring.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply. I know that he will understand that everyone will hope that something will be achieved as a result of what is being done for British Aerospace. However, does he agree that it does not appear that that will be possible, bearing in mind the statement made this week by the Chancellor, Mr. Lamont, that unemployment figures will rise dramatically? Does the Minister not agree that behind the word "figures" are human beings—people with families—whose standards of living will be drastically reduced and who will have grave worries imposed upon them because unemployment is rising to its highest level for nine years? Does he agree that what may be done for British Aerospace will be trivial in relation to the massive unemployment that will result unless there is a dramatic change in the Government's policy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that staffing levels and company structure are a matter for the commercial judgment of companies themselves. It is inevitable that companies must rationalise to maintain their competitiveness. It would be counter-productive for the Government to interfere in such a normal commercial practice. However, government programmes exist to alleviate the effect of job losses and to ease adjustments. They include measures by the Employment Service, the DTI Enterprise Initiative and the Department of the Environment urban programmes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety that the BAe factory sites at Preston and Kingston may be sold off for property development, in which case they would not be available to provide alternative employment? Since it is a Government decision which has caused the problem, does the Minister agree that it would be appropriate for British Aerospace to use part of the very substantial sweetener it received from the Government when it bought the Rover Group to finance alternative employment for its extremely skilled workforce?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord touched on the most important point at the end of his question. We do not have any information about those who will be made compulsorily redundant by the company. However, it has said that it will close a works in the Preston area—at Warton—and at Kingston. It will release people onto the labour market. Those people will be mostly skilled workers. The noble Lord is no doubt aware that in some areas of the country there is a shortage of skilled workers. It is very much hoped that the greatest proportion of those involved will have no difficulty in finding further employment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Kingston works are served by a highly

919
experienced workforce which has been in the aviation industry for a very long time, and that its dispersal would amount to real damage to our economy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I hope that the skills that the workforce in the Kingston works has in abundance will not be lost to the economy or to the country. Kingston is an area of very low unemployment and there should be great opportunities in that area for redeployment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, it is all very well to give answers in the way the Minister has this morning but is he aware that it is not easy, even for skilled people, to uproot their families, sell their houses and move, especially when mortgages are so high and there is widespread difficulty in obtaining houses? There is also the question of children's education. One cannot just move overnight. Does the noble Viscount not recognise that the difficulties in the Preston area of East Lancashire are tremendous?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree entirely. I did not seek to downgrade the problem. Of course there will be great difficulties in an area such as Preston, where up to 3,000 people may lose their jobs. However, we do not know the precise numbers yet. I suggested that those with skills will have a very much better chance of finding work. I also said in my first Answer that the Employment Service is now taking steps to make certain that other jobs are available. That is in addition to the trouble being taken by British Aerospace to try to alleviate the problem.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should be indebted to the Government for disposing of Rover to British Aerospace to enable the company to diversify to some extent from being a single product industry? Does he agree that the company is succeeding to a significant degree, and that that will undoubtedly help to ameliorate the cuts on the aircraft side which are inevitable and to preserve some employment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is entirely true. My noble friend has put his finger on the point. The company is anticipating the reduction in orders for Tornados. However, the anticipated loss is only some 7 per cent. of the amount that it received from the Ministry of Defence and it has diversified into other areas as well.
Lord Molloy: My Lord, is the noble Viscount aware that leading figures in banking, commerce and industry have expressed grave apprehension about the possibility of our nation sliding into a serious slump? Is he further aware that only today the adviser to the Prime Minister, Sir Alan Walters, said that if there were not to be a dramatic change in government policy we should be into a very serious slump in a matter of months rather than years?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government have already taken serious steps to combat the high inflation which is the root cause of many of the problems that we face. The RPI is now coming down
920
and will come down in the months to come. That is the best way to cure the problems and leave industry in a much better position to face the future.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister say something about the allegation made on television, which the general public has to take as its guide and mentor, to the effect that British Aerospace sends a great number of orders overseas for other people to do the work although its own workforce could do it? Is that true or not? If the allegation is not true, does the Minister agree that it ought to be denied?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not aware of the problem that the noble Lord brings to my attention. However, I shall make inquiries and certainly write to him.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that exports of aerospace products exceed imports by some £3.5 billion a year and that British Aerospace contributes a very large proportion of those exports? In view of that fact, will he and his right honourable friends do everything possible to help British Aerospace obtain new contracts and so continue that important contribution to the balance of payments problem which is so significant at the moment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course British Aerospace is a major contributor to our exports. The company is in good shape. Obviously all the contracts put forward by the Ministry of Defence are made on a competitive basis. However, I expect that British Aerospace is in a good position to win contracts.

Consolidated Fund Bill
11.44 a.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 19th December), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I cannot let this Bill pass without saying a few words of welcome. The improvements to the harbour which are due to start next month and which the harbour commissioners are empowered to carry out by Part III of the

921
Bill include a dry dock facility and harbour deepening which will make possible the building of a pelagic fish processing plant. The jobs which those will provide will contribute materially to the prosperity of the port and town.
The harbour commissioners, of which I am one, are much indebted to both the present and previous Secretaries of State, to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde and to the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, for piloting the Bill through this House and making sure that it did not get lost in the Christmas rush. Most of all we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, when he was Minister of State, for the enormous amount of trouble and interest that he took and above all for squeezing out of the Treasury the necessary grant to pay for the works.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady for her kind comments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove; My Lords, I too should like to say a few words. This Bill has gone through all its stages fairly quickly, as it should because anything that will improve the prosperity and work at Peterhead harbour must be very welcome. The noble Lady will be more aware than most of us that Peterhead is in a very difficult stage just now. That has nothing to do with the harbour. The problem arises much further afield. I hope that in every way possible the Bill will make Peterhead again one of the great ports for fishing in the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments.
On Question, Bill passed.

Namibia Bill [H.L.]
Lord Reay: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
11.46 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to make it easier to enforce civil court judgments throughout most of Europe. The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which was opened for signature on 16th September 1988 and which the United Kingdom signed on 18th September 1989. The parties to the convention are the member states of the European
922
Community and the member states of the European Free Trade Association: Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
The convention is closely modelled on the 1968 Brussels Convention, made between the members of the European Community alone, to which we gave effect by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. Although there are differences between the two conventions, they are remarkably few.
When my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone introduced the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill in 1981 as Lord Chancellor, he referred to the increased commercial and social mobility which had followed the creation of the Common Market. He went on to say:
"This phenomenon is not likely to recede, whether as between the member states or in any other context."
This new convention bears out that belief. A necessary complement of this increased commercial and social mobility is increased legal co-operation, particularly in what has been described as the free movement of judgments.
The effective enforcement of judgments is an essential part of the legal process. It is most undesirable for a person to embark on litigation and to be successful, only to discover that the other party has no assets in the country where the litigation is taking place but assets in others. International agreements can assist successful parties by ensuring that a judgment obtained in one country is readily enforceable in another. In the past, such agreements have tended to be bilateral. Now, with the Brussels and Lugano conventions, there is a virtually uniform system of civil jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments throughout Western Europe.
Before I explain the provisions of the Bill I should say something about its form. Rather than having a lengthy, separate Bill which in effect repeated most of the provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, we have operated by way of amendment to the 1982 Act, so that the two conventions, which are so similar, may be found in the same place.
Clause 1 adds a new section, Section 3A, to the 1982 Act to give the Lugano Convention the force of law in the United Kingdom. This is the key provision in the Bill, which will have the effect of submitting questions about jurisdiction and enforcement in cases which have a connection with an EFTA member state to be determined in accordance with the convention. The Bill does not affect purely domestic cases or cases where the link is with a member state of the European Community. Your Lordships have commented on past occasions that it is helpful to have the whole text of the relevant convention set out in a schedule, and we have done that here.
The new Section 3B of the 1982 Act highlights one of the principal differences between the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Convention. EFTA member states were unable to agree that the European Court of Justice, which is a Community organ, should have jurisdiction over judgments given by, or to he enforced in, their countries. They agreed, however,

923
that it would be desirable for the Lugano Convention to be interpreted in as uniform a way as possible. The contracting parties therefore drew up Protocol 2 to the convention, which requires courts to have regard to principles laid down by the courts of other contracting states when interpreting the convention. To make this possible, it also sets up a system whereby information on judgments delivered under both conventions is to be transmitted between contracting states.
As with the Brussels Convention and subsequent accession conventions and, as your Lordships may remember from earlier this year, the Rome Convention on contractual obligations, a commentary on the Lugano Convention was produced by two eminent lawyers, one from a European Community member state and one from an EFTA member state. Following our previous legislative practice, the new Clause 3B provides that the courts may consider the report when construing the provisions of the convention. This is expressed to be without prejudice to the practice of the courts in considering other matters such as the works of academics. I should add that, although the report was written by two individuals, it was considered by all the governments of the contracting states and thererfore has a semi-official status.
Clause 1 also inserts a new Section 9(1A) in the 1982 Act to deal with the question whether a particular case is to be governed by the Lugano Convention or by the Brussels Convention. This is determined by Article 54B of the Lugano Convention and, because of its importance, I believe that it is appropriate for attention to be drawn to this provision in the body of the Bill.
Because the Bill operates by way of adding to the 1982 Act the Lugano Convention and references to it, various terms now used in the Act require modification. References to the conventions are accordingly to be replaced by references to the Brussels Conventions or the Lugano Conventions and there are to be references to Brussels contracting states and Lugano contracting states. The task of incorporating provisions for the Lugano Convention in the 1982 Act is greatly simplified by the fact that its substantive articles have the same numbers as do those of the Brussels Convention—a small matter, but an important one.
Clause 3 of the Bill introduces Schedule 2, which makes other necessary amendments to the 1982 Act. For the most part these consist of adding references to the Lugano Convention.
It was agreed during the negotiations of the Lugano Convention that there should be an open system of territorial extent so that each contracting state would be left free to choose to which, if any, of its territories the convention should extend. The convention therefore contains no provision as to territorial extent and the same now applies to the Brussels Convention, following the amendments that were made to it by the Spanish and Portuguese Accession Convention. The
924
provisions as to territorial extent in the 1982 Act will continue to apply when it has been amended by this Bill.
I turn now to the convention itself. I shall indicate those places at which it diverges from the Brussels Convention, although I hope that it will not be necessary to describe these in any great detail. The convention falls into two main parts: jurisdiction, which is dealt with in Articles 2 to 24, and recognition and enforcement, which are dealt with in Articles 25 to 49. The application of the convention to civil and commercial matters means that it will touch on a wide range of subjects, including commercial cases, maintenance, insurance and consumer contracts, negligence, land and trusts. Some areas, which tend to be the subject of special legislation, are excluded. Among these are divorce, insolvency, taxation and arbitration.
The basis of a court's jurisdiction is that a defendant is to be sued in the courts of the contracting state in which he is domiciled. For the purposes of our law an individual is domiciled here if he is resident in the United Kingdom and the nature and circumstances of his residence indicate that he has a substantial connection with the United Kingdom.
Jurisdiction is also given to other courts in some cases. In matters relating to tort and delict, for example, the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred have jurisdiction, as well as those of the defendant's domicile; and in matters relating to a contract the courts for the place where the contract is to be performed also have jurisdiction.
The Lugano Convention and the Brussels Convention have slightly different provisions for contracts of employment. There are special rules in both for insurance contracts and consumer contracts, designed to protect the insured party and the consumer, whose bargaining position will usually be weaker. Exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the parties' domicile, is given to courts in some cases. Rights in immovable property, for example, will usually be determined by the courts of the place where the property is situated. There is an exception to this in both conventions, although they differ in detail, in the case of holiday homes when the landlord and the tenant do not reside in the same state as the holiday home.
The convention permits the parties themselves, on certain conditions, to agree that a particular court shall have jurisdiction. This will be of special benefit to us since it will mean that our commercial court, which enjoys a high reputation, will still be able to hear cases where the parties wish it to have jurisdiction although neither may be domiciled here.
The objective of the provisions on enforcement is to make the enforcement of civil judgments as nearly automatic as possible between one contracting state and another. The scope for a court to refuse to enforce a judgment is therefore very limited. In the past the enforcing court was obliged to satisfy itself that jurisdiction had been properly assumed by the court which gave the judgment. Now, because the

925
convention has laid down the rules of jurisdiction which I have described, only in exceptional cases may the court which is being asked to enforce a judgment refuse to do so on the grounds that the issuing court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Nor may judgments be reviewed as to their substance.
The convention provides for appeals against a decision authorising enforcement or against a refusal for enforcement. I should add that the Lugano and Brussels conventions go wider than that of our traditional system for the enforcement of judgments, which is limited to lump-sum judgments. Under the conventions it is also possible to enforce judgments for an amount which has not yet been fixed, continuing payments and both final and interlocutory injunctions.
Of the remaining articles, there are three to which I should refer. As I mentioned earlier, Article 54B governs the relationship between the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Convention. The Brussels Convention will continue to apply in relations between EC member states; for example, where a person domiciled in one EC member state is sued in another or where the enforcement of a judgment given in one EC state is sought in another EC state. The Lugano Convention will be applied, in matters of jurisdiction, where the defendant is domiciled in an EFTA state, where such a state has exclusive jurisdiction under the convention and where the parties have agreed to confer jurisdiction on the courts of such a state. It will also be applied to resolve any question where concurrent or related proceedings are begun in an EC state and in an EFTA state. Thirdly, in matters of recognition and enforcement, it will be applied where either the state of origin or the state addressed is an EFTA state.
The entry into force of the Lugano Convention is dealt with in Article 61, which requires the ratification of one EC member state and one EFTA state. The convention will come into force on the first day of the third month following these two ratifications. Thereafter it will come into force, for a particular country, three months after it has ratified. The fact that only two ratifications are needed is a measure of the importance accorded to the convention by the contracting states.
Although the original parties to the convention are the member states of the European Community and of the European Free Trade Association, Article 62 enables other countries to accede to the convention provided that all the members of the EC and EFTA agree. The possibility of extending it is, to my mind, another welcome feature of the convention. It may be, for example, that countries in Eastern Europe or the Commonwealth will be attracted by it.
I believe the Lugano Convention to be a very considerable achievement, which builds on the success of the Brussels Convention. Links between the European Community and the European Free Trade Association are becoming stronger and, as your Lordships will know, all the member states hope to create a European economic area by the end of 1992. The United Kingdom has substantial trading
926
relationships with Sweden and Switzerland which will benefit from the convention. I should add that Sweden has been less willing than most countries to enforce foreign judgments and the Swedish participation in the convention is therefore particularly to be welcomed.
A draft of the Lugano Convention was circulated to interested parties in the United Kingdom before it was adopted by the contracting states and was received most warmly. Subsequent consultations have also produced a positive response. I believe that the convention will strengthen legal and economic co-operation throughout most of Europe. It is an indication of our belief in the importance of the convention that we have brought forward this legislation so promptly. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
12 noon
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when outlining the provisions of this important and extremely useful Bill the noble and learned Lord referred to the Second Reading of a similar Bill which became the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and is related to the Brussels Convention. It has been interesting for me to recall that the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, opened the debate on Second Reading. I am sorry that he is not in his seat. I had the privilege of following him, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, then the Lord Advocate, wound up the debate.
I mention that fact because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said:
"I rather feel that it should be accompanied by a Government health warning. There is nothing whatever that I can do to make my speech short, and those who expect to find it of throbbing human interest will, I fear, be wholly disappointed.—[Official Report, 3/12/81; col. 1126.]
The Bill that has now been introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not need that introduction. In a succinct speech he explained the merits of the Bill. Although I noted that interest was not throbbing within the Chamber, it was obvious that every Member of your Lordships' House listened most attentively.
I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that it is useful to follow the practice of attaching the convention to the Bill as a schedule. That has been done in this case. It is most useful for practitioners and for laymen in the commercial world who wish to know precisely what the Bill does in relation to the convention and what the convention does in relation to the Bill. The Lugano Convention has not yet been ratified by any state because there has been no time to do so. Can the noble and learned Lord indicate whether any difficulties are foreseen in regard to ratification? He mentioned difficulties being experienced by the EFTA countries in accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court. Are there any further difficulties about which we should be informed before ratification takes place? One appreciates that the number of member states needed to ratify the

927
convention is two. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House when the United Kingdom intends to ratify the convention?
The noble and learned Lord referred to Clause 1 3B(2) which states:
"Without prejudice to any practice of the courts as to the matters"—
and I emphasise the word "matters",
"which may be considered apart from this section, the report on the Lugano Convention",
written by the two learned lawyers who are mentioned in the Bill,
"may be considered in ascertaining the meaning or effect in any provision of the Convention and shall be given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances".
I am a little puzzled. I know that in European legislation it is not unusual to see reference to a report to which attention can be paid but it is unusual to see such a reference in our legislation. The mystery is whether it is necessary statutorily to include that reference in the Bill because, if not, the report cannot be considered. If so, does it mean that any subsequent report—and it may be an amplification of this report made by others—cannot be considered because it is not mentioned in the statute?
Can the noble and learned Lord clarify a matter to which he obliquely referred? In Section 3(3) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 there appears a similar provision referring to those reports. However, the introductory words are:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)".
Subsection (1) refers to the relevant decisions of the European Court. We have heard a good reason why that provision is not in this Bill; namely, the entrance of the EFTA countries into this issue. However, I wonder about the use of the word "matters" in the clause to which the noble and learned Lord and I have referred. Clause 1 3B(2) states:
"Without prejudice to any practice of the courts as to the matters which may be considered apart from this section … "
The noble and learned Lord indicated that the provision means that our courts can consider any other worthy academic works which they see fit to consider. Does that include our precedents? Does it include our decided cases? Does it include the introduction of common law principles which might be applicable? Does the word "matters" cover the issues indicated by the noble and learned Lord? Is he sure that the word "matters" covers academic works other than the report referred to in the Bill?
I appreciate the attempt that has been made in the convention and in the Bill to achieve uniformity. When I first looked at the Bill I wondered whether sufficient arrangements had been made to ensure that administrative uniformity had been achieved. If so, I had intended to ask the noble and learned Lord about those arrangements. Therefore, I was delighted to read Article 2 of Protocol No. 2 at page 31 of the Bill. I shall quote the article because I regard it as being most useful. It states:
928
"The Contracting Parties agree to set up a system of exchange of information concerning judgments delivered pursuant to this Convention as well as relevant judgments under the Brussels Convention. This system shall comprise:

— transmission to a central body by the competent authorities of judgments delivered by courts of last instance and the Court of Justice of the European Communities as well as judgments of particular importance which have become final and have been delivered pursuant to this Convention or the Brussels Convention,

—classification of these judgments by the central body including, as far as necessary, the drawing-up and publication of translations and abstracts,

—communication by the central body of the relevant documents to the competent national authorities of all signatories and acceding States to the Convention and to the Commission of the European Communities".

Very usefully, it goes on to say:
"The central body is the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Communities".
That is a very tidy administrative arrangement for seeing that the member states which are parties to the convention and which will be governed by this Bill will be able to have before them a sensible administrative machinery for uniformity.
It would be useful to the legal profession in particular but other professions too to know when it is likely that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be making the appropriate order to bring that into effect. Presumably it will be done under Clause 5(3) of this Bill. Obviously one does not expect an accurate date to be indicated. However, it would be helpful to have a timescale with an estimate attached.
My last observation has a contemporary note about it. From these Benches, we wish the noble and learned Lord a very merry Christmas and a well deserved rest.
12.11 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in commenting on this sort of Bill. He always does so with great skill and grace. I follow him only because the Bill is of some importance and I felt that it was only due to the noble and learned Lord who explained it to us with such clarity to make a few observations upon it from these Benches.
I entirely agree that once we have brought into effect the Brussels Convention of 1968, it is now a logical step to extend the process to the EFTA countries through the medium of this new Lugano Convention. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the right way to do that has certainly been to use the 1982 Act and to introduce this by way of amendment.
There is no doubt that certain benefits are to be gained from the process of harmonisation of laws when we are in the Community of 12 states. It is an advantage to have whatever uniformity can be achieved. The process of working towards that is no doubt good. The point I wish to make this morning is that that process, although beneficial, carries with it a certain price to be paid. I draw attention to that not in a carping spirit in relation to the Bill but in view of the

929
future, because no doubt the process will be carried further and we shall continue to have Bills of this kind, or similar to it, presented to us for approval.
Taking the convention in its two parts, I suggest that the more important part is not that which relates to the enforcement of judgments, although that is very important, but Title II, which deals with jurisdiction. It introduces a number of rules displacing the English and Scottish rules which exist in our respective common laws. That is an important section of our law. It is very involved and often comes before the courts. It relates to the question of when a court may take jurisdiction over a case, particularly when more than one country is involved. When multi-national corporations and international contracts are involved, that is frequently the situation. An action can be brought either in England, France or Germany and a court must decide in which court the action is to proceed. Unless there are regulations, there may be conflicting decisions. Each court may claim or refuse jurisdiction.
Under the present system of common law, such questions are dealt with quickly. They can come before an English or Scottish court by way of a preliminary point, they are dealt with in a very short time and, what is even more important, decisions can easily be found. They are all reported in The Annual Practice in England and a similar book in Scotland. Practitioners can easily obtain access to the decisions and advise their clients as to what is to be the likely result.
In Title II, Articles 2 to 24, this convention has elaborate rules. Judging by experience of the Brussels Convention of 1968, which is similar in all material respects, there are likely to be a number of disputes about those rules. There have been a large number of disputes under the Brussels Convention, particularly as regards Article 17, which is very important. It deals with what is called prorogation of jurisdiction. In common language, that is cases where parties agree that such and such a court is to or is not to have jurisdiction. Many of those cases have been referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
I have given to the noble and learned Lord rather short notice of this question, but I wonder whether he can give me any idea of the number of cases which have been referred to the European Court under that section. I suspect that there are very many judging by the references in the footnotes to the textbooks, which of course are not entirely complete or up to date. It seems to me that a large number of cases have been the subject of international litigation and have been referred to Luxembourg under that part of the Act.
The situation under the Lugano Convention is slightly different. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it is true that matters are not to be automatically referred to the Court in Luxembourg if EFTA countries do not want that. Under Protocol No. 2 there is the machinery under which regard is to be had to decisions of other courts. I am not quite clear as to whether regard is to be had to decisions at
930
Luxembourg. I should think that that must be the case because decisions cannot be given which fail to take account of the highest court in Europe.
Therefore, practitioners are faced with the fact that they may have to bring much more elaborate proceedings to determine jurisdiction. They must search further for authorities and guidance and will find it more difficult to advise their clients.
As regards the judgment part of the convention, which is certainly of very great importance although to my mind slightly less important than Title II, the same problems arise although perhaps in an even more accentuated form. As the noble and learned Lord said, there is no doubt that that part of the convention has potential benefits. It must be good and simple to be able to register a judgment in another state and have it automatically enforced. However, it is not quite as simple as that. There are a number of qualifications, as there must be a number of exceptions in the convention, and there is no doubt that the convention must be interpreted in relation to the enforcement of judgments.
In interpreting the convention, courts must have regard to external matters outside the convention. I have no objection to that. In particular, they must have regard to the other texts of the convention. Our courts have sanctioned that process. What do we have here? In relation to the Brussels Convention 1968 there are four texts. In relation to the Accession Convention by which this country joined the Brussels Convention, there are three more texts. In relation to the Lugano Convention, there are 14 equally authentic texts. In relation to the future, we may look forward to the noble and learned Lord, if he occupies that position for as long as he will, coming before us and asking us to approve up to 18 texts in Polish, Czech, Hungarian and so on. They will all be equally authentic and may have to be referred to should any question of doubt arise in relation to the convention.
One must not exaggerate that. One can conjure up nightmares which are not totally real. Many cases can be dealt with easily on the English text and it is not very likely that much light will be thrown on a question of interpretation by reference to the Greek text. Nevertheless, the problem is real. These multi-texts are all of equal authority and if there is a dispute they must be looked at.
Those texts are not easy to obtain. They are not to be found in the Library here. More than once I have asked for another text of the convention and even with the resources here it is necessary to refer to Brussels and the text must be sent over from Brussels. We must consider the position of the ordinary barrister or country solicitor who is faced with the task of obtaining these texts. It is by no means an easy problem to solve. It becomes even more difficult when dealing with the growing tendency of Acts of Parliament to refer to reports of professors. We found that in the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act. We found the report of Mr. Jenard mentioned in the Brussels Convention. In the Accession Convention we found mention of Mr. Schlosser, and in this convention we have mention of both Mr. Jenard and Mr. Möller.

931
In order to obtain the reports one first needs a copy of the Official Journal of the Communities, which is not to be found at every branch of W. H. Smith. One must then find the relevant passage among the 2,000 pages of the journal. The report itself is usually of considerable length—around 50 pages. The unfortunate country solicitor in Merthyr Tydfil must extract the relevant—probably very relevant—passage of these very good reports to which the European Court often refers. One cannot do without them. The unfortunate practitioner in York or Inverness must dig out the reports and find out what they mean before he can properly advise his client. That is all part of the price to be paid for what appears to be a beneficial process.
I should like to leave two points with the Government. I shall also mention one slightly different topic. First, perhaps the Government can help the ordinary practitioner by making matters more accessible. I do not quarrel with the process generally. But if the Government think fit to embark on a regime of harmonisation and to impose it on our courts in substitution for perfectly satisfactory English or Scottish rules, they have a responsibility to make the task of practitioners easier. We cannot expect the ordinary practitioner to go out and search for, and to buy at considerable expense, the essential documents on which he must rely.
The Government could perhaps help directly by consolidating the amendments to the 1982 Act. I have no doubt that they will do that in due course. Article 2 of Protocol No. 2 is of some help. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to that. It is registered at Luxembourg under the Registrar of the Court which provides for relevant cases to be assembled. That is no doubt of some good, but it looks somewhat bureaucratic for a committee to be set up to examine how it is to be run. It is probably largely professorial in character.
On top of that I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether there is a case at this time for a cheap and comprehensive government publication to be produced, which will provide practitioners with the relevant material. The only alternative is private enterprise. Private enterprise does help; Mr. Lawrence Collins produced an excellent book on the 1982 Act. However, there are limits to what private enterprise can do. There is no money to be made from that kind of book. It must be produced as a matter of public service, and there are limits to the public service spirit of such a gentleman even as Mr. Lawrence Collins. With the deepest respect to the Government I suggest that they should take more steps towards making the task of the practitioner easier.
My second point relates to the general process of harmonisation conventions in areas where English or Scottish law is perfectly satisfactory. I enter a plea for more practitioners to be involved in the process of negotiating conventions. They are largely arranged by professors, very learned gentlemen, who are much more interested in the continental theories of harmonisation of laws than in the practical jobs of
932
those who must attend the courts. Again, with respect, I urge caution against that extending process of incorporating professors' reports into Acts of Parliament. I have no objection to it jurisprudentially; it is probably quite a good thing. But we are adding enormously to the mass of material which the unfortunate practitioners have to consider. I respectfully urge that a brake should be imposed on that process.
My next point is perhaps a little heretical. I suggest that consideration should be given to reducing the number of authentic texts. It becomes quite absurd when one says that there are 14 authentic texts of a particular convention. If there is any argument in favour of a single currency, which I doubt, there is surely an equal or greater argument in favour of a single authentic text. We waived our sovereignty in relation to the English language on a number of occasions in favour of a French or other text, and the French have done the same in favour of English. The time has now come, as the Community extends and we take in the EFTA countries and probably the countries of Eastern Europe, to say that we should have one text which is authentic. Conveners of reference can by all means have their national text, but do not let us force them to look at all the others.
I wish to mention a point which is unrelated to what I have said so far. A problem arises in relation to countries which are not members either of the Community or of EFTA. They are countries such as the United States and Canada, which are often involved in judgments given either by British courts or European courts. A very real problem exists, for example, when a French judgment is obtained against a United States company. How is the judgment to be enforced against assets in that country?
An article in the convention, such as Article 59 of the Brussels Convention, enables special agreements to be entered into between those countries with a view to mitigating difficulties and asperities. I believe that an agreement was entered into with Canada in 1986 under the Brussels Convention. There has not been one entered into in relation to the United States. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can advise us as to whether it is intended to carry forward the same process of negotiation in relation to this convention as was carried out in relation to Brussels. I imagine the answer will be, yes. Secondly, can he say whether there is any greater prospect of obtaining agreement with the United States, which would be important in the interests of commercial relations.
With apologies for my somewhat lengthy exposition I am very glad to welcome the Bill.
12.27 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, for participating in the debate. I am particularly glad because of their depth of knowledge of this important subject; their general welcome to the Bill is therefore all the more valuable. I particularly thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I am sure that the noble

933
Lord, Lord Mishcon, as well as myself, recognise him as being especially authoritative in this as in many other areas of our law.
I entirely accept the view that this process involves difficulties for those affected by it. But the process of harmonisation assists even the solicitor in Inverness or York when it comes to his client wishing to pursue a judgment in Sweden. At present he may experience considerable difficulty in finding out even how to begin. I believe one of the most valuable things we can do to minimise the difficulty of the practitioner is to secure a text that is as clear as possible. The negotiations have been principally directed to that end.
The price that one must pay is the price that is involved in securing an agreement. So far—if I might take one of my noble and learned friend's points—the signatories appear to have insisted on having a diversity of authentic texts. I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend that to have a single authentic text would be a considerable step forward.
I shall endeavour, more or less in order, to deal with the various questions that have been put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to ratification. I do not expect any difficulties in that respect. Certainly none has become apparent so far. We must wait to see how the position develops. Our intention is to ratify after Spain and Portugal have ratified their treaty of accession to Brussels which should be in about 12 or 18 months' time, so that the Brussels Convention comes first and we follow immediately or shortly after that. The present view is that we should be able to bring this Bill, if it becomes an Act, into force probably in the first half of 1992, but I hope that it will he not later than the end of 1992 if all goes well.
I now come to the reports referred to by my noble and learned friend. When the 1982 Act was introduced by my noble and learned friend the then Lord Chancellor, it was decided that if we were to have reasonable harmony on the construction of the Brussels Convention in this country with the other countries in the Community, it would be necessary that the materials that they would be likely to look at should be looked at here also. Therefore a provision was included on the lines referred to, enabling our courts to look at reports prepared in connection with the Brussels Convention and which had a status in relation to the preparation of that convention.
I repeated that explanation in almost identical terms when we dealt with the Contracts (Applicable Law) Fill. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale pointed out to me —of course, many developments have taken place since 1982 and one must keep that in mind—that the form of the clause might be regarded as restrictive on what other materials the courts could consider. With his assistance, we modified the provision in the Bill in regard to the Rome Convention in order to accommodate that point. The phrase that we have used here is the phrase that we developed then. The intention of my noble and learned friend, with which I entirely agreed, was that we would not exclude anything that the court would otherwise wish to look
934
at. All we wished to do was to emphasise that this material was available for the courts to look at and give such effect as is possible.
I entirely agree with the view that everything possible must be done to make administration as simple as possible. We have achieved a great deal in the provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, in making sure that the judgments of the various courts under the Lugano Convention are circulated when we do not have, as in this case, a central court with jurisdiction to give authority to judgments which would, of themselves, be so regarded in all the parties to the convention.
My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce asked about the total number of cases that we have referred to Luxembourg under the Brussels Convention. I have been given a figure of 61. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving me notice of that question because certainly I would not have had that figure in my head, and I doubt whether I would have had an accurate impression of it. I should have thought that there were more than 61, and I am glad that I was not put to the test on that point. I do not know how many of those cases related to Article 17 alone, but I share the view of my noble and learned friend that there has been a considerable number.
This is an important clause. I believe that it is extremely important that in the Lugano Convention we also have the possibility of invoking the jurisdiction of a court by agreement. As I have already said, that would be extremely helpful to the use of our commercial courts by people who are not themselves domiciled in this country.
As regards the negotiation of future conventions or the continuing process of harmonisation, I welcome the assistance of practitioners. We always seek to obtain the help of practitioners, if in no other way than by circulating the text for comment by those who have experience in these matters. We have been reasonably successful in making use of their views when they have been put forward. This gives me the opportunity to refer to the tremendous work that Sir Michael Kerr carried out in connection with the negotiation arrangements under the Brussels Convention; and who is more experienced than he in the practical aspects of these matters?
To turn to countries outside EFTA and the EC areas, as I said when I introduced the Bill, one of the possibilities opened by this convention is that others outside these areas may come in. Personally, I should very much like to see that. The process, with all the difficulties involved in it, would do a great deal for world trade if it could be extended further. It would be difficult to give any realistic assessment of present prospects, but your Lordships can be assured that we desire to press on as much as possible with the Commonwealth and, if there are prospects, also with the United States.
In regard to assisting the practitioners, one of the reasons why we included the convention in full in the schedule to the Bill is for that purpose. I hope that

935
that, for the ordinary practitioner, is the main tool that he requires. I agree that refined questions may occur to people on the precise construction and application of the provisions, but at least the schedule goes some way in that respect.
As regards putting the whole new Act out in its amended form, by consolidation or otherwise, I certainly hope that that will follow as quickly as we can manage to arrange it.
I also take this opportunity of paying tribute to Mr. Lawrence Collins for his excellent work in connection with the 1982 Act. I bear in mind, especially since I now have been given more responsibility than hitherto in relation to the Statutory Publications Office, the possibility of a cheap and comprehensive work on the subject. Possibly these two criteria are almost mutually exclusive, but they are both desirable aims, and in so far as it is possible to attain them we shall keep the possibility in mind. I hope that a practitioner will be willing to assist in that regard because private enterprise has a way of doing these things perhaps more successfully than government. In any case, it is a matter to be kept in mind, and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising it.
With the additional strength of the two speeches made since my opening remarks, I renew my Motion that your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading with even more confidence than I began. I also reciprocate the good wishes for the season expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I extend them not only to the noble Lord but to all noble Lords who have been kind enough to participate in this Sitting.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill
12.40 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a technical measure which will nevertheless be welcomed by the substantial number of holiday caravan owners who, as the law now stands are, contrary to our intention in 1988, liable to the standard community charge. During consideration of the Local Government Finance Bill 1988 we gave a commitment that holiday caravans and the pitches on which they stand would be in non-domestic rating. It subsequently emerged that an amendment that we made in your Lordships' House to the 1988 Bill did not have the desired effect and that as a result the owners of many holiday caravans were subject to the standard community charge.
This Bill therefore removes all standard charge liability from the owners of caravans which are not used as sole or main residences. It makes all caravan pitches and any caravans occupying them subject to the non-domestic rates provided that they are not in use as sole or main residences. As we announced on
936
30th March, the provisions will have effect from 1st April 1990 and anyone who has paid the standard charge in respect of their caravan will be entitled to have it refunded.
The Bill includes separate provisions which have the same effect in Scotland as south of the Border. Two further provisions are proposed which are specific to Scotland. First, because some caravan owners paid the standard charge last year, provision is made for repayment of half the amount paid, this being broadly equivalent to the difference between the burden of rates and the standard charge. Secondly, a small change is needed to the existing provisions on the derating of caravans to permit my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with the fact that the rateable values of caravans in Scotland are in general higher than in England and Wales.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
12.42 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a strange little Bill which comes before the House in a very strange way. I do not think that the Government can deny that they were given adequate warning when the Local Government Finance Bill was going through this House and another place, where these provisions were debated very fully, that their measures for charging the standard community charge for caravans and many other marginal properties would not work. The Government were told that the provisions would not work but they insisted that they would. They put through amendments which do not work now. As I have said, in a very strange way the Government are proposing to put the matter right.
I make it clear that we are not opposed to the Bill and we shall not seek to defeat it. I think it will be agreed that it is curious that the recognition of something being wrong came as early as March this year and yet legislation could not be produced until the end of November. In addition, it had to be considered in another place between 10.15 p.m. and a quarter-past midnight, with the measure going through all stages at the same sitting. That is a very curious way to deal with legislation. It led to a debate which was somewhat confused. It was not confused because those who criticised the measures were confused but because the Government's answers were unsatisfactory.
I refer in particular to the comments made about the difference between chalets and holiday caravans. It was pointed out by a number of Members of another place, including my honourable friend Mr. Wilson in particular, that in many cases holiday chalets were worth far less than holiday caravans and that they were just as much depreciating assets. The Minister in another place called them chattels, yet they were still to be subject to the standard community charge. The answers given by the Minister to those who criticised this point were totally inadequate. They were based on

937
a legalistic distinction between property and chattels which I do not think would stand for one moment in the light of reason.
Before the Minister finally moves for a Second Reading, I should be grateful if she could indicate whether the Government's thinking has advanced on this issue. On 3rd December when the matter went through another place there was no indication of any coherent thinking on the part of the Government. It is not simply the issue of caravans, because clearly the Government are attempting to put right one of the marginal injustices of the poll tax legislation. However, the measure fails to recognise entirely that the poll tax legislation is itself inherently unjust, not simply because of the complications of the standard community charge which has to be added to the personal community charge but because the theory of applying local government taxation to individuals on a single assessment basis with no concern for ability to pay is inherently unjust.
This Bill recognises only 1 per cent. of the injustice of the poll tax, and at a time when even Ministers to a greater or lesser degree appear to be recognising that it is unjust and seen to be so. It is because it is seen to be unjust that the present Secretary of State for the Environment is seeking a radical review. Since other Ministers have taken part in the debate on the injustice of the poll tax, I wonder whether the Minister in her reply will add her two pennyworth. It would he helpful to know whether what we are doing in considering the Bill is simply to assuage one of the detailed criticisms which Pave been made or whether this is the first step towards a more radical review of the poll tax operation and that we can expect further legislation this Session. The Minister will understand that she will get a great deal more sympathetic consideration of the Bill if she indicates that it is part of a general review and we can expect legislation in time to correct more of the injustice which is undoubtedly going to take place when the poll tax bills go out for 1991–2.
12.46 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am not going to follow too far down that road. It will soon be Christmas. If discussions are taking place, as suggested by the Prime Minister, I must point out that we have a great many ideas a bout local income tax which will solve many of the problems. The Bill is going to go through your Lordships' House because it is necessary to redress the anomalies in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It will go through without much interference.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was quite right in saying that the Bill was whistled through all its stages in another place without much notice that that was to happen. As my honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed indicated, there was very little time for Members of another place to table amendments or even to consider the need to do so. In the light of that, I wonder whether the Government have given any more thought to the matter and whether they intend to table amendments as the Bill passes through your Lordships' House.
938
As the Minister indicated, before the 1988 Act the arrangements for caravan sites were that the site owner very often paid the rates due. He would then either include the cost in the fee payable by holiday owners or bill the permanent residents for their rates. It was only after the 1988 Act that this procedure was changed. An attempt was made to prevent holiday caravan owners being liable for the community charge. The Government have got themselves into a mess because they did not recognise that there were mixed sites. That was not for want of being told but because the Government did not accept the fact.
We now have this little Bill to try to put matters right. It was not realised until March of this year that something would have to be done and therefore a problem arose. Some local authorities had set their budgets and charges before March and in theory those arrangements did not include any revenue from holiday caravan owners in the estimated charges. I say "in theory" because I suspect that some of them, though not all, realised that there was a loophole and made a calculation.
The Government recognise that, because of its retrospective nature, the Bill will, as is said in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, reduce authorities' income from the standard community charge in England and Wales and in Scotland. District councils will lose income which their budgets had assumed. Although my honourable friend in another place obtained some reassurance, local authorities need further reassurance that, with the present rate-capping arrangements and all the restrictions on local authorities, the loss of income will be taken into account.
Site owners have been in a difficult position. It is possible that, in order to protect their position in relation to planning laws, some of them have fudged the issue as to whether they have fixed sites, holiday sites or mixed sites. That remains a problem. One caravan site owner sought to get around this problem by putting up a notice indicating that if holiday caravans are to be used on the site they should not be registered for the community charge. Accordingly, any registration for the community charge of a caravan on the holiday caravan park would be a breach of the agreement and the caravan would be disconnected and would have to leave the park.
My honourable friend Mr. Beith wrote to the Minister at the time, Mr. Chope, and was reassured that where a person considered that he might be subject to a charge he must comply with the community charge regulations; in other words, the regulations should take priority over the statement of the site owner. That may be the law but it is possible to use leverage on people in those situations who do not have a great deal of security. Although some reassurance was given to my honourable friend in another place, I wonder whether the Government have had any further thoughts in depth on this rather difficult subject. Can further reassurance be given, or will it be necessary to include a provision on the face of the Bill to cover that point?

939
I do not wish to prolong our activities today and I do not wish to twist the noble Baroness's tail too hard. We support the Second Reading of the Bill.
12.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their welcome for the Bill, albeit that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, predictably said, "I think I told you so". When we announced that we would legislate to correct the position and provide that any sums of standard charge already paid would be refunded, the news was warmly welcomed by the caravan industry and caravan owners in general. Caravanners in Scotland will also welcome the part repayment of any standard charge paid in the last financial year so that it is as though the caravans had remained subject to rating. They should also greet warmly the powers for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to extend the derating of caravans as part of the process of harmonising rateable values throughout Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether the Bill was the first part of the process of reviewing the community charge. The Bill was in train before the present review was announced. But I extend to him a very real welcome if he would like to make a contribution to the debate on the review of the community charge. We look forward to his contribution. He has much to offer in that way.
I say in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that no government amendments to the Bill are planned. The noble Lord asked about the shortfall in revenue to local authorities. It has to be said that, at the time they set their community charges, most charging authorities were unaware that they had access to standard community charge revenue from holiday caravans. In such cases the question does not arise.
However, we are aware that one or two authorities took account of such widening of their community charge base, so that they were able to set the level of their community charges lower this year than it would otherwise have been. As a result of the Bill, there will be a shortfall in community charge income for these authorities in 1990–91 which will have to be made up by setting community charges higher than they would otherwise have been in 1991–92. All this really means is that next year charge payers will be paying slightly more for the benefit of having had an artificially lower charge this year. There may also be some slight additional cost to charging authorities by way of extra interest charges to cover this year's shortfall, but the amounts are unlikely to be significant.
In those circumstances the Government do not believe that it would be fair to pay grant to these few authorities because it would do little more than compensate them for losing their advantage over authorities that did not take account of standard charge revenue from holidays caravans.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not have all the detail but the figures in some of these cases are not insignificant. My honourable friend's local authority
940
believes that it will have lost around £333,000 of income this year as the amount is not made up by the increase in the standard rating charge.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord will accept the answer that I have given him today on that point, he can return to it at the Committee stage. There will be a Committee stage unless the order of commitment is discharged.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about the definition of chalets and implied that we were not clear on the matter. A caravan is a chattel and is not itself subject to rating. It is the pitch on which a caravan stands that is rateable because it is non-domestic property. It is assessed, like other rateable property, on its notional annual rental value, and the presence of a caravan on a pitch will contribute to its value.
The owner of a chalet comprising a self-contained unit of living accommodation may be liable for the standard charge if it is a building used as a second home; for non-domestic rates if it is available for letting for more than 140 days in a year for short periods to people whose sole or main residence was elsewhere; or for the personal charge if it is his sole or main residence. The owners of certain chalets, like some beach huts, that are not buildings consisting of units of self-contained living accommodation and that are not let for short periods will be liable for neither the standard charge nor rates. The particular liability will be decided by the facts of the case and any dispute over the treatment of specific properties may be resolved in valuation and community charge tribunals if need be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that response but it does not take us much further. A purely legalistic distinction is still being made between what is called a chattel and something serving the same purpose which does not happen to have wheels. That is the problem. Behind that lies the far more important problem, which is that the same charge—the personal or the standard community charge—is being levied on a person living in a chalet worth a few thousand pounds as on a Member of your Lordships' House more fortunate than me and living in a house worth £500,000. That is the fundamental absurdity. All this does is show the tip of the iceberg of absurdity in this legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes the case for me. Each case has to be considered on its merits. The generic term "chalet" can cover a wide variety of accommodation, from structures which are little more than wooden huts at one extreme to very substantial houses at the other. Many such chalets are indistinguishable from other second homes and it is reasonable that the standard charge should apply to them. At the bottom of the range, chalets which are simply huts without basic facilities may well not be living accommodation within the meaning of the 1988 Act. In that case, the standard charge would not apply.

941
I have covered the points that were raised during the debate. I now wish to commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

British Railways (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
1 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. My interest is already declared and it is a pleasure for me to be able to move this Motion. It is, however, a pleasure tinged with sc me sadness because I have taken over this Bill from my late friend Lord Marshall of Leeds. He was, as some of your Lordships will know, deeply involved in many rail and light rail transport Bills, and I for one shall miss him greatly, within the Chamber and outside it.
The opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993 and the completion of the single European market will present a challenge to British Rail as it seeks to meet the inevitable surge in demand. To meet that challenge, considerable investment is being committed to ensure that Britain has an efficient, economical and advanced rail system for the future.
The Bill before your Lordships represents an important stage in the development of the investment programme, with works designed to ensure that British Rail can carry the predicted volume of passenger and freight traffic during the period between the opening of the tunnel and the completion of an eventual high speed rail link.
In brief, the Bill seeks to provide for links to the proposed Ashford international station, for three new freight loops in Kent, for a railway chord link in North London and for improvements to Bickley railway junction, which is in south-east London. Works Nos. 1A and 1B in the Bill will provide railway access to the proposed international passenger station at Ashford. This station will link domestic services with international trains to Paris and Brussels and, when joined to the proposed high speed rail link, will become a focus both for international and Network SouthEast services.
Powers are also sought for the construction of freight loops some 750 to 800 yards long at Headcorn, Borough Green and Otford. These loops will allow slower freight trains to be stood aside while the faster Network SouthEast and international passenger services are given the opportunity to overtake on the existing main lines. The Bill also allows for the remodelling of the very important Bickley junction, and this will provide additional capacity for international trains without incurring delay or interference to Network SouthEast services.
Finally, there is authorisation in the Bill for a link known as the West Hampstead chord in north London. This short line, which is 700 yards long, will allow for the connection to be made between the Midland main line and the north London line. The Midland main line is the line out of St. Pancras and the
942
north London line is a form of "north circular road" for railways. It will also allow trains from the proposed King's Cross low level station to access the west coast main lines, via Willesden. Thus through-services from the West Midlands and the North-West can be routed to or via King's Cross, with its unparalleled interchange facilities with other InterCity routes, with ThamesLink, the London Underground and of course with the international services.
I am aware that there is some concern over the possible environmental impact of increased freight services over existing lines and also over the impact, transient though it may be until the opening of the high speed link, of the increased number of passenger services. Your Lordships' committee heard a great deal of evidence on noise levels and considered the issue of compensation where service intensification has occurred. I find the committee's report to be a model of its kind. Its opinion is that the problem of noise is a national one requiring national solutions. The recently appointed Mitchell Committee, while not strictly an appropriate forum for consideration of this particular issue, may provide us with some clues as to the way ahead. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elibank will comment in greater depth upon the committee's views, and my noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle will be putting the Kentish case.
Quieter welded track, new train and wagon design and electric rather than diesel locomotives will make a major contribution to noise reduction, especially for residents living alongside the railway. Indeed many of the people who are aware of the current freight traffic through Kent will know that it is mainly heavy stone traffic, hauled by ageing diesel locomotives. The new style of international freight train will be a different and a quieter breed, as will be the new passenger trains. British Rail proposes to run up to 27 freight trains a day each way, split over two designated freight routes from London to Ashford. These trains could take some 1,500 lorry loads off the crowded roads of Kent, which in itself could make a major contribution towards improving the local environment.
I feel that this Bill is an essential component of British Rail's attempt to maximise the potential benefits of the single European market and the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Those benefits will be felt not only in Kent but also throughout the rest of Britain. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Mountevans.)
1.5 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and to the Chief Whip for making it possible for me to speak this morning on this Bill by deferring the Business for a week. I am also obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. It is a particular pleasure to follow him, because I remember the introduction into this House 45 years ago of his famous and gallant grandfather. I do recognise one change: we both sit on the same side of the House. Generations change.

943
I begin by declaring an interest. My family owns agricultural land on the south side of the Tonbridge/Redhill line near the village of Leigh. However, I do not fear for the lack of sleep which sheep and cattle may suffer as they graze this land in the Medway Valley, but I do fear for the inhabitants of Leigh, my neighbours, whose sleep will be increasingly disturbed by the more intense night-time goods traffic along this section of the railway line, which will soon be electrified to take it. My sympathy for the people of Leigh extends to the people who will also suffer from a similar sudden intensification of night-time goods traffic in other parts of the country.
I have always been a believer in the utility of the Channel Tunnel for the increase of national prosperity which this enterprise will bring by improving communications to continental Europe. However, I feel I owe it to the County of Kent, where for the past 45 years I have lived, as have my predecessors, to emphasise the burden of noise and vibration which must result from the implementation of the newly-devised international rail link scheme, to the detriment of the inhabitants of some 3,600 houses in the county who urgently need protection.
Your Lordships' committee on this private Bill promoted by British Rail sat for 11 days and patiently listened to a great deal of technical evidence, particularly about noise. I, for one, cannot quarrel with their conclusions, reached within the ambit of their authority. Their report states that they:
"reject any suggestion that the works before them will cause this nuisance"—
that is, increased noise and vibration. The actual works, including freight loops, are to be welcomed as allowing the system to be used much more efficiently. The committee go on to say:
"They cannot therefore accept the proposals of Kent, Bromley and others regarding noise".
They state bluntly that:
"to propose compensation would therefore be to establish a principle of disturbance caused by intensification".
Here again I accept that your Lordships' committee is not in a position to insist on such a major change of established principle of railway operation. However, all is not lost. The persistence of the petitioners has earned them the possibility of remedial action. In paragraph 26 of its report the committee says:
" — recommend that the Government give urgent consideration to the question of compensation for those directly affected by major and relatively sudden intensification of the use of existing railway lines. This is a national problem requiring national solutions".
I must take it that "compensation" would include the cost of remedial works. Thus, having listened to the petitioners' case, clearly the committee has been impressed by the force of their argument, which is that the really major intensification of railway traffic now predicted could not possibly have been foreseen by local residents, which is the case maintained by British Rail. It must be inequitable that, whereas British Rail accepts the need for future noise protection for those adversely affected by noise from the projected new high speed rail link, in the meantime it is unable or
944
unwilling to afford similar protection to those living beside the existing rail network. Without protection those people will be the victims of an unforeseeable revolutionary change in the working of Kent's railway system. That is the result of an extraordinary feat of Anglo-French engineering—the Channel Tunnel—by which Britain will cease to be an island—surely an eye-opening alteration.
The tremendous increase in the number of day-time passenger trains will, as a consequence, after 1993 push goods traffic into night-time operations and result in a wholly unacceptable increase in the amount of disturbance. Surely, the old limiting rule which has for long prevailed in the case of the intensification of railway traffic along existing lines must yield to those new circumstances and to common sense so as to meet the relatively modest demands for less than £4 million to be spent to protect those 3,600 houses and to minimise the night-time interruption of sleep.
For what it is worth, I add my voice to those who urge upon Her Majesty's Government that they should use the recently appointed Mitchell Committee as the proper forum to investigate that problem and, I hope, make suggestions to cure it. If so moved, the Government would relieve the anxieties of a great many people in Kent and elsewhere and also deserve their gratitude.
1.12 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I start by associating myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mountevans on the untimely death of Lord Marshall of Leeds. He was a notable public servant whose early death has deprived the House of some excellent contributions. We shall all miss him. I should also like to thank my noble friend for the kind remarks he addressed to our committee and its deliberations, which I am sure we all appreciate and for which we are all grateful.
I wish to address a couple of points mentioned in our report and add a measure of emphasis to what we said. The first relates to the relatively minor impact that the Bill will have upon the total works upon which British Rail has embarked in connection with the Channel Tunnel link. Your Lordships will be aware that at about the time the committee was sitting there was a fair prospect that a permanent link would be established. That has been delayed for the foreseeable future and the works that British Rail is at present undertaking are acquiring a measure of permanence.
Having said that, only a small part of the works, which are extensive, are covered by the Bill. Should your Lordships be minded to reject the Bill, British Rail would be obliged to establish the link. The only effect of that would be that the link would be less efficient and therefore probably noisier. The Bill embodies a small part only of a large series of works to which British Rail is committed.
The second point has been touched upon by my noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle. It relates to the intensification of use. The law and practice on that subject is fairly clear and was most recently set out in

945
the Land Compensation Act 1973. The law does not permit compensation to be paid where there is intensification of use of an existing line. That is no doubt on the basis that a reasonable purchaser of a house by a railway line must be presumed to have given his consent, or acquiesced, to the possibility that the volume of traffic on that stretch of line will not remain constant for ever: it may increase; it may decrease. The purchaser must abide by any changes that take place.
However the re-modelled Channel link is in an altogether different category from the changes in railway use with which your Lordships are familiar. The Channel Tunnel should open in about the middle of 1993. There will be an enormous increase in the volume of traffic. The committee heard various arguments about how great that increase might be. That is a subject for argument and disagreement, but that it will be substantial, no one will deny.
Could the reasonable purchaser with his house near to the railway line have anticipated at the time of his purchase that that substantial increase in traffic, and consequent increase in noise, would take place? I think not. If I am right in that, there is a strong prima facie case for some measure of compensation. As my noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle said, the Mitchell Committee has been established by the Government to study new railway lines and the compensation of residents living near them. I am not sure whether that is the appropriate forum for the consideration of existing lines but, whether it is or not, I earnestly commend to Her Majesty's Government the thought that a new and fairly dramatic nuisance is to be thrust upon innocent purchasers, who have acted sensibly, as they thought, in the purchase of their houses. In those circumstances, it is right that some measure of compensation should be offered to them by the Government.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, at the outset perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and other noble Lords and express my profound sorrow at the death of Lord Marshall of Leeds. Although we had different political philosophies we were able to develop a friendly relationship when discussing local government matters. He had a keen interest in matters affecting rail transport. I share the deep regret that has been expressed. He will be sadly missed.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for taking over the piloting of the Bill and for explaining its provisions and some of the outstanding points. It may be recalled that on Second Reading we were told that 17 petitions against the Bill had been tabled, including one from Kent County Council and five district and borough councils. We understand from the committee's report that five of the petitions were not pursued. At Second Reading on 26th March, I expressed deep satisfaction at the attitude adopted by Kent County Council. I believe that I said that it was one of the most helpful petitions I had seen for a long time. I said that the county council took a national view. It was looking at the
946
needs of 1993 when the Channel Tunnel opens, being mindful of the fact that the fast rail link would not come into use until 1998—five years later.
The county council argued, as did some of the other petitioners, that the provision of noise barriers and the insulation of dwellings along the upgraded existing lines would cost only £3 million. I referred to that in my Second Reading speech. I have looked again at Second Reading in the Official Report and I cannot recall that the Minister who replied made any reference to the cost. Perhaps the noble Lord will state whether that is the proven cost required or whether the figure is inaccurate.
I urged that the Second Reading should be given to enable the Select Committee to consider the various points raised. I wish today to justify my support for the Bill being given a Third Reading. I want to see exactly how the committee arrived at its various decisions so that I may give that support.
In paragraph 7 in evidence the promoters on behalf of British Rail confirmed that they would do everything in their power to minimise the noise and disturbance caused by the new services. They gave an assurance that the trains would have electric traction and that they would run on continuous welded track. As has already been mentioned by other noble Lords, the report refers to the technical arguments that were put on noise levels. I shall not go into them, but if the technical evidence about noise levels is proved to be incorrect, presumably the individuals affected will come under the reference to compensation. That is dealt with in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the report. As has been rightly mentioned, there is the power under the 1973 Land Compensation Act to confer a duty on responsible authorities to insulate buildings against noise or to make grants to meet the cost.
It has also been emphasised, and the report makes this clear, that regulations so far issued by the Secretary of State apply only to new or altered roads. For that reason, the Government set up the Mitchell Committee, a departmental committee, to look at the matter. The important words in the report were:
"to consider arriving at parity of treatment between those who live near new railways and those who live near new roads".
Noble Lords have mentioned that the committee welcomed the promoters' undertaking that, should the Mitchell Committee decide that the regulations for noise insulation apply to new railways and alterations to railways, BR would deem them to be applicable to works under the Bill. The committee said that such a decision would operate retrospectively. I wish the Minister to indicate in his reply that if the Mitchell Committee so reported, the Government will readily accept that BR should apply the decision retrospectively to matters contained in the Bill.
Noise is referred to in paragraph 24. The committee accepted that there would be a substantial increase in noise levels when the Channel Tunnel opened. However, it rejected the suggestion that the works under the Bill would cause a nuisance. Having read the report, I must accept that we are concerned with the terms of the Bill and the works under the Bill and we

947
cannot go beyond that. The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, stressed that the committee took the view that without the works in the Bill BR would be compelled to find other means of operating services to the tunnel, maybe at the cost of operational efficiency.
At Second Reading I said that in my view the works would be beneficial to all concerned. What we must avoid now is any delay. We know that the fast rail link, if it comes into being, will not operate until five years after the Channel Tunnel opens. Therefore any delay will cause a severe problem. We already await a decision by BR on its final preferred route.
Another important point was raised in paragraph 14 which has already been referred to. Compensation for depreciation in value of land as a result of public works does not include reference to the intensification of any existing use. Studying the report, we find that petitioners argued that the works which are the subject of the Bill created a new railway. I must accept the contrary view put forward by the promoters that the Bill provides for intensification of the existing use and therefore the provisions of the 1973 Act do not apply.
We have heard references today to the Mitchell Committee and I hope that the Government will accept that that committee should examine the matter to decide whether the promoters' view that the works would be an intensification of the existing use could be covered by future legislation. I agree that it would be wrong, as the committee said, to introduce such a national change on the principle of compensation in this Bill.
We find in paragraph 26 that the committee asked that the Government should give urgent consideration to compensation for those affected by the intensification of the use of existing railway lines. I hope that the Government will give that serious consideration. We suggest that the Mitchell Committee is the appropriate body to deal with it, and if it so recommends I hope that the Government will be prepared to see that the necessary legislation is brought forward at the earliest possible date.
The Ashford international station is mentioned in the report. In paragraphs 19 and 20 the county council and Ashford Borough Council, rightly in my view, argue that, as the authorities would be required to build access roads, British Rail should give an undertaking that the station will be built. The promoters gave an assurance in words acceptable to Ashford Borough Council, which withdrew its petition, but the words were not acceptable to Kent County Council. In paragraph 31 the committee put the view that it is wholly satisfied with the undertaking given.
Since the committee published its report, there was a debate in the other place on 10th December on a carry-over Motion concerning the King's Cross Railways Bill. On that occasion, the Minister for Public Transport, Mr. Roger Freeman, gave an undertaking which is set out at col. 744 of the Official Report that the Government remain committed to an international passenger station at Ashford. I have the
948
terms of the undertaking given. I shall avoid reading it but I am certain that the House will take it from me that the assurance given by the Minister on that occasion was very definite.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. In paragraph 28 the Select Committee recommends that the Secretary of State should give consideration to all the detrimental effects arising from the Channel Tunnel rail services over and above what a reasonable house buyer could have foreseen. It adds that it would be appropriate for any such compensation to be publicly funded. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm the reports of increased financial assistance to be given to Network SouthEast to assist in rail improvements. Will it be available also to assist any changes that may take place in the fast rail link and the works referred to in the Bill?
I believe that the Select Committee's recommendations go a long way to meet the points raised in the petitions. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking to urge on the Secretary of State that the recommendations in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 to which I have referred will be accepted. I hope that he will also find it possible to give the assurance that the important recommendation in paragraph 28 regarding compensation for house buyers will be given early and serious consideration. If these assurances can be given today it will be helpful. If not, will the Minister give an assurance that these matters will be considered with a view to statements being made before the Bill passes through the other place?
1.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I intervene briefly to restate the Government's view on the Bill. Before doing so, perhaps I may first add my voice to the tributes which other noble Lords have paid to Lord Marshall of Leeds for his sponsorship of this Bill at an earlier stage. It is sad that he was unable to see it safely through this House, but I am sure he would be pleased to know that it is in the good hands of my noble friend Lord Mountevans.
The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the Railways Board. The Department of Transport has no points outstanding on it. The Bill has been subject to close and careful scrutiny by your Lordships' Select Committee which allowed the Bill to proceed.
My noble and gallant friend Lord De L'isle has drawn attention to the Select Committee's recommendation regarding noise. Although I must emphasise that this is not a government Bill, that element of the Select Committee's report was addressed to the Government and I recognise that it is for the Government, and not for my noble friend Lord Mountevans, who is sponsoring this Bill on behalf of its promoters, to respond to my noble and gallant friend on this point.
Since 1973 there has been a statutory requirement, under regulations made under the Land Compensation Act 1973, for builders of new roads to

949
insulate houses against traffic noise from those roads. There has never been any equivalent statutory provision regarding railways, although the Act allowed for comparable regulations to be made in respect of railways, as new railways were not then being built. But things are now changing; and the Mitchell Committee, to which the Select Committee referred in its report, and which other noble Lords have mentioned, is a committee of experts, under the chairmanship of Dr. Mitchell of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which the Government set up earlier this year. Its task was to recommend to the Government a national noise insulation standard or standards for the operation of new railway lines which equitably relates to the standard set by regulations for new highways. I emphasise that the committee was specifically concerned with new railways, and that it is carrying out an expert technical task of translating into what is appropriate for railways the noise insulation standard used in respect of new road construction.
In the Government's view, it was not appropriate to ask the Mitchell Committee, which had a specific technical task to do, to consider whether protection against noise should be provided for houses close to the route of an existing railway line on which there is a sudden and sharp increase in the number of trains. That is a matter of policy for the Government to consider. My right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State undertook in another place in the summer—though he was careful to stress that he could make no promises—that he would consider that matter very carefully in relation to the railway lines which will see a big increase in traffic when the Channel Tunnel opens.
The Government have indeed been considering this matter, but have not yet reached their conclusions. As has been said, the issue is a difficult one. On the one hand, everyone must have sympathy with people who, having chosen to live close to a railway line which carries a certain level of traffic, are faced with the prospect of that traffic suddenly doubling or more. It may seem worse if much of the increase occurs at night. On the other hand, a number of questions have to be t sought about with some care. Would it be right to provide for noise insulation when there is a sharp increase in the use of a railway line, when there is no equivalent provision in respect of roads? Should there also be such a provision in respect of roads? Are we to consider just those railway lines which will be affected by trains using the Channel Tunnel—and that is what Kent County Council have directed their proposals to —or should we consider any existing railway line anywhere in the country that has a sudden surge in traffic? What should be the criteria? How would we distinguish between a sudden increase in traffic, such as will be occasioned by the opening of the Channel Tunnel, and the gradual build up of traffic on a line as a result of normal commercial developments? Finally, who should pay?
The Select Committee observed that it might be more appropriate for any compensation thought desirable to be funded from the public purse rather
950
than by British Rail. But that too has implications: to put it bluntly, it cuts across the normal guideline that "the polluter pays". As regards the cost of house insulation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred in connection with Kent County Council's figures, it is not for the Government to say whether Kent's cost estimate is correct. However, that estimate related only to the stretches of line in Kent and, of course, other areas would be affected.
It is precisely because the Government have taken seriously the recommendations of the Select Committee that they have not yet made up their mind on this complicated and conclusive issue. I am sorry that there is nothing more conclusive that I can say today to my noble and gallant friend and to the House. We are under no illusion about the strength of feeling in the County of Kent about this matter. But, as the Select Committee pointed out, this is something that has to be considered in a wider context than that of Kent alone.
The Government hope to reach a conclusion within the next month or two. I would remind noble Lords that this is the first House for this Bill. There will be further opportunity for this matter to be considered in another place. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State or my honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport will have that in mind and will waste no time in announcing their conclusion as soon as they are able to do so. In the meantime, I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed, and will give it a Third Reading.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have something to say before the noble Lord sits down. It had not been my intention to intervene in this debate today but I must do so for two reasons. First, I should like to associate my name with those noble Lords who have paid tribute to Lord Marshall of Leeds. He was also a very good friend of mine. Secondly, I should like to comment on the specific point made by the Minister about the polluter pays principle, which means that the Government will not have to pay. In this case, the polluter is the nation as a whole in so far as the Channel Tunnel is a national asset, even if it is a private development. The fact that this piece of track belongs to British Rail seems to me to be a bit of a quibble. I hope that the Minister will be able to find a means of looking again at the matter.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, we have had a very good debate. I greatly appreciate the widespread support which all speakers have given to the works proposed in the Bill before us and their acknowledgment of the need for them. I believe that we all share the concerns posed by the problems of intensification of traffic on an existing route.
I should first like to thank my noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle for his complimentary remarks about my grandfather. I do not know whether he is in a position to read the report, but if he is I am sure that he will be much pleased with it, as indeed I am. My noble and gallant friend ably expressed the concerns of the people of Kent. I can add very little to what my noble friend the Minister has just said on the matter. However, I can say that I have a degree of sympathy

951
with the people of Kent. For 10 years I have lived in a flat which I bought in the full knowledge that it was adjacent to the two running tunnels of the Bakerloo Line under Portland Place. The volume of traffic in that area has increased over the past nine to 10 years by 20 per cent. However, I have become accustomed to the situation. In fact, the first or second Boeing 747 going into Heathrow, because my flat is under the flight path to Heathrow, or the occasional emergency vehicle passing by because my flat is situated between two fire stations, is more of an intrusion. I appreciate the problems in Kent and have the utmost sympathy with those who will be affected by the noise. I can only hope that they, like me, will find that in time one becomes accustomed to such things.
My noble friend Lord Elibank succinctly amplified the committee's views. He emphasised the small part which these works play in relation to the whole development. He argued that the intensification of use would have a new and dramatic impact upon local residents. Again I sympathise with that view. However, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will pursue the policies and objectives just outlined by my noble friend. We must hope that some solution will be found to solve the problem with which we are concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned Kent's contention that ameliorative action by means of noise barriers could be carried out for a figure of £3 million. It is my impression that this figure—although it was available to the noble Lord and myself in time for Second Reading—was not actually substantiated in committee. It proved difficult to confirm. Like other speakers, the noble Lord mentioned the Mitchell Committee. Again, I am indebted to my noble friend on the Front Bench for putting it in context, and also for advising us of the routes that the Government were pursuing in addressing the problem which we all recognise.
The noble Lord also mentioned Ashford International. I can only add that I know—as I think he does since he was present at the same meeting—that discussions with the developers are going on in the context of Ashford International. He quoted Section 20, but Section 20 also reminds us that the eventual decision will be subject to the Secretary of State's consent.
I have already expressed my appreciation to the Minister, who dealt with the way ahead much better than I could have done. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken. I conclude by asking the House to give this Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. - (Lord Mountevans.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Leeds and Brixton Prisons: Reports
1.40 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prisons Leeds and Brixton.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are debating this issue on the day of the publication of yet another searching report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, this time on suicides in prisons. I hope that we shall have an early opportunity of debating the issue.
This debate is on a narrower question, although today's report has the clearest and most direct implications for what we are about to discuss. Today's debate, in reality, is a tale of two prisons. The first is Brixton. It was formerly the Surrey House of Correction. It was opened when Lord Liverpool was Prime Minister, in 1821. Thirty years later it was decided to demolish it, but after spells as a women's prison and subsequently as a military prison, it has survived until the present day. Leeds, on the other hand, is a mere 143 years old. It was opened when Lord John Russell was Prime Minister.
The conditions in both prisons are degrading. Judge Tumim's criticisms are harsh but I believe fully justified. At both he draws attention to a great deal of admirable work being performed by both governors and staff. One example is the work of the education department. On occasions such as this it is right to praise the efforts of many devoted members of staff, who operate in such deplorable conditions.
However, consider for a moment the character of Judge Tumim's indictment. He says that at Armley there has been a concentration on packing as many prisoners as possible into the prison with too little concern for the consequences. As a result, prisoners have been denied sufficient personal attention and adequate physical activity. At the time of the inspection there were 1,171 prisoners when there should have been a maximum of 642. The reception building at Armley was described as "appalling". The physical education resources were some of the worst that the inspectorate had ever seen. The workshops were grossly under-used. No priority had been given to the introduction of integral sanitation in the redevelopment plans, and there were no showers on the landings.
At Brixton Judge Tumim found the establishment "corrupting and depressing". He added:
"The grim reality for many hundreds awaiting trial was an austere, miserable and wholly negative experience. There was hardly any work or education. Visiting and reception facilities were hopelessly inadequate. And the only gymnasium was outside the secure area and was used exclusively by the staff".
That is a shocking story.
Now let us turn to some of the specific issues that have been raised in the report. First, as the noble Earl will recall, I drew his attention in a previous debate to the disturbing account in Judge Tumim's report on the state of affairs at Wandsworth Prison concerning what appeared to be the racist attitudes of some members of the staff. We welcome the steps that were taken

953
subsequently to deal with the problem. However, I note that in his report on Leeds, though welcoming what he describes as useful initiatives by the prison's race relations committee, Judge Tumim reports that inmate; had said not only that prejudice existed, but that they could not make their feelings known nor have suitable action taken.
In the case of Brixton, the criticism was far more explicit. In paragraph 4.14 it is said that there had been complaints of racist attitudes by some members of the staff and that not all of those had come from inmates. There were also what were described as "many complaints" that some officers who drank at lunchtime were affected as a consequence during the afternoon. I must add that it is not the first time that I have heard such a suggestion made when visiting some of our prisons. I should be grateful if the noble Earl, whom I warned that I would be raising the issue, will tell us what action the department intends to take to deal with those criticisms.
I also find it disturbing that following the criticisms in the Wandsworth report staff at Leeds are said to wear insignia of various kinds attached to their uniforms and that a number are wearing slashed peaks to their uniform caps. The noble Earl will recall that the matter was debated in this house and that that specific issue was put to him. Indeed, at col. 1299 of Hansard for 14th November 1989 he said:
"Disciplinary action is probably not the best way of dealing with this kind of problem, which is more a matter of staff attitudes".
I wonder what other disciplined service—and the prison service is a disciplined service—would tolerate a situation in which people wore insignia on their uniforms. I wonder what the noble Earl would have said when he was an orderly officer inspecting one of his guards if he had found Coldstream Guards wearing insignia on their uniforms. I suspect that he might have expressed mild surprise—indeed he might have expressed more than mild surprise. I should like to ask him once again what is going to be done about that. The fact that those insignia are being worn, as he is well aware, has significance of a very special character, to which the chief inspector has drawn attention. I hope that on this occasion we shall have a full explanation of what the Home Office proposes to do about that particular problem.
I turn now to another issue that I intend to raise this afternoon—that of the large number of cases of self harm reported both at Leeds and Brixton, culminating in a number of deaths, and also the general question of the large numbers of mentally ill people being held in our prisons and particularly at Brixton. In his response to the Brixton report, the present Home Secretary said:
"It is abundantly clear that too many mentally disturbed people are sent to prison".
I agree with him. As the noble Earl will recall, that has been a constant theme of our debates for many years.
It is worth pausing for a moment to consider the conditions in which mentally disturbed inmates are being held at Brixton prison. In F wing, the psychiatric wing, Judge Tumim reports that the most
954
disturbed were housed in single cells which were stripped of all furniture except a mattress. Nearby, for the less disturbed, were rooms with cardboard furniture. Cells were dirty and so were the foam rubber mattresses. There was a smell of urine and some cells had faecal staining in them. Incoming prisoners were assessed in a dirty reception area and the clinical load on medical officers was too great for more than a cursory examination.
It is disgraceful that we are prepared to tolerate such conditions for these sad, disturbed men who should not be in prison in the first place. Yet is there the slightest prospect of getting them out of prison? In his Statement on Brixton, the Home Secretary said that the Government wanted them diverted into the care of the National Health Service or the social services departments of local authorities. So far as concerns the health service, the Home Office has been attempting to persuade the Department of Health to accept its responsibilities for at least 15 years to my direct knowledge. The situation appears now to be worse than ever. As for the social services departments of local authorities, I am afraid that the Home Secretary's well-intentioned observations will be regarded as little more than a joke by those who have witnessed the failure of so many of them to cope with the flood of people now pouring out of our mental hospitals.
"Care in the community", as it is described, simply does not exist in many areas because of an acute shortage of resources. Only a few weeks ago the House of Commons Social Services Committee criticised the Department of Health for not even producing detailed calculations of the cost of implementing its plans. It added that there was still no guarantee that money said to be available would in reality be spent on the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. I am afraid that without a radical change in government policy the prospects for getting the mentally ill out of our prisons are exceptionally poor.
I turn now to the final issue that I want to raise this afternoon, which is the related problem of suicide and self-harm. That has been dealt with in the report by Judge Tumim published today. The number of such incidents at both prisons has been deeply disturbing. In 1989 there were eight suicides at Brixton alone. There the clinical load on doctors is too great. Judge Tumim describes the number of hospital officers in F wing as being grossly insufficient.
In the past I have indicated that I do not consider that the prison service as a whole is under-manned. There has been a striking improvement in staff/inmate ratios in the past 30 years, and in my judgment there is still overmanning in some departments of Prison Department establishments. For instance, Judge Tumim is critical at both Brixton and Leeds of the unnecessarily high level of censorship of inmates' mail. It was a criticism that he also put forward in his report on Wandsworth prison. How can it be right to tolerate such severe under-staffing with hospital officers at Brixton, a major prison hospital with an appalling level of suicides and attempted suicides? How can it be right in this situation to permit so many

955
hospital officers—in Judge Tumim's words—"to spend their time on wholly administrative and clerical tasks"? That seems to me to be quite absurd.
In conclusion, as the House prepares to adjourn to celebrate the festive season, it is perhaps right to remember Judge Tumim's observations on how a number of our young fellow-citizens, all of them unconvicted, have been treated at Leeds Prison:
"The bulk of the acts [of self-harm were] attributed simply to the effect on unconvicted inmates, many young, immature and unstable, of being locked up in a cell with one or two others, a jug of water, a bed, a chair, a small table and a bucket, for all but a small part of the day … The cell was constricted: two out of the three inmates had to sit on a bed. Their access to the library to get books was limited. They were worried inevitably as to what would happen at their trial. Day and night would start to merge. They would lose their balance and, say other inmates, it was hardly surprising if they cut or tried to hang themselves either out of misery or to attract attention."
That is life for young remand prisoners in a British prison in 1990. I believe it is entirely unacceptable that we should tolerate such conditions any longer.
1.56 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, yesterday I was warned by my much revered Chief Whip that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who speaks so effectively on these matters from the Front Bench, might not be able to get here for some time. I was asked to prepare a very long speech—a speech of almost indefinite length—and I did so. It will come as a slight relief to many noble Lords, and even the staff of the House, to hear that the noble Baroness has arrived and therefore my speech will be reduced by 90 per cent. If it is a little incoherent as a result, perhaps allowances will be made. I am very happy to follow up the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I do so not for the first time but perhaps more faithfully since he ceased to be a Minister and is now a brilliant critic of the Government. I follow him faithfully enough therefore.
The reports of Judge Tumim are extraordinarily damaging to the Government. In an interview today, Judge Tumim says that he does blame Ministers, but he would say that, would he not? He is a civil servant. He could hardly continue in his role if he started to blame Ministers. He therefore blames that rather indefinite entity, the public. We can come back to that point at some other time perhaps.
The fact is that this Government have been in power for some 10 years and the situation in our prisons is very bad. I shall not speak for the two hours for which I have made preparation. I shall simply say that yesterday I took part in the debate on the homeless. There are similarities between the homeless and this present topic. On the whole, the great British public, so far as we can speak for them, ignore such horrible goings on. We do so until something frightful brings them to our attention. Occasionally the sight of people sleeping in cardboard boxes shocks the conscience of even the most hardboiled. In the case of prisons we have had unprecedented riots this year. Now come the reports of suicide. At last we, the public, are facing the situation.
956
As I said yesterday, I wish everything good to the new Minister for Housing, Sir George Young, and to the new Home Secretary. That is not to disparage his predecessor, who I venture to think has made a surprisingly good start here. But that is another matter and altogether different. I do not disparage him. The right honourable gentleman Mr. Baker, the Home Secretary, has said today that things will be very much better. That is what the Government said about the homeless. We shall believe it when we see it. Perhaps matters will improve; perhaps they will not. We are told with regard to the homeless that no new money is available. The statements about the homeless do not represent more money. We shall believe that something will be done about the prisons when the Government say that they will provide suitably large sums of money—and they must be large—to put the situation right.
I do not blame the Government for not stating that before Christmas. They are waiting for the report of Lord Justice Woolf. However, I am delighted to think that Judge Tumim will be associated with the report. Clearly it will be a report with radical proposals. We are therefore bound to ask whether the Government are ready to put up money to bring about those large changes. Money is not everything, but anyone who has read Judge Tumim's report will realise that such proposals cannot be undertaken without money.
I shall deal with one other topic about which perhaps I am beginning to speak too often in the House. I believe that it was Hitler who said that no one believes you until you have said the same thing nine times. I do not wish to follow him in all respects, but perhaps he had something there. It may have been Goebbels who said it; it was one or the other. I return to the subject of mentally disturbed offenders.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, in this fascinating connection, by repeating the same subject nine times, is the noble Earl likening himself to Hitler?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, no. I do not have the "mad genius" to use a phrase that we heard in the House yesterday. No, I am not like Hitler. If the noble Earl considers that I am like him, I suppose that that is a kind of compliment.
I refer to Judge Tumim's report. I deal with only one aspect. In the terms of reference he was asked specifically to pay attention,
"to the risks posed by mentally disturbed prisoners; and to make recommendations".
It is that topic to which I have returned in recent times more than once, as the noble Earl well knows.
What does Judge Tumim say about the subject? He states that a good many people who are in prison should be in mental hospitals. That is widely stated. I shall not go into it in detail. I think that the Home Office believes that that is true up to a point. Various suggestions are made. I should like to dwell on one aspect. It is new in my recollection. Judge Tumim states:
"Nevertheless, given the facilities at present available within the NHS and the penal system, it seems absolutely inevitable from our observations at Brixton and elsewhere

957
that the Service will find itself looking after very disturbed, non-consenting patients for varying periods of time … without any clear basis for treating them".
The crucial sentence is as follows:
"Until such time as the NHS is able to respond adequately"—
That means of course until it has far more money than it now has—
"the Service"—
that means the prison medical service—
"must provide appropriate and proper care to these people in prison. It would be of considerable assistance"—
and he states this also in connection with Brixton—
"if the prison hospital, wholly or in part … could be upgraded and staffed to a standard so that it could be designated a psychiatric hospital within the meaning of the Mental Health Act".
That is a new concept to many of us. It is important for us to dwell on it. We do not expect the noble Earl to say yes or no to it. However, let us consider what it involves.
In referring to psychiatrists, I know a forensic psychiatrist when I see one, and there are only about 60 forensic psychiatrists in the country. They are at the top of the profession in this connection. Leaving aside the doctors, the forensic psychiatrists and persons of that order, what about the nurses?
I gave the noble Earl notice of this point; it may not have reached him. I wished to ask this crucial question: how far does the training of prison staff in a prison hospital compare with the training of nurses in a psychiatric hospital? If the noble Earl did not receive notice of that question I cannot expect him to answer it. On the face of it, there is no comparison. The ordinary prison officer with a little psychiatric training does not compare with a fully fledged nurse.
I do not know whether one can refer to someone sitting on the Woolsack; perhaps they live in a different world from ours. But there is someone sitting on the Woolsack who is a fully trained nurse. I am sure that her training was vastly more prolonged than that which could possibly be offered to a nurse wearing a white coat in a prison hospital.
If we are to make sense of that concept—I believe that it is important—in the foreseeable future a great many people may need psychiatric treatment in prison hospitals who cannot or should not be transferred to other hospitals. How can we make sure that they receive the same treatment as they would receive in psychiatric hospitals? That is the main point that I wish to make. I do not expect too clear an answer because it is a new concept which needs much consideration.
I wish to lay one other proposition before the Minister. Again I do not expect too definite an answer today. I hope that he will not snub me.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was the use of that word that made me show surprise. I apologise for again interrupting the noble Earl. I was not aware that I had ever snubbed him. I would not wish to do so. It was only the suggestion that surprised me so.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, that is a charming response. It seems to me that the buck passes from one department to another: from the Home Office to the Department of Health. I do not believe that we shall ever have a sensible approach in dealing with these great questions relating to disturbed offenders unless we bring the Home Office and the Department of Health together in some new arrangement. I do not mean that they should be fused, but one must consider ways in which to look at the problems jointly. Unless we do so, neither will change.
2.8 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, only one of Judge Tumim's reports is enough to shock the public and it should be enough to galvanise the Government into immediate activity. The cumulative effects of the continuing series amounts to an indictment of the administration of the prison system as a whole. The system as it is revealed by the Tumim reports on Leeds and Brixton Prisons can no longer be tolerated.
I shall not repeat Judge Tumim's damning sentences on the impoverished regimes which he revealed in those prisons. Instead, by contrast, I shall recite the basic guidelines of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. They were formulated as long ago as 1955 and the European prison rules were formulated in 1987. The 1987 rules state:
"Every effort shall be made to ensure that the regimes of the institutions are designed and managed so as"—
and these words should be borne in mind when reading the reports,

"(a) to ensure that the conditions of life are compatible with human dignity and acceptable standards in the community;

(b) to minimise the detrimental effects of imprisonment and the differences between prison life and life at liberty which tend to diminish the self-respect or sense of personal responsibility of prisoners;

(c) to sustain and strengthen those links with relatives and the outside community that will promote the best interests of prisoners and their families;

(d) to provide opportunities for prisoners to develop skills and aptitudes that will improve their prospects of successful resettlement after release".

Those rules demonstrate the huge gap which exists between the recommended rules of the United Nations and of Europe—they are by no means airy fairy; they are the standard rules recommended for any civilised society—and the squalid regimes as revealed in the reports.
At this late hour of two o'clock I shall be brief and limit myself to two comments. The first is about rule (b) dealing with self respect and sense of personal responsibility. I remember the Minister of State, Mr. John Patten, for whom I have great respect, saying words to the effect that prison conditions produce the ultimate in the dependency culture. What good does that do for the prisoner or for the country as a whole? I cannot refrain from making the grim observation that the expression "dependency culture" has a new

959
and sinister connotation in view of the epidemic of suicide by hanging engendered by impoverished regimes revealed by Judge Tumim.
Secondly, in previous reports, in these reports and, I am sure, in future reports, Judge Tumim finds that overcrowding is the root cause of the impoverished regimes. Accordingly, I welcome the Criminal Justice Bill which should go some way towards reducing the prison population. However, a far more radical attack should be mounted on reducing the number of people in prison. There is a good case for saying that about 75 per cent. of the prison population could be treated outside prison to the great advantage of the country. I should be prepared to substantiate that perhaps in a subsequent debate on the number of people in prison. That would also be of great advantage to the prisoners and the residual 25 per cent. who must be locked up for the protection of society. Then the prison regimes for the residual 25 per cent. could be radically improved.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke about those who are mentally afflicted in one way or another. It is widely recognised that there are many other people who should not be in prison. I am glad that the new Home Secretary appears to be sympathetic to that point of view and has made remarks about sexual offenders with which I agree. At any rate, I believe that we shall not achieve that or anything like it unless there is a kind of mission statement on the reduction of prison numbers by the responsible Minister who is, of course, the Secretary of State, as called for by Judge Tumim in respect of one of the prisons under review. Nothing less than a mission statement and action following it will do.
I conclude that the improvement of those impoverished regimes in prison can only go hand in hand with an all-out attack on the numbers of those sent to prison. Earlier this year, but not in this Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said in this House, in his unique style, that prison,
"is an expensive method of warehousing people".
Prison is expensive in many more respects than mere cash terms, as we learn so vividly from Judge Tumim's stark reports. I commend those reports to the noble and learned Lord and to his brethren on the Bench, both the higher and lower judiciary, for Christmas reading. After all, it is they who send people to those impoverished regimes.
2.15 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, once again the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has asked the House to consider the state of Her Majesty's prisons. Although we have been through this exercise, sadly, on many previous occasions, we feel that this time the need for the reforms that we have continually pressed the Government to undertake is rendered more urgent because of the devastating indictments contained in not one but two reports from Judge Stephen Tumim—one on Leeds and the other on Brixton—and today the overall condemnation conveyed by the inquiry into prison deaths.
960
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, made the point that we now have a strong position to present to the Minister who, I know, has always been sympathetic. Previously, he has been unable to agree to any of the suggestions which have been put forward. We hope that he may be able to do so today.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, my noble friend Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, have pointed to parts of the reports which they found of greatest significance. I shall not follow them on that. However, I should like to pick out one or two points and ask the Minister one or two questions.
We must ask the Minister to comment on the chief inspector's two main recommendations on Leeds prison: first, that remand prisoners under the age of 21 should no longer be sent to B Wing of Armley Prison; and secondly, that a task force be set up to improve the regime of the whole prison and that his recommendations should be properly financed. My noble friend Lord Longford made the very important point that any recommendations accepted by the Government must include an assurance that the funds will be provided to put into effect such recommendations.
It seems to me surprising that the report carried out by the chief inspector on 4th to 8th December 1989 should not have been published until 6th December 1990. I do not understand the reason for that. Perhaps the Minister can help.
Young offenders are energetic and in particular need of occupation and exercise. When one reads of the conditions in which they are held and also having heard the noble Lord, Lord Harris, quote the description given, one wonders why there are not more incidents of suicide and self harm in such an establishment. I am sure that one should give credit to the prison officers who spend a lot of time helping young people who are going through very traumatic periods in their lives. We should recognise that. The chief inspector's report also said that the original Fresh Start deployment arrangements were now in need of amendment. As all staff associations reported morale problems—meaning low morale among their members—Judge Tumim suggested that more effort should be made to use the Whitley machinery to consult staff regarding changes in the prison. That again would seem to be important.
I thought it was very worrying to see that, although the workshops were of good quality, they were grossly underused. The report suggested that more financial incentive should be given to encourage inmates to work. I have often spoken on the subject of the remuneration scale in our prisons, which compares ludicrously to the remuneration given in prisons in neighbouring countries in Western Europe. They decided that it was important to provide higher wages so that prisoners could feel not only that there was some point in working, but also could help their families at home. We are light years away from that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris mentioned, I too was struck by the recommendation regarding censoring. Arrangements for censoring are about to be

961
centralised. We felt that there was an overwhelming common sense case for a radical reduction in censoring. The present limitations on convicted prisoners' use of letters should be removed. I cannot see the point of prison officers spending a lot of time on that. It must also be an unnecessary aggravation to prisoners to know that every word written has been read.
The Prison Officers Association felt that it had been running a campaign for many years to have young prisoners removed from Armley. Therefore the association endorsed the recommendation of Judge Tumim It felt that overcrowding should be reduced and regime enhancement was necessary. Again, it was in agreement with a great deal of the report on Leeds Prison. It also brought up the point of why the completed report was left to gather dust for so long before being published. That is a point I have already made.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to the report on Brixton. One noticed immediately the very strong headlines to which the report gave rise. There were headlines such as, "A scandal which must be stopped", "Intolerable", and other strong condemnations. Both the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Longford spoke of the F wing. I shall not repeat what they said, but I should like to ask the Minister a question which I believe to be of importance. I hope that he will reply.
I remember in the mid-1980s, when the situation in C1 unit of Holloway was considered to be intolerable, a group was set up to monitor the situation and the conditions there. That improved the conditions of the unit, which I visited recently, out of all comparison. That was not easy. Perhaps the Minister would consider assembling a group of interested experts to provide continuous advice on reforming the conditions in the F wing of Brixton Prison. If it had the same effect there, it would be very encouraging.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in regard to the tare in the community programme. It was at Holloway that the resident psychiatrist told me how he and his colleagues were beginning to realise that in Holloway they were treating the very same women as in previous years they had treated in a psychiatric institution. Again, one wonders what we are after. Are we moving people who have mental disturbances from one place to another to treat them? I suggest that prison is the last place in which such people should be treated.
Looking quickly through the conclusions and recommendations, it is clear that Brixton as a building is hopelessly inadequate. The report states:
"The site is cramped, most buildings are old, prisoners are overcrowded and facilities for inmates and staff hardly exist. There is no room, physical or financial, for manoeuvre or discretion. As the inmates observed … slopping out, perverse meal-times, unhygienic accommodation and inadequate kit made a poor life. There was no Education Centre or Gymnasium for them and access to the Library was irregular. Visits were short and the visits area grubby. Even the working group of sentenced inmates received minimal facilities and help.
962
All that points to the fact that as a building and a regime there is very little to be said.
The conclusions on the medical unit have already been referred to, but again I ask the Minister whether he has a view on the proposal which my honourable and right honourable friends in another place have outlined. They are tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which will put an obligation on the courts to obtain a psychiatric report on all persons suspected of having a mental condition. Again, that is one possible way of preventing so many mentally disordered prisoners in F wing.
I refer now to Recommendation 6.08 which states that the staff complement should be fully met. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. I also refer to Recommendation 6.09 which states that the proportion of the members of the Board of Visitors drawn from the local community should be increased. I should be grateful if the Minister could perhaps also comment on that recommendation.
I also note the recommendation that the visitors' centre should be replaced and that the addition of an advice centre should be considered. The shelters outside the centre also appear to be inadequate. I have always felt that it is wrong for us to punish the families of prisoners as well as the prisoners themselves. The conditions in which mothers and children have to wait in order to see their relatives can be heartbreaking.
I know that we are not debating Judge Tumim's inquiry into the suicides, but when reading the Independent this morning I noticed a significant quotation. The inquiry report says that Home Office guidance to prisons on how to stop men killing themselves:
"fails to give weight to the need to sustain people during their time in custody".
It is not a matter of removing the means of a prisoner to take his life but removing the reasons why the prisoner feels he must take his life.
There are many more points that could be made but I shall not detain the House any further except to say that after all the years I have spoken in this House about prison reform I feel that at last there is perhaps a slight light at the end of the tunnel. We have been asking for these reforms for a long time and what the new Home Secretary is reported to have said gives one some hope. If the Government make the changes which we so ardently wish to see, I believe a great deal of credit will go to Judge Tumim for his professionalism, honesty and courage. I am sure that all of us who are interested in seeing some change in our penal system and in our prisons are extremely grateful to him.
2.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will again be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for raising this subject today even though it is the last business before your Lordships get on your proverbial sledges. He is quite right to bring these matters to our attention. He does so with a degree of forthrightness which is characteristic of him. He is right to raise these

963
issues because they are very important matters about which we are all concerned. The Government are concerned, and they struggle hard to deal with them.
A great many improvements have been made to the prison system and many more need to be made. I am the first to recognise that. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that requests had been made for things to be done for so long that she hoped that something would now happen. I am sure that she would not wish to insinuate in any way that not a great deal has happened, because it has. A great deal is happening. The Criminal Justice Bill that is coming forward is concerned with the possibility of sentencing people within the community in order to keep them out of prison. A very great deal of money has been spent on prison buildings: more needs to be spent. A great deal is being done.
We are presented with a situation which is not necessarily to the liking of the Government of the day but is one to which they have a responsibility to react and do their best to put right. In the delightful manner which he always produces, the noble Earl, Long Longford, said that he had prepared a long speech which I believe he said would take two hours. However, he said that it was unnecessary for him to divest himself of the whole speech because his noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs was going to make a speech which relieved him of the necessity. I congratulate her on the fact that she did not take two hours to divest herself of the speech. I am in a difficult position. Like the noble Earl, I prepared a speech. But there was no means by which anyone else could remove the obligation from me to make that speech. However, I can assure your Lordships that I shall not speak for two hours.
At the outset I wish to say that we attach importance to the reports which we receive. His Honour Judge Tumim has presented two or three forthright reports recently, all of which raise matters of concern. The Government are most concerned to try to deal with them. We take the criticisms very seriously. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons is characteristically forthright in his views. The reports are critical of serious shortcomings in both the prisons. Nobody likes criticism, and the Government are in the same position. We intend to deal with that criticism as best we can. We have identified a range of matters where improvements are required.
I can assure your Lordships that strenuous efforts have been, and will continue to be, made in order to improve the quality of life for the inmates of these prisons. A formal response to each of the reports has been published and laid in the Library. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked why the Government have taken so long to respond to the report on Leeds Prison. The report on that prison was submitted at the end of March. The response made by my right honourable friend took longer than usual. That was mainly due to the wide-ranging nature of the report which included 165 recommendations—a tremendous number. A number of those envisaged major changes in the physical conditions at Leeds
964
Prison and its regime which required extensive consultation between the prison service headquarters, the then regional director and the prison governor.
In publishing their responses my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor accepted frankly and openly how much needs to be done at both establishments. That does not mean that we underestimate for one moment the work already taking place at the prisons. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was generous enough to recognise the work already done by a very dedicated staff who work in difficult and overcrowded conditions which all of us would prefer not to see. The work that they do is remarkable, and together with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I pay tribute to them.
The publication of the responses is only one step in a continuing process. That process entails the implementation of prison service plans to reduce overcrowding; increasing the proportion of cells with integral sanitation or with access to night sanitation; extending the regime opportunities and completing and consolidating improvements in management and staff performance.
Responding to an inspectorate report provides an occasion for reviewing and reassessing the plans which are in hand. Perhaps I may refer to the buildings first, because it is a major item which always crops up. A major development of Leeds Prison is under way. It will cost more than £60 million. Work is starting very shortly on installing showers in each wing of the prison which should be completed by next March. The reception area has been redecorated and ventilation is being improved. The overriding priority, however, has been to press ahead with new buildings which will provide accommodation for more than 500 prisoners. These buildings will be ready late in 1992. When they are ready, inmates will be transferred to them and work can start on improving the existing wings.
Brixton is a very busy prison on a cramped and congested site. The installation of integral sanitation work is now well in hand. By next April, work will be completed on A wing. Drainage work is already under way in preparation for work on other wings. Ways of accelerating the programme will be reviewed when new accommodation becomes available elsewhere in London. As the chief inspector recognised, reductions in the prison population at these two prisons will open the way to further improvements. He recommended in particular that young men under 21 years of age should not be held at Leeds Prison.
No prison should be viewed on its own. In July my right honourable friend announced proposals for changes to the prison estate. These were intended to take account of changes to the prison population and especially the fall in the number of young offenders in custody. Where custody cannot be avoided, maximum use is made of the Mental Health Act to transfer to hospital those mentally disturbed inmates who require hospital treatment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked how the prison service is responding to the taskforce recommendation. In the period since the inspection

965
the amount of structured regime activity for convicted inmates at Leeds has been increased significantly. The head of inmate activities post has been upgraded. At prison service headquarters the relevant area manager has been charged with raising the number of hours of structured activity at Leeds, taking forward the concerted approach to these matters which was recommended by the inspectors, with the authority and under the direct supervision of the relevant operational director of the new organisation. In that way the objective of the recommendation that there should be a task force for improving the regime will be met.
With regard to young prisoners, my right honourable friend announced proposals for changes to the prison estate. They provided an opportunity to improve conditions in which young offenders are held, especially those who are on remand in local prisons. The Home Secretary has concluded that from the second half of next year these young prisoners will be held at a new establishment—Moorland, near Doncaster—which will have modern accommodation and the opportunity for much better regime provision than before.
In London the opening of two new prisons in the London area —at Belmarsh in Woolwich in April 1991 and at Highdown in Surrey in 1992—will go a long way to alleviate the problem of overcrowding at Brixton, together with the redesignation of the Mount at Hemel Hempstead as a Category C prison for adult males. These measures will greatly reduce overcrowding in all the London prisons. In fact the population of Brixton will be fixed at a maximum of 900, as opposed to the 1,080 it is now. We hope that that will take place from about April onwards.
Of course the work of the prison service cannot be judged in isolation from the Government's criminal justice strategy. Last week we had a debate on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Elton in connection with sentencing policy which touched on questions of overcrowding, the development of community penalties and the diversion of mentally disordered offenders from prison custody. That too is one of the ways in which the Government are addressing these very serious matters.
It is in part a response to the critical reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate. There are a very large number of mentally disturbed people held in the hospital at Brixton. I readily recognise that the prison service is obliged to help people who are remanded in custody by the courts and it is the function of Brixton to deal with those who are awaiting trial. Mentally disordered offenders should not be put into prison, and when I say that I know that I shall take with me the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. Mentally disordered persons should not be put into prison and they ought to be diverted from the criminal justice system—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Earl has been kind about me and I feel I ought not to interrupt him, but there is one point which occurs to me. I understood him to say that it was intended that
966
Brixton should hold 900 in future. In the report in front of me it says that the prison has certified normal accommodation for 729 inmates.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is perfectly true. The certified normal accommodation would be that, but the fact is that it is necessary at the moment for the population to be above that simply because we do not have facilities to hold all these people. That is why the population of the prison will come down from its considerable overcrowding at the moment to the lower figure; but I agree that it will still be above the CNA.
Obviously mentally disordered offenders should be diverted from the criminal justice system into the care of the health and social services, except of course when custody is necessary in the public interest. Obviously while custody cannot be avoided, maximum use has to be made of the Mental Health Act to transfer to hospital those mentally disturbed inmates who require treatment.
There is effective co-operation, which I think was the noble Earl's point, between the Department of Health and the Home Office over the diversion of mentally disturbed people. We are concerned to see that the co-operation should be continued and built upon because the requirements of mentally disordered people are different from those who are basically criminals.
The United Nations standard minimum rules and the European rules set standards, and the Government are committed to working towards them. In fact we are nearer to achieving them, I think, than most other countries. Brixton is certainly heavily used by the courts for the purpose of assessing the mental health of defendants. Some 2,500 psychiatric reports are prepared for the courts annually by Brixton's medical officers. That is a tremendous amount: over one-third of the national total.
One immediate difficulty with the chief inspector's recommendation that part of the Brixton Hospital should be approved under the Mental Health Act 1983 is that it could risk encouraging courts to send more mentally disturbed offenders to prison, which I think none of your Lordships would want. It would run directly counter to the clearly enunciated government policy on the diversion of those prisoners to the care of the health or social services.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked about the training provided for nurses in prison hospitals compared with that in psychiatric hospitals. I am grateful to him for the courtesy he showed in letting me know that he would raise that matter. NHS registered psychiatric nurses receive three years' training. Prison hospital officers receive six months' basic training, but the prison service is seeking to increase the opportunities for staff to take additional English Nursing Board courses and is aiming to recruit extra qualified civilian nurses. That is in line with the recommendation of the recent efficiency scrutiny of the prison medical service which recommended that more nurse-qualified personnel should be involved. Ministers will shortly be looking at how best to implement that recommendation.

967
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was worried about the censorship of the correspondence from potentially suicidal people. A pilot scheme was run earlier this year to reduce the routine censorship of category B dispersal prisoners. That included Leeds, and the Government are studying the result to see whether the arrangements can be extended to similar prisons. He also referred to the fact that people spend hours in cells furnished with nothing other than a bed and a basin. Where people are suicidal, it is sometimes necessary that they should sometimes be in unfurnished cells. Our clear policy is that that is justified as a last resort only where there is an immediate risk of serious self injury. Even then, it is vital to provide as much stimulation and human contact as possible. I agree with the noble Lord that if people are confined to their cells for a long time with nothing to do and nothing to look at, that can have a deleterious effect on their general disposition.
A working group has been established to consider the recommendation, a point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, was concerned. It will bring in outside advice. The Department of Health is represented on the group, which will be assisted by an independent consultant and chaired by the Director of Prison Medical Services. It has its first meeting today.
I come now to the point which has worried most noble Lords because of the most recent report on suicides by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. There is great anxiety about suicides. It is an anxiety which has been expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House today, and it is one which the Government share. Any suicide is a desperately sad event for the inmate's family, the prison staff and the other inmates. It is all the more tragic when the victim is still a young person.
One must recognise that however much we try and try we must—we cannot hope to eliminate suicide in prison, any more than we can in the world outside where unfortunately suicide by young people has become more common. The person who is determined to kill himself will somehow find a way to do so. We must try to create a climate in our prisons which counters suicidal feeling. We must back that up by effective prevention measures. Considerable efforts have been made at Leeds Prison to achieve that, and those efforts continue under the present governor. A number of specific measures were taken following an investigation by the then Deputy Director General of the Prison Service into conditions in the young offender wing.
First, as at Brixton, a suicide prevention management group has been established with representatives from all key departments in the prison. The group meets regularly and plays an increasingly active role. It has recently started to review every incident of self-injury in the prison. The aim is to see what lessons can be learnt and to ensure that the necessary support is given to the inmate concerned.
The second initiative is the training of staff. Relationships between inmates and staff are absolutely crucial. We hope to identify those who may be at
968
risk and then to support them through their suicidal crisis. Prison staff themselves need extra training in order to develop the skills required. An excellent course has been developed for both the new entrant and serving prison officers. I am glad to say that over the past year or so the majority of the staff at Leeds have been able to attend the course. At Brixton priority is given to those staff who are in daily contact with inmates.
Since the distressing deaths of five young men at Leeds nearly two years ago, there have been two further deaths at Leeds. There have been five this year at Brixton Prison. That is far too many, as everyone would accept.
At Brixton, where the chief inspector criticised the design of cells, work has been put in hand to change the construction of windows in cells which may hold potentially suicidal inmates. So far 50 have been altered and the work will be completed by July 1991. At the same time arrangements are being made to provide easier access to the Samaritans and to facilitate contact with families.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to race relations. He said that he had heard about racist attitudes not just from the staff but from people outside. Racism in all its forms is totally unacceptable, whether in the prison service, the police service or any other branch of government. We have made determined efforts and efforts are being made to implement the service's race relations policy. Every governor has to appoint a race relations officer and to establish a race relations management team. This has been done at Brixton where the team has developed contacts not just within the prison but, more important, outside with embassies and community groups. It has arranged further training for staff.
The noble Lord was also worried about lunchtime drinking by staff. I know that there is pretty persuasive anecdotal evidence of the adverse effects of drinking by staff. They need to be alert at all times and much can be achieved by encouragement and persuasion. The service's occupational health programme offers counselling and support where that proves necessary. However, if necessary, disciplinary action has been and can be taken. It was taken recently against two members of staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was also concerned about the wearing of insignia. He asked what I would have done in the Coldstream Guards, in which I had the privilege of serving for a short while, and whether I put insignia on my arms. No doubt I should have found my way into the guardroom at a pretty good rate of knots. However, I also remember the fashion for having a slash in one's cap, which was considered to be smart. That also was much frowned upon by the authorities—for different reasons, no doubt, than that for which the slashing of caps by prison officers is frowned upon by the authorities.
The slashing of peaks is unacceptable. A code of discipline for prison officers includes a specific disciplinary offence of wilful or negligent damage to clothing which is entrusted to officers. Earlier in the

969
year an instruction was issued prohibiting the wearing of unofficial insignia, with one or two exceptions. They were for such things as professional nursing badges and Butler Trust badges. Slashing has been entirely eliminated at Leeds.
Governors are encouraged to take disciplinary action for disobedience of orders against any officer who persistently continues to slash his cap or to wear unofficial insignia, whether obviously or in some discreet way. Staff at Brixton and Leeds have been specifically reminded of the terms of the headquarters guidance. The inspection reports which have been the matter of discussion by your Lordships this afternoon have identified how much still needs to be done to improve conditions at Leeds and Brixton. We are aware of the situation. However, the reports rightly pay tribute, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I did earlier, to the staff at both prisons. The area managers and the operational directors who will be closely involved in following up the recommendations of the reports, are determined to ensure that the shortcomings found by the chief inspector will be overcome. The responses received from the Home Secretary, which were published with the reports, indicated what is already being done and what is planned. The changes of role for other establishments and the achievements of the building and refurbishment programme will all help to improve conditions.
Together with the changes in the criminal justice strategy, to which I referred in my opening remarks, and the sentencing policy which the Government are pursuing, prisons ought to become less oppressive places and ones which are less given to the furtherance of crime. That is what we all want and that is the aim towards which we work. Such opportunities are opening up the possibility for the plans of the prison service to become more of a reality. It is to be hoped that these will be realised. However, this is a constant path along which we must walk and it will take a little time. Nevertheless, those are our intentions.

Royal Assent
3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Act.

Motion for the Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House, I should like on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches to wish noble Lords from all parts of the Chamber a happy Christmas, a refreshing Recess and an equally happy New Year. I believe that I speak for the whole House in wishing the same to the many people in the Palace of Westminster who make possible all the work which we carry out in this place. I refer to all those who look after our
970
comfort, to those who undertake the back-up facilities of every kind and especially to those concerned with security outside. I extend that wish to the Hansard writers, to those in the Press Gallery and the Lobby and to the television crews who bring what we do inside this Chamber to the world outside.
On this occasion I should like to offer particular thanks and good wishes to the Clerk of the Parliaments whose Christmas Recess will be rather longer than that of the rest of us; but who, nonetheless, we hope to see back in this building many times in the future.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it only remains for me to say, "Amen". However, I believe that convention will allow me to say a little more. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, in his customary efficient style has virtually covered all those people whom we should mention. I do not intend to refer to any particular group because what he said was said with a full heart, and most generously, on behalf of the whole House. Although he speaks from his side of the House, I know that everything said by me and others will be virtually a repeat of what he said.
However, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, I should like to take this opportunity to say that we recognise that the past few weeks have been particularly traumatic, not least for the Government Chief Whip and for the leadership of the House. We recognise, as always, that the new Leader of the House, as was the case with his predecessor, and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, act invariably on behalf of the whole House, without any partisan interest whatever. We are most grateful for that fact,
As we thank all of those who have made our time in this House since we last paid tribute to them comparatively comfortable, I should like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, because there are many ways in which things could be much less comfortable than they are. Although my experience in the position which I am very proud to hold is short, I wish to acknowledge the debt that we all owe to the noble Lord. Lord Denham, as well as to many others.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in joining in wishing the whole House a happy Christmas I find that the comprehensive list of thanks has been rather more comprehensive than usual. Speaking third one is always stretched to say something slightly different. However, the one point on which I do not wish to say anything different concerns our good wishes to the Clerk of the Parliaments as he goes on his merry way to write history for us.
There is perhaps one group of people in our midst we tend to forget. Those are the noble Lords who sit on the Woolsack, including the noble and learned Lord himself, and those who sit in the Chair during Committee stages of Bills. It is an onerous task, and I am sure that it can be terribly boring at times. To see one or two of the Committee chairmen rattling through government amendments at the end of a

971
Committee stage is a sight to behold. We are very grateful to them for the work they put in in making sure that the business of the House runs smoothly.
We have had a somewhat mixed year. We have left undone one thing that we normally do: this year nobody has asked about the sex of the pelicans in St. James's Park. Doubtless the other standard question, which comes up just before Easter, about fixing the date for Easter will be put by my noble friend Lord Airedale. I am sorry that we have missed the pelicans this year. Doubtless the omission will be remedied later.
In wishing everybody a happy Christmas perhaps we should bear in mind that when we come back in the new year we face difficult times. Therefore, at this time of celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace we should not forget that we look forward to a peaceful 1991. I wish you all a happy Christmas and a very good new year.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, those sitting on the Cross-Benches would also like to join in the thanks to everybody who works in the House of Lords, whether we see them or whether we do not. They are all part of the team which looks after us so well.
We should like to add our special thanks to those that have already been expressed to the Clerk of the Parliaments and the noble Lord the leader of the House. We should especially like to thank all those who have been concerned and still are concerned with the move of the Cross-Bench Peers into their new room. We are very grateful to them all.
We wish everybody an enjoyable Christmas and a happy new year.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at two minutes past three o'clock until Monday, 14th January next.