Lords Sitting of 23 July 1991

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

Seat Belts
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to compel passengers on London buses to wear seat belts like passengers in London taxis, given that over 10 times as many bus passengers as taxi passengers are killed or seriously injured in London in an average year.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): No, my Lords.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that exceptionally brief reply which does not disguise the illogicality of the Government's approach to this matter. Does he agree that in a four-year period only one person was killed in a London taxi as a result of a collision and that such few collisions as occur tend in any case to be sideways ones rather than head-on ones? Does he also agree that journey times happen on the whole to be shorter than journey times on buses? Is he aware that taxi drivers do not themselves have to weal belts, although they are statistically more at risk than the passengers? Does he further agree that London taxis are quite different from other taxis or front cars in as much as people in front cannot be injured by passengers catapulted from the back, by virtue of there being a partition separating the two? Doe; he agree that, if the Government are serious about wishing to cut down the number of deaths on the roads at the expense of individual liberties, they could save 100 times as many lives by making it compulsory for all pedestrians to wear orange donkey jackets like motorway repair men?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I missed the fourth or fifth question that the noble Lord asked. We must look at the statistics. The noble Lord gave a statistic that I do not recognise. Obviously, one needs to compare seated passengers on buses with seated passengers in taxis because if you are not seated on a bus you cannot wear a seat belt. About twig as many seated passengers are killed or seriously injured travelling in buses than in taxis, but their exposure is 20 times greater when measured in passenger miles. Seated bus passengers are therefore 10 times safer than taxi passengers. London taxis are safe, but buses are even safer.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, doe my noble friend recall that the late Lord Hewart, replying as Attorney-General in another place, once answered that, "The answer to the right honourable gentleman's question is in the plural"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I do not recall that, but we are all the wiser for it now.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to address himself singularly to the following questions. First, will he say whether work on the part of the working group on the Commission proposal to give effect to compulsory wearing of seat belts in coaches and minibuses has now ceased, or at least appears to be diminishing? Will the Government give support to the idea that work should proceed apace on that matter? Secondly, will the Minister say whether, if no European Community action is likely in that field, he will seek to introduce unilateral action to deal with the question of compulsory wearing of seat belts in those vehicles?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. We do not accept that there has been any decision to give up work on that matter in the working group. We are making that clear to the European Commission. The existing directive on seat belts agreed last year requires new proposals to be brought forward by the end of 1991 and, as the noble Lord said, that has not yet happened. The Commission must do so. We certainly wish to proceed in this matter. If the Commission decided not to take action itself, we should have to consider the possibility of unilateral action. If it spurred the Community to take action collectively we would not rule it out completely, but unilateral action itself would not provide the passenger protection that we need as we could not enforce a national requirement against coaches and minibuses registered in other EC member states.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, this Question is about London buses. However, does the Minister agree that, when one sees the speed of the touring buses that go up and down the motorways there is a strong case to be made for having seat belts in them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that this is a Question about London buses. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, we are pressing for what the noble Lord is seeking.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as the Minister has quoted statistics he will undoubtedly have seen recent statistics that reveal that 1,100 people in this country die every year from skin cancer caused by sunbathing. Has he any information as to whether the Government propose to introduce legislation making it illegal to sunbathe without first applying Government-approved sunscreening lotion?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I said in my original Answer: no, my Lords.

Council House Sales Receipts
2.40 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response, if any, they have made to the recent request by local authorities for increased access to capital receipts in order to finance their housebuilding and repairs programmes.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government's new spending plans will be announced in the Autumn Statement. However, the present balance between use of receipts and debt redemption is kept under review. We are conscious of the need to encourage local authorities to dispose of surplus assets, but local authority spending is public expenditure, whether financed from receipts or borrowing, and the debt redemption rules allow us to target resources where they are most needed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am disappointed with that Answer, bearing in mind that a document unveiled by the Prime Minister yesterday is produced by Conservative Central Office but funded by the taxpayer? That document makes no reference to the fact that homelessness, waiting lists and the dispossessing of owner-occupiers through high interest rates are all on the increase. Must we therefore assume that, on the question of the Citizen's Charter, those unfortunate people will not count?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that yesterday's document has been very well received. It addresses poor management of local authority or public sector housing. Where there is poor management, it at least gives the customer and the tenant some rights.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, does my noble friend agree or at least concede that to interfere with market forces in restricting the expenditure by councils of their own money on economically desirable houses is economically questionable?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not. The reasons are fairly complicated. The truth is that the Government have a concern for housing across the country as a whole. It is true that where the receipts are greatest, the need is least; where the need is greatest, the receipts are least. It is important to make sure that some of the targeting is on areas of greatest need.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I concede that there are some very bad councils, but there are also some very good ones. Let it be put on the record that there are some very good councils. It is surely daft to say to those councils that they have to sell council houses that they own to sitting tenants and at the same time say that they are not allowed to spend the money from those sales. That seems to me daft. There is no logic in it. There are no party politics in this matter. Can the
640
Minister say why decent councils are not allowed to spend their own cash which they have received as a result of government legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of the noble Lord's statement. As to his question, 25 per cent. of housing receipts are available for spending. Local authorities which are out of spending will also benefit from the freeing up of the 75 per cent. of council house receipts which are used to reduce debt. Therefore, there is a benefit. What is important is that the credit approvals are used to make sure that the areas of greatest need and the problems within those areas are properly addressed.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is quite deplorable that under this Government a situation has developed in which local authorities are not able to spend their money for housing those in need? Does she further agree that it is unlikely that any local authorities will be able to do so in future? It is self-evident from what the Minister said that the Government just could not care less.
Secondly, what is being done for all those demobbed servicemen and the thousands of families in Germany who are to return from the British Army of the Rhine? They will not have redundancy payments. Who will cater for them? What are the Government's plans to house those people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take the second point first. There is indeed an issue here. In response to a similar question only a few days ago, I said that my department is constantly in negotiation with the Ministry of Defence—because it is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. That debate will continue.
With regard to the first point, I have answered it a number of times in a number of ways. Perhaps therefore I may put a question: is the Labour Party saying that it would allow all local authorities to spend all their receipts and, when there is additional need to meet and those receipts are very low or even non-existent, it would address that situation by incurring considerable extra public expenditure?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Question Time in this House is meant to elicit information from the Government and that it is not for government Ministers to ask questions of the Opposition?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that I have answered this Question almost once a fortnight for a very long time. The Answer has been repeated over and over again. But every single question from the Benches opposite carries with it the implication that local authorities should observe no limits and that they should spend all their receipts. That will leave a very real problem for those areas without receipts. I put that question to noble Lords opposite. If they do not answer, they may wish to think about what they are going to say to the public. The time is rapidly approaching when the public will request an answer. Do they intend to spend extra billions in those areas where there are no receipts?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we shall be quite happy to fight out this issue in a general election campaign when it comes? But this House at Question Time requires answers and information from Ministers. That is the purpose of Question Time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my answer is in the public arena; I await anxiously the noble Lord's.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some Members on this side of the House are becoming rather tired of the gusts of windy rhetoric which masquerade as parliamentary supplementary questions from the Labour Benches?
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness complains about the number of times that she has had to repeat her Answer. Would it be a fair deduction that the Answer is not very convincing?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords. There is a philosophical divide on this matter. The Government's intention is to ensure that public moneys are properly addressed to where the need is greatest. That is the proper responsibility of any government.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is a little unfair to ask the Opposition what they think because they do not have a policy? Can she say to what extent the housing was paid for by the Treasury in the first place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the catalogue would take too long. Credit approvals have been increased by £102 million to £2 billion. Housing revenue subsidy has reached £3.5 billion. Housing Corporation expenditure is about to rise to £2 billion by 1993. There is an extra £50 million for low cost rural housing. There is £270 million for estate action programmes. Over £300 million, which is on top of mainstream funding, is provided to help relieve statutory homelessness. Over £100 million is provided to combat single homelessness and rough sleeping. I could go on.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister gives convincing figures now. However, she must be aware that since this Government took office they have cut over £7 billion from the public building sector. Is the Minister aware that if that sum had not been cut, half a million more houses would be available to let to people in the three areas of greatest need to which I referred? Is it not sad that the Minister has not mentioned one word about the three groups in greatest need? It is obvious that because there is no reference to them in the document they do not count.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have constantly referred to the groups in greatest need. I have done so rather more often than noble Lords on the Benches opposite. The stock of housing is up by 2 million since 1979. Home ownership is up 12 per cent. to 69 per cent. Owner occupation has been a great success in this country. In addition to the measures that have been put in place, there are three exemptions from the
642
capital receipts rules. Those, I believe, were made in direct response to local authority association representations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that whether she and her colleagues like it or not, we on this side of the Chamber will return to this Question time and again until we have satisfactory answers? Local authorities throughout the country were criticised by the Leader of the House yesterday. Are they not being prevented by the Government from doing their duty by the deprivation of necessary funds which belong to them? For example, the area of Swindon, which I have mentioned previously, has £23 million outstanding which the local authority could use to house the homeless and reduce its housing list.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall continue to answer the Question at the Dispatch Box so long as it is on the Order Paper. I have not refused to do so. Equally, I shall continue to ask at the Dispatch Box and outside this Chamber for an answer to my question: what would noble Lords opposite do about the problem?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the policies of many of the local authorities which the Minister criticises were placed before the public at elections and the councils elected on the prospectus that they presented. Will the Government occasionally consider the democratic aspect of their attitude?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are talking of a national policy. It will be for the national Government to be judged on their record when the time comes.

Product Labelling
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the way in which goods are now being labelled in the United Kingdom to indicate those which purport to have been produced without adverse environmental effects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, we are aware of concerns about environmental claims made on product labels. We are therefore considering what amendments to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 would be necessary to strengthen control of environmental claims. We are also looking into the possibility of a voluntary code of practice on such claims. Furthermore, Her Majesty's Government are working with the European Commission and other member states to establish an official "positive" eco-labelling scheme for consumer goods.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. While the intention to protect the environment is admirable, should there not be rules, or a code of practice as my noble friend

643
suggested, to prevent false or meaningless claims—made either unwittingly or deliberately—from misleading the public?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. We wish to prevent false or misleading claims. It is an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act for a person in the course of trade or business to apply a false trade description to goods. Clearly most environmental claims would be caught by that provision. However, there may be some doubt as to whether looser, more generalised statements such as "environmentally friendly" are caught. We are considering whether it is necessary to amend the Act to make it clear that it covers such claims. Any necessary amendments to the Act will be made as soon as parliamentary time permits.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned the role of the trading standards authorities in enforcing the present regulations. Will the noble Lord tell us how many prosecutions have resulted from bogus claims made on labels, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell? What has happened in the period 1990–91?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have such information with me. The trading standards officers are responsible for policing the Act.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when considering this issue, will the Government take into account that the Trade Descriptions Act would not be applicable if a firm were to claim, for example, that a product had no nitrates in it when such a product contains no nitrates anyway? There have been such cases. Most of the public are not naturally familiar with the chemistry and other matters involved. They will be misled by such descriptions. The Trade Descriptions Act is not good enough.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. If such products never had contained whatever substance they were now stated not to contain, it could be misleading. It would also be misleading to say that a product was ozone friendly just because it contained no lead. Lead may damage the brain but it does not damage the ozone layer. Those are reasons why we are considering whether the Act needs to be amended to remove such uncertainties.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister has been kind enough to say that the Government are considering whether the Act needs to be amended. Is he aware that the Government are also looking into the restrictive trade practices legislation? They are also looking into charities legislation, and now into this legislation. Will the noble Lord give us some idea when the Government will produce the legislation they have promised?
Lord Reay: My Lords, no, I cannot give any such idea. There are other initiatives that we are pursuing, to which I referred in my original Answer; namely, the possibility of an eco-labelling scheme at European level and also a voluntary code of practice.

The Citizen's Charter
2.58 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, under the proposed Citizen's Charter, it would be an admissible defence that levels of funding did not permit the provision of an adequate service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced yesterday in another place the Government's Citizen's Charter. Its four main themes are: a sustained new programme for improving the quality of public services; choice wherever possible; information for citizens about what service standards are; and value for the money the nation can afford. The Government will continue to set high standards of service which can be achieved with the funds that can be afforded.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to answer my Question.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have answered it. The noble Earl asked the same question yesterday of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal; and it was answered then, too.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the question that I asked yesterday was not the same. I ask a specific question. Will it be an admissible defence for a public service under the Citizen's Charter that levels of funding do not permit the provision of an adequate service? I should like to know the answer.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the charter will give a powerful extra stimulus to greater efficiency improvements, releasing resources for better public service. That stimulus will be provided by a new emphasis at the highest political level on service standards and value for money reinforced by the mechanisms highlighted in the charter such as privatisation, contracting out, competition, performance pay, published performance targets, a more effective complaints procedure, tougher audit and inspection and better redress when services go badly wrong.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, are we to assume from that reply that the real answer is no?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no such defence is necessary.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the Minister speaks of value for money. Will the noble Lord be so good as to say whether one can give value if there is no money?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not see that that question arises. There is plenty of money.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of the proposals in the Citizen's Charter have cost implications? I give one illustration: the provision of free medical checks for various categories. Can the Minister state what costings the

645
Government have undertaken, and what the implications of those additional costs are for taxation and for spending?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall continue to devote more resources to priority services when money can be afforded. As the White Paper states, the charter programme is about finding better way, of converting the money that can be afforded into even better public services.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a second time to answer a question that he has been asked? My noble friend asked a straightforward question about a Government document: namely, what will its proposals cost? It is a matter that the Government are always emphasising. If we cannot be told what the Citizen's Charter will cost, will the noble Lord write to us? It must be judged in value for money terms. It is a simple question which should be easy for the Treasury to answer.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the question is easy to answer: it costs nothing extra to set a standard.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, planning applications affect people sometimes disastrously, sometimes to their advantage. Is the Minister aware that in the London borough of Ealing neighbours of those who have applied for planning permission are informed of what will take place and are asked to submit their views? Is he further aware that the council states that it cannot reply to those views because it does not have the resources to do so? Can that particularly insulting attitude be considered by the department as a result of the Prime Minister's desire to see fair play all round?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has illustrated exactly the type of issue that should be deals with by the Citizen's Charter. It is not a question of resources but of giving the right services to the customers involved.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it was said that it is a matter of resources.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my impression is that the Citizen's Charter is intended to give people much more information. Should not the Minister set a good example by answering the Question properly instead of swirling around it like a Member of the House of Commons?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on the comparison that the noble Lord makes because I have not had the pleasure of being a Member of another place. As often happens, the problem is that because I am not giving the answers that noble Lords opposite would like they say that I am not answering the questions at all.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Trade Descriptions Act apply to the Citizen's Charter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as has been clearly stated, the charter's proposals are ones which we intend to implement and to see working for the benefit of the citizen.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the Minister is unable to answer the Question on the Order Paper this afternoon, will he write to the noble Earl and place a copy in the Library, because we shall all be delighted to read it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if I had been unable to answer the Question I should have been delighted to follow the course that the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a reasonable device to secure that there should be no intelligible Answer to a Question to make the Question itself unintelligible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am well aware that the proposition that the level of public funding is adequate is to the Government a tautology. However, are the Government equally aware that many loyal and dedicated public servants do not share that belief? Among them is a sense that they are being used as whipping boys for the Government's inadequacies which may generate a real anger and have the reverse of an incentive effect.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must refute the suggestion that the level of public expenditure is inadequate. The Citizen's Charter outlines key areas of expenditure. For example, expenditure on health and social services has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. In schools, expenditure per pupil has increased by more than 40 per cent. British Rail's investment is the highest in real terms for 30 years and a similar situation exists in the London Underground. Within those increased resources we are trying to achieve even better value for money and even better value for the consumer.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Government judge what level of service is available within a particular level of funding, are they not judge and party in their own cause?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, not at all. We are talking about obtaining good value for money and good services within an already generous public expenditure provision.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on The Army in the Nineties. He will be followed by my noble friend Lady Blatch, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Local Government Finance and Structure in England.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF AN EARLIER LORDS AMENDMENT DISAGREED TO BY THE COMMONS, AND A MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION THEREOF [Page and line references are to Bill 33 as first printed for the Lords]

Criminal Justice Bill

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  1 After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause:
  Duty to release discretionary life prisoners
  '.—(1) A life prisoner is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part if—

  (a) his sentence was imposed for a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law; and

  (b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the order.

  (2) A part of a sentence so specified shall be such part as the court considers appropriate taking into account—

  (a) the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it; and

  (b) the provisions of this section as compared with those of section 27(2) above and section 28(1) below.

  (3) As soon as, in the case of a discretionary life prisoner—

  (a) he has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part"); and

  (b) the Board has directed his release under this section,

  it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (7) below, to release him on licence.
  (4) The Board shall not give a direction under subsection (3) above with respect to a discretionary life prisoner unless—

  (a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board; and

  (b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.

  (5) A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Board any time—

  (a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence; and

  (b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference; and

  (c) where he is also serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term, after he has served one-half of that sentence;

  648
  and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (4) above or section 32(4) below made after the prisoner had served the relevant part of his sentence.
  (6) In determining for the purpose of subsection (3) or (5) above whether a discretionary life prisoner has served the relevant part of his sentence, no account shall be taken of any time during which he was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 ("the 1952 Act").
  (7) The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release under this section for a period not exceeding six months if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest.
  (8) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving one or more sentences of life imprisonment; but—

  (a) a person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and

  (b) subsections (3) and (5) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

  [A Lords amendment to leave out subsection (7) has been agreed to by the Commons.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 1
  1A Line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) This Part applies to a person sentenced to—

  (a) life imprisonment, whether or not for an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law; or

  (b) during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life under section 53 of the 1933 Act; or

  (c) custody for life under section 8 of the 1982 Act;

  where the Court by which he was sentenced ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the Order.") The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment 1A for the following reason—
  1AA Because the considerations applicable to the release of persons serving mandatory life sentences are not the same as those applicable to prisoners whose cases will be dealt with under new clause (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners).
  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. I A to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1 AA. I shall speak also to the other amendments on the Order Paper with which another place has disagreed and upon which I am inviting your Lordships not to insist.
  I should make the point at the outset that, after prolonged discussion during the months of these important matters, noble Lords who served on the Select Committee have won much of what they set out to achieve and, even where the Government have remained unpersuaded, their views have been given the most careful consideration.
  When the Bill went back to another place after Third Reading here, the other place accepted that there should be a review procedure in discretionary life sentence cases. More recently, the other place also accepted your Lordships' view that in discretionary life sentence cases there should not even be a power to

  649
  delay release for a few months in exceptional circumstances. The other side of the coin is, of course, that your Lordships have already accepted, albeit reluctantly, that the mandatory life sentence should remain.
  When the amendments which we are looking at today were moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, he presented them as giving an opportunity for another place to think again about certain points in its proposals which he believed could be improved. He indicated that the amendments made in another place were a step in the right direction and that his further amendments were not put forward in any spirit of conflict or confrontation.
  Therefore, it has been a question of our listening to each other's arguments, respecting each other's views and there being a bit of give and a bit of take. What I am asking today, with all due respect, is that your Lordships should now, in the light of deeply held views expressed in another place about taking away from the Home Secretary his ultimate responsibility for the release of murderers back into the community, allow matters to rest where they are and allow this very worthwhile Bill to become law without further ado. I am sure that all noble Lords consider that it is a worthwhile Bill.
  Perhaps I may remind the House that we sought the power to delay a life sentence prisoner's release for up to six months after it had been ordered by the Parole Board in order to cater for the exceptional circumstance where the prisoner's release at a particular moment might, for example, exacerbate a public order situation or complicate the handling of some sensitive terrorist incident. We believe that such a limited residual power would be in accordance with the ECHR judgment in the case of Thynne and others, which referred to the possibility of the Executive being able to detain the prisoner further on grounds of what it termed "expediency". However, having reflected on what was said in your Lordships' House, we concluded that it was not essential to have this power, and your Lordships' views have prevailed.
  However, we failed to spot that, as a result of dropping the six-month power, a consequential amendment to our new clause would be required. I am mos. grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for noticing our mistake. Matters are now put to rights by his Amendment No. 1CB, which I hope your Lordships will accept. Once again perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for spotting that foolish error.
  The main question which has still to be resolved is, of course, whether the new procedures for the review of discretionary life sentence cases should also extend to prisoners who receive the mandatory life sentence for murder, with the Home Secretary required to release such prisoners if the Parole Board so orders.
  When the matter was last before this House the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, argued strongly that that should be the case; that the procedures for mandatory and discretionary cases should be the same. He suggested that it would only be a matter of time before another case before the ECHR forced us down that
  650
  path. The Government, however, still believe that the Thynne judgment draws a sharp distinction between mandatory and discretionary life sentences.
  I do not wish to go over this in great detail because it has been rehearsed on previous occasions. However, the decision on release in a discretionary case is, save in the wholly exceptional case where life imprisonment is passed for punishment alone, to be based purely on the question of whether the offender continues to be a risk to the public. But, in the mandatory case, the decision on the offender's release raises different and broader questions which are not, I believe, inherently judicial in character.
  Parliament has decided, rightly or wrongly, that the person convicted of murder has committed a crime of such gravity that the punishment should be that he forfeit his liberty to the state for the rest of his days and can, if necessary, be detained for life. There is no presumption that he, unlike the discretionary life sentence prisoner, should be released at a certain point if he is judged no longer to be a risk.
  The presumption is, on the contrary, that the prisoner should remain in custody until and unless the Home Secretary concludes that the time has come when the public interest would be better served by his release than by his continued detention. In exercising his discretion in that respect the Home Secretary must take account not just of the question of risk but of how society as a whole would view the prisoner's release at that particular juncture. Obviously, the Home Secretary takes account of the judicial recommendation, but the final decision is his and, because it is his, it has been possible for Ministers to adopt and apply policies such as the policy which ensures that those who murder police officers serve at least 20 years in prison.
  The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the decisions he takes. To transfer his responsibility to the Parole Board or some other body would not only mark a fundamental departure from the principle that decisions of this nature should be taken by Ministers accountable to Parliament for them, but would open up the whole question of what alternative arrangements should be made to ensure that this very heavy responsibility was discharged in a way which commanded public confidence. If decisions of that kind were not to be taken by the Home Secretary—with the Home Secretary accountable to Parliament for them—Parliament in its turn would no doubt wish to be satisfied that its own influence was not entirely lost; and that might involve far reaching changes to the way in which sentencing for murder was conducted with perhaps statutory guidelines on the length of time that those convicted of different kinds of murder should serve.
  I know that the amendments are grouped separately but they fit very closely together. It may be for the convenience of the House if I turn now to Amendment No. 1B and then I need deal with the remaining amendments only very briefly later. Amendment No. 1B would require the judge to state a term in every discretionary life sentence case. The other place has disagreed with the amendment on the grounds that it does not take account of the possibility

  651
  that a discretionary life sentence might be imposed not because the offender is judged to be a danger to the public but solely because the offence which the offender has committed is so serious as to justify a life sentence on that account. I am satisfied that the approach recommended by the Government is wholly consistent with the wording of the Bill before your Lordships.
  In other words, this would be a discretionary life sentence passed in accordance with Clause 2(2) (a) of the Bill rather than Clause 2(2) (b); that is, a custodial sentence passed for a term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, not for a term longer than is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, such as is necessary to protect the public. Therefore, if the judge has concluded that it is necessary for the purposes of punishment to pass a life sentence on a person—not having concluded that it is necessary to pass a life sentence on a person to protect the public from him—it is entirely illogical for the court then to be required to set a term shorter than the life sentence.
  Such a discretionary life sentence based purely on the seriousness of the offence would, of course, be very rare. The vast majority of discretionary life sentences are passed because there is an element of mental instability which means that the prisoner will be a risk to the public for a period which cannot be predicted in advance. However, occasionally discretionary life sentences are passed, not because the offender is perceived to be a risk to the public but because of the nature of the offence which he has committed. As I said, in such cases it would be inappropriate and illogical to require the court to state a term within the sentence which was appropriate to the seriousness of the offence because the whole of the life sentence would have been imposed to punish the offence, not just part of it. No doubt the learned judge would have made that absolutely plain.
  I should emphasise that it will, of course, be entirely at the discretion of the judge whether to pass a discretionary life sentence of that nature. I am sure that it would be most exceptional but I do not consider that it would be appropriate to limit the judge's discretion in the matter in the way that Amendment No. 1B does.
  Lords Amendment No. 1C would permit the Parole Board to direct that the licence of a discretionary life sentence prisoner should be lifted after a certain period. That would mean that the offender concerned was no longer subject to any form of supervision and could not be recalled to prison if he showed signs of reverting to his former ways. Another place has disagreed with this amendment on the grounds that it is implicit that licences for life sentence prisoners should last for life; and it does seem to me that if a life sentence is passed, that must mean that the offender is subject to some restriction for the rest of his life. It would be a very strange life sentence if it did not mean that.
  Furthermore, the practicality of the matter is that the offenders whom we are talking about in this context will have been given life sentences because there has been judged to be an element of mental
  652
  instability in their behaviour. If someone with a life sentence for sexual assaults on young children shows some years after his release an interest in committing similar offences again, surely it must remain possible to take some action.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord is arguing for life sentences in many cases on the grounds of mental instability. In that case would not the individuals concerned be better disposed of in special hospitals?
  3.15 p.m.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, the reason behind the demand for the whole review procedure is that the person was given a life sentence not just for punishment. He is given a life sentence part of which should be for punishment and the rest because of risk to the public. Therefore, the answer to the noble Earl is that, if a person is deemed by a judge to be a risk to the public and to need a life sentence in order to protect the public, it is not a far cry from that to assume that there is some instability in the person which the judge believes will mean that the person will remain a risk to the public after the punishment part of the term has expired.
  I was dealing with the case of the sex offender who is given a life sentence and years later shows signs once again of taking an interest in young children. So long as the licence remains in force, steps can be taken either through tighter supervision, the attaching of new conditions to the licence, or ultimately the offender's recall to prison, to ensure that potential victims are not exposed to danger from him. I hope that on reflection your Lordships will agree that we should not deny the public the protection which is conferred by the existence of the licence for the remainder of the offender's life.
  We argued before about the judgment in Thynne. At the risk of boring your Lordships I read out a great chunk of that judgment. I could find nothing that suggested for one moment that there had to be a power to terminate the licence as distinct from a power to review the sentence and release the person when the penal term was over if the man was no longer a risk to the public.
  Your Lordships have succeeded in persuading another place to think again on the whole question of a review system in discretionary cases and about the six-month delay power. I do not think that we should take it amiss that another place, having considered our views on the other points, has disagreed with them. The important thing is that it should have had a chance to consider these points, and should have done so.
  With regard to the debate on mandatory life sentences, I am sure that we have not heard the last of it, and it may be that on maturer reflection, policy will move in the direction which some of your Lordships wish to see. Meanwhile, I hope that your Lordships will agree that the House has had its say on these matters and that the time has come to allow this important Criminal Justice Bill to pass on to the statute book. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 A to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1AA.—(Lord Waddington.)
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I agree with the Leader of the House to this extent: the House has had its say and it is time that the Bill should pass. However, the vision that the Leader of the House gave of the relationship between the two Houses in regard to the Bill was almost that of a Socratic dialogue—that there had been an intellectual exchange at the highest level between minds in this House and minds in another place as a result of which a compromise of some kind had emerged. I must say that nothing could be further from the truth.
  The Leader of the House said that there had been a bit of give and a bit of take. Looking at the history of the matter, there has been a great deal of give on one side and a great deal of take on the other. However, the give and the take have not been equalised. As a result of the way in which the Government chose to deal with the matter in another place, we are left with an extraordinary position. It is in effect a double and dual system for dealing with prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
  In one life sentence case, a decision will be more open, more judicial, more challengable, more transparent; in the other case, it will still be an executive decision taken on grounds one cannot know, let alone challenge, in the absence of the prisoner, and arrived at by Ministers at one knows not what level after consideration of whatever points they think fit, which again we shall never know.
  I have said before and perhaps I may repeat that it is wrong in principle to lengthen sentences by executive decree in this manner. Unlike a judge, the Minister makes his decision without having heard evidence in court. It is effectively a sentencing decision. It is taken behind closed doors. The prisoner cannot appeal against it. Similarly, decisions for or against the eventual release of life sentence prisoners and on the recall of such prisoners from licence can result in further lengthy periods of imprisonment; yet those decisions are also taken by an executive process whereby the Parole Board makes recommendations to Ministers.
  The amendments which this House passed and transmitted to the other place would have ensured that decisions on the release and recall of life sentence prisoners were made by a process which, unlike the current system, would have satisfied the requirements of natural justice. It is difficult to see any logic in retaining the Home Secretary's veto over the release of prisoners convicted of domestic murder in circumstances of extreme stress while relinquishing it in cases where a life sentence has been imposed for a calculated serial rape or following a manslaughter verdict on an unpredictable and unstable mentally disordered killer.
  Those points have been made before. They do not require repetition. I merely say to the House that while I accept that the other place must have its way and that the Bill should now proceed, for the Leader of the House to say that another place considered the matter
  654
  in an almost intellectual manner is frankly a travesty of what happened. It was considered for approximately 48 minutes after 10 o'clock. And the quality—if I may so characterise it—of the exchange is perhaps best illustrated by a passage I should like to read to the House from Hansard. The honourable gentleman, Mr. Bowen Wells, a Member of the Government party—
  Noble Lords: Order.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, if it is out of order for me to quote Hansard the House will be spared. It is suggested I paraphrase the extract. It is difficult to paraphrase what the right honourable Mrs. Rumbold said. The House will be spared the details of the way in which the Government tried to deal with the matter.
  When asked a simple question as to how the Home Secretary announced his decision and how that might be available in this House for debate, the Minister in charge, Mrs. Rumbold, having considered the matter obviously in a lengthy way, merely said that it was not a case where the Home Secretary announces his decision at a given time. I do not accept that the matter was dealt with in another place with anything like the care and consideration that it was given in this House.
  I apologise for not knowing but I am now told that I can quote the Minister. I am delighted to be able to give the House the full flavour of what the right honourable Mrs. Rumbold said:
  "This is not a case where the Home Secretary announces his decision at a given time. When the judiciary passes sentence in court, that sentence is passed as a life sentence or as life imprisonment, which means that anyone who commits murder will for the rest of his or her days be subject to the judgment of the court that it is a life sentence. When that person comes out, or if they do not come out, it is for the Home Secretary to decide when he takes into account, not just the usual elements, but the public interest clement, and that element is the most important part of a rounded and larger decision"—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/91; col. 312.]
  whatever that may mean. She was asked, "How do we know that?" She replied, at col. 313:
  "It is not a question of how one knows that. It is a matter which Parliament has decided".
  That was the argument being put forward in the other place. I detected a smell of it in the argument of the Leader of the House today. However, this is not the time to repeat all the arguments. I find the Government's reply disappointing, but in all the circumstances I think the Bill should pass.
  Lord Nathan: My Lords, I do not oppose the Motion moved by the Leader of the House that we should not insist upon our amendment. I say that for a reason shared by many others in your Lordships' House. There is too much in the Bill which is good and useful and which needs to be enacted immediately to make the risk of losing the Bill acceptable. This is not the moment to review the arguments so exhaustively and fully presented to your Lordships. I regret that the other place disagreed with amendments approved by large majorities in your Lordships' House; that is, all except one which the other place agreed.
  It was in relation to that amendment that the Leader of the House said:

  655
  "I do not know whether it was some diabolical plot on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which persuaded him to start off with what many might think his worst rather than his best point".—[Official Report, 3/7/91; col. 1025.]
  I had no idea that I was being diabolical or so successful in being so. I must try it again.
  It has been suggested to me that I should move further amendments to dilute those which are the subject of consideration today, with a view to securing the agreement of another place. I am advised that such a course presents no difficulties of procedure, but I have rejected it. Such a course can only obscure the purposes and principles which have received such overwhelming support and thus prejudice their adoption on a future occasion.
  The arguments for retention of the status quo seem, in principle, to be two. First—the noble Lord the Leader of the House made the point himself—it is said that a person convicted of murder has committed a crime of such gravity that he forfeits his liberty to the state for the rest of his days and that it is for the Home Secretary to determine how long he shall remain in custody as punishment and whether or not he should be released—always, of course, on licence. But the state acts through different organs for different purposes. The Executive, the judiciary, and indeed the tribunal proposed by the Commons Amendment to determine questions of release in the particular circumstances specified, all act for the state. I believe that the Home Secretary is not the appropriate person to act for the state in these contexts.
  Secondly, it is said that the Home Secretary must retain these powers for the exercise of which he is accountable to Parliament; that is, both Houses. But as we know, the powers are exercised in secret. Accountability depends on knowledge or means of acquiring it. The past quarter of a century since the mandatory life sentence for murder was introduced does not prompt confidence in that argument.
  The Select Committee report brought to light secret procedures and the need for radical reform; supported overwhelmingly by your Lordships, the press, the media generally and, as I believe, by the public now that they know the position. It has been said that your Lordships are ahead of public opinion. If that is true, I count it for virtue; for surely one of our functions is to lead. However, as I said, with the information now available public opinion is in favour of the changes we propose.
  It is said that the original amendments and those relating to the Commons Amendments will not be incorporated. It is sad that those amendments will not be incorporated in the Bill, but another opportunity will arise and we shall take it. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House that on mature reflection there may be a change of heart by many.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Windlesham: My Lords, the outcome of the lengthy debates we have had on life sentences of imprisonment in the course of the Criminal Justice Bill and the messages that have passed between the two Houses is a compromise which is satisfactory to
  656
  nobody. On the one side the Government maintain, as we have heard again this afternoon, that the time is not ripe to move away from the mandatory life sentence as the penalty for murder, although seeming now to accept that the change is likely to come at some time in the future.
  On the other side, we have heard mounting criticisms of the way Ministers have been drawn, almost imperceptibly over the past few years, into entanglement in a procedure which confuses the proper functions of the Executive and the judiciary. As the Bill has progressed through both Houses this feature has increasingly attracted comment by speakers in another place. Many Members of Parliament, even a number of Ministers, have been startled to discover that it is Home Office Ministers meeting in private—often a Minister of State advising the Secretary of State, or perhaps the Home Secretary himself—who decide how long a prisoner should serve as a punishment for his crime. They have not heard the evidence in court and have not seen the prisoner, who himself has not been afforded any opportunity to challenge what is said about him in reports, the contents of which he may know nothing.
  It is true that the judiciary is consulted on the setting of the so-called tariff. To add to the rather short list of achievements resulting from the consideration of this important matter in this House I ask the Minister of State at the Home Office who is sitting on the Front Bench, and my noble friend the Leader of the House, if they will make a determined effort to erase the word "tariff" from the Home Office vocabulary. It is an ugly and inappropriate word. The Select Committee had provided a better alternative, which is to refer to it as the "penal term".
  For all crimes other than murder, the current procedures which we have debated so often over the past few months have been found to be unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights. Consequently, under the obligations incorporated in the European Convention on Human Rights, they must be changed. After strong pressure from this House the Government came forward in another place with amendments to the Bill in order to bring discretionary life sentences into line with the requirements of the convention. It has already been recognised by my noble friend the Leader of the House that your Lordships acted as a spur, causing the Government to act more quickly than they otherwise might have done.
  The amendments carried in this House on 3rd July were amending the Commons Amendments. They were complicated, but their effect was simple. The amendments provided a consistent procedure—just one procedure—applying the same rules to all life sentences. The response in the other place was characteristic of the hesitant way in which the Home Office has approached the whole problem, in that the Government were only prepared to move to the extent which was already unavoidable, and no further. The result is that we are now left for the future with two quite distinct procedures for deciding how long life sentence prisoners should serve in custody, and how —and by whom—their cases should be reviewed.

  657
  The procedure that applies to all cases save only murder incorporates the standards of fairness enshrined in the European convention which I may remind your Lordships were largely drawn from the common law. For reasons that the Government, but few others with any familiarity of the workings of criminal justice, find persuasive the alternative procedure endures, and it can only be described as arbitrary. I am sure that I am not alone in doubting whether these two distinct procedures can cohabit for very long. The distinctions between mandatory and discretionary sentences have become more and more complicated. They are contrived and they remain unconvincing.
  Far a time I was chairman of a joint Home Office Parole Board committee which until 1983 reviewed the cases of all those who had been sentenced to life imprisonment. We never concerned ourselves with whether they were sentences for murder or rape or any of the other serious offences which had led to life imprisonment. We looked at each case on its merits. But bit by bit, in an attempt to justify retaining the power of decision within the Home Office, the distinctions between mandatory and discretionary sentences became more and more elaborate. My conclusion is that they are not necessary and have made the problem worse rather than better.
  It is regrettable that we make progress in penal reform so slowly and so reluctantly. We have a debate on another related matter later this evening which has been initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. No one knows better than he how true that is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and with the advice we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench that we should not press our amendments further in view of the clear opposition by a majority of those who voted in another place.
  My final reflection at the end of this protracted process of debate and amendment on the Bill, sending it to and fro between the two Houses, is to reflect that penal reforms are never easily gained. We may recall that t he path we have followed in this Bill began in 1987 when the previous criminal justice legislation was before your Lordships' House. On that occasion it led to the setting up of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment which was chaired with such distinction by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The report of the Select Committee led to the amendments which your Lordships agreed and put into the present Criminal Justice Bill.
  We are part of the way towards our destination. Even the Government seem to recognise that the destination is now in sight. We may have to wait a little longer until we arrive there.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the advice of my noble friend the late Lord Stockton to those who sit on these Back Benches who are to make a speech in your Lordships' House was, "Take one point only and keep it very short". The point that I wish to take is that the traditional relationship between the Houses which has served so well and so long cannot operate in an atmosphere of assured ultimate conflict. The restoration of that relationship transcends the merits of these amendments and the reluctance to accept
  658
  joint responsibility with another place for the loss of this excellent Bill. The priority is to seek to repair the fabric of that relationship, which of late has worn so thin as to have become all but threadbare.
  Let us put aside all arguments as to the merits. On the main question both Houses divided one-third to two-thirds, with a very large measure of abstention. There is assuredly no manifesto commitment and in any event the Salisbury Convention would never apply where the due exercise of our functions has been foreclosed upon. That is what has happened.
  It is in no ordinary circumstances that we consider the Commons disagreement to our amendments today. By an overt declaration of ultimate conflict—an instantaneous public pronouncement by the Secretary of State that the Lords amendments would be reversed—the due discharge of our constitutional functions as a revising House under the Queen in Parliament has been inhibited and is inhibited today. In ordinary circumstances, it would have been open to your Lordships either to insist or to offer alternative proposals, if so advised.
  We should not be at the brink of conflict today. By this anticipatory assurance that no accommodation would be forthcoming we have been brought to the brink. Although there is no rule of order in either House which governs the situation if your Lordships were to insist and another place were to insist on their disagreement, a variation of procedure could have been introduced to save the Bill if there was any hope of accommodation. However, the Secretary of State has foreclosed on this option and this is no time for brinkmanship.
  I wish to make it plain that there is no hint of criticism of another place. There is no suggestion of calculated impropriety, but in this extraordinary situation it is surely essential that we should assert our privileges and protest at this untoward erosion of our functions. We should assert our privileges and mark this protest by abstention on the safe assumption that in the event of a Division, however massive the abstention, the Government are assured of this Bill on the payroll vote. Let it not be said that we are sulking in our tents, that we lack the mettle to discharge our duties, or that by inertia we fear, or invite, imposed reform. But having asserted our privileges and made our protest surely it is only by the exercise of restraint that we may seek to restore and improve that traditional relationship.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as I grow older I become increasingly deferential towards my youngers and betters. I am naturally anxious to fall in with the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who has expressed in these long debates my own ideals in regard to criminal matters so much better than I could. Nevertheless, this resistance to the idiocy which seems to be emanating from elsewhere is to me a matter of conscience. I know it is dangerous to talk about conscience in public life, though I am bound to say that my old friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, does so quite often. I remember very well George Lansbury being accused by Ernest Bevin

  659
  of hawking his conscience round Europe. Everyone has a conscience and it happens that mine operates on this subject.
  What is this business about not resisting the Commons? We resisted the Commons over the War Crimes Act; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, took that line. Therefore, if it was possible to resist the Commons then, why not now, which in my view raises much more fundamental human questions. No one can pretend that it is unconstitutional to resist the Commons. What is the Parliament Act for? It gives us the power, as was seen over the War Crimes Act, to hold matters up for a year. As far as I am concerned that was the right course.
  I realise that there is not likely to be a Division, but I am bound to say that one individual right remains. When it is put to the vote and we are asked whether we are content, I shall say "Not-content".
  Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I am perfectly sure that the House would be right to accept the course recommended by both Front Benches. I happen to believe that the Government, by pushing us into this position on a whipped majority in the House of Commons, has set a bad precedent which might be used by other governments in slightly more embarrassing circumstances. However, having been pushed in that way, if we were to insist on our privileges we would be setting a worse example.
  I am quite clear in my own mind that we should support the Government in this respect, and I agree with almost everything said by my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who sits so close to me. I should like to add that as a result of these discussions it has emerged very clearly in my mind—I can now say this without infringing the rules of order because it is relevant to the standpoint which I have taken in these few remarks—that, first, the law of manslaughter and murder ought to be thoroughly revised and rationalised; and, secondly, that at the moment all discretionary life sentences and all mandatory life sentences are nonsense.
  The truth is that the public know that a life sentence does not mean what it says. For deterrent purposes, a sentence of 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years would be far more effective, subject to the right of early release. It would be very much better if the Government would recognise that fact and if it were more generally understood and supported in the country. Having said that, I can only say that I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench have come to the right conclusion. I agree with what my noble friends Lord Nathan and Lord Windlesham said.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I rise now not to weary the House with argument but to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have not always found it particularly easy because I have respected greatly those who have advanced arguments which I found impossible to support. I was conscious as someone new to the House that those voicing those
  660
  arguments were noble Lords who had served on the Select Committee which had studied this matter with the greatest care.
  I should like to thank all those who have taken part for their patience and forbearance. I close by saying that, whatever happened on the Floor of another place, I can assure the House that there was anxious thought in government as to what if anything could be done to meet the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and those who served on the Select Committee. One of the products of that was a decision to delay no longer in having a review system for discretionary life sentence cases. Another was the decision not to press the matter of the six-month delaying power.
  I say again that your Lordships' time was not wasted. I have learnt a good deal during these protracted debates over a period of months now. I thank all noble Lords for the way in which they have put their arguments. I am sure that what they have said will not be forgotten.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 1
  1B Line 14, at end insert
  ("(2A) A court shall make an order under subsection (1) above whenever it passes a sentence of imprisonment for life.") The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 1B for the following reason—
  1BA Because it is incompatible with the possibility of passing a life sentence under Clause 2(2) (a) of the Bill.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1BA.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1BA.—(Lord Waddington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 1
  1C Line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  ("(3) As soon as a life prisoner has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part") and the Board has directed his release under this section it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release him

  (a) on licence, which shall remain in force until his death, in the case of a life prisoner convicted of an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law; and

  (b) in any other case, on licence, which shall remain in force for such period as the Board shall direct.") The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 1C for the following reason—

  1CA Because it is implicit in a life sentence that, if released, the offender should remain on licence, and be subject to recall, for the rest of his life.

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1CB Lord Airedale to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1C to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1CA, but do propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
  In Commons Amendment No. 1 (new clause (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) ), in subsection (3), leave out ("subject to subsection (7) below").
  Lord Airedale: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1CB. Having regard to the very encouraging words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his opening speech, I believe that I can take this matter very shortly indeed.
  If noble Lords look at page 2 of the Marshalled List they will see in line 2 the words proposed to be left out; namely, the words,
  "subject to subsection (7) below".
  If noble Lords cast their eyes to the end of the new clause they will come upon the words in brackets and in italics:
  "[A Lords amendment to leave out subsection (7) has been agreed to by the Commons.]"
  That means that the words to be left out,
  "subject to subsection (7) below",
  no longer have any function. They are left high and dry. They need to be floated off on the next high tide, towed away and sunk.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1C to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1CA, but do propose Amendment No. 1CB to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Airedale.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 1
  1D Line 22, leave out ("discretionary").
  1E Line 27, leave out ("discretionary").
  1F Line 39, leave out ("discretionary").
  1G Line 50, leave out ("discretionary"). The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendments Nos. 1D to 1G for the following reason—
  1H Because they are consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. ID to 1G to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1H.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1D to 1G to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1H.—(Lord Waddington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  2 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales
  '.—(1) This section applies where, in the case of a transferred life prisoner, the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, certifies his opinion that, if—
  662

  (a) he had been sentenced for his offence in England and Wales after the commencement of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above; and

  (b) the reference in subsection (1) (a) of that section to a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law were a reference to any offence the sentence for which is not so fixed,

  the court by which he was so sentenced would have ordered that that section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the certificate.
  (2) In a case to which this section applies, this Part except section 28(2) above shall apply as if—

  (a) the transferred life prisoner were a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part: and

  (b) the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act were the part specified in the certificate.

  (3) In this section "transferred life prisoner" means a person—

  (a) on whom a court in a country or territory outside England and Wales has imposed one or more sentences of imprisonment or detention for an indeterminate period; and

  (b) who has been transferred to England and Wales, in pursuance of—

  (i) an order made by the Secretary of State under section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 or section 2 of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884; or

  (ii) a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984,

  there to serve his sentence or sentences or the remainder of his sentence or sentences.
  (4) A person who is required so to serve the whole or part of two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and subsections (3) and (5) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

  LORDS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2
  2A Line 7, leave out from ("above") to end of line 10.
  2B Line 16, leave out ("discretionary").
  2C Line 35, leave out ("discretionary"). The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendments Nos. 2A to 2C for the following reason—
  2D Because they are consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2A to 2C to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2D.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2A to 2C to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2D.—(Lord Waddington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF AN EARLIER LORDS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  3 Clause 30, page 21, line 45, leave out ("until his death") and insert ("in accordance with subsection (3) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above.") The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 3 for the following reason—
  3A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1C to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.—(Lord Waddington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  4 Clause 30, page 22, line 6. leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  '(5) The Secretary of State shall not include on release, or subsequently insert, a condition in the licence of a long-term or life prisoner, or vary or cancel any such condition, except—

  (a) in the case of the inclusion of a condition in the licence of a discretionary life prisoner, in accordance with recommendations of the Board; and

  (b) in any other case, after consultation with the Board.'

  LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 4
  4A Line 6, leave out ("discretionary"). The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 4 for the following reason—
  4B Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4A to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4B.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4A to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4B.—(Lord Waddington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  5 Clause 32, page 23, line 5, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 7 and insert 'on a reference under subsection (4) above the Board—

  (a) directs in the case of a discretionary life prisoner; or

  (b) recommends in the case of any other person, his immediate release on licence under this section, the Secretary of State shall give effect to the direction or recommendation.'

  LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 5
  5A Line 3, leave out ("discretionary"). The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 5A for the following reason—
  5B Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5A to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5B.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5A to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5B.—(Lord Waddington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  6 Clause 42, page 27, line 26, at end insert—
  '"discretionary life prisoner" has the meaning given by section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above (as extended by section 36(2) above);'.

  LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 6
  6A Line 2, leave out ("discretionary"). The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 6A for the following reason—
  6B Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6A to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6B.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6A to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6B.—(Lord Waddington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  7 Schedule 11. page 93, line 13, at end insert—
  '6A.—(1) This paragraph applies where, in the case of an existing life prisoner, the Secretary of State certifies his opinion that, if—

  (a) section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act had been in force at the time when he was sentenced; and

  (b) the reference in subsection (1) (a) of that section to a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law were a reference to any offence the sentence for which is not so fixed,

  the court by which he was sentenced would have ordered that that section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the certificate.
  (2) In a case to which this paragraph applies, Part II of this Act except section 28(2) shall apply as if—

  (a) the existing life prisoner were a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of that Part; and

  665

  (b) the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act were the part specified in the certificate.

  (3) In this paragraph "existing life prisoner" means a person who, at the commencement of Part II of this Act, is serving one or more of the following sentences, namely—

  (a) a sentence of life imprisonment;

  (b) a sentence of detention during her Majesty's pleasure or for life under section 53 of the 1933 Act; or

  (c) a sentence of custody for life under section 8 of the 1982 Act.

  (4) A person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of Part II of this Act unless the requirements of sub-paragraph (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and subsections (3) and (5) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

  LORDS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 7
  7A Line 5, leave out from ("sentenced") to end of line 8.
  7B Line 14, leave out ("discretionary").
  7C Line 27, leave out ("discretionary"). The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendments Nos. 7A to 7C for the following reason—
  7D Because they are consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 7A to 7C to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 7D.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 7A to 7C to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 7D.—(Lord Waddngton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill returned to the Commons with the amendment.

The Army: Restructuring
3.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minisiry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the restructuring of the Army. The Statement is as follows:
'For more than 40 years the British Army has stood in the front line in Europe with our NATO allies. For more than 40 years we have had to maintain, even in peacetime, very substantial force levels on the Continent of Europe against the risk of a massive surprise attack across a wide front by the huge military strength of the Warsaw Pact. But suddenly, after all these years of confrontation, the Warsaw Pact has collapsed; East Germany is no more; and Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and? thus all seek closer links with the West. Only last
666
week in London at the G7 Summit, President Gorbachev came not as an adversary but in search of support for his economic reforms.
"Nonetheless, tensions and risks remain and the Soviet Union is still the largest military power in Europe. That underlines the importance of maintaining the NATO Alliance.
"NATO's strategy for the Cold War was built on deterrence and strong defence. NATO's new strategy is to sustain these policies that have served us so well, but to achieve them within lower levels of forces, which will be more flexible and mobile.
"NATO's decisions in May opened the way for us to make changes to our own force structure. Since the greatest threat previously came in the central region in Europe, it was on Germany that the major part of our Army was focused and it from this area that the largest part of our reductions now comes.
"NATO decided in May that the UK should join and lead the new multinational rapid reaction corps. This challenging role is welcomed by the Army and well suited to our all-volunteer professional forces. In addition to providing the commander and a significant proportion of the headquarters, we shall also be providing some corps troops, a powerful armoured division based in Germany, a more flexible, mechanised division based in the UK and a strong air-mobile brigade based in a separate multinational division.
"This NATO decision was the essential component in deciding the future strength of the Army and enabled me to announce on 4th June that by the mid-1990's the strength of the Army would be 116,000. In deciding this, we also took account of our needs for the direct defence of the United Kingdom; for responsibilities overseas in our dependent territories and elsewhere; and to help the Royal Ulster Constabulary to uphold the law in Northern Ireland. It was then possible to start consulting widely within the Army on how the restructuring should be achieved. I would now like to report to the House on the outcome of this consultation.
"I turn first to the supporting corps, often less noticed but playing a vital role in the fighting effectiveness of our Army. We have already announced our plans covering personnel and administration. We will be bringing together in a new Adjutant General's Corps the Royal Army Pay Corps, the Womens Royal Army Corps, the Royal Military Police, the Military Provost Staff Corps, the Royal Army Education Corps and the Army Legal Corps.
"We now intend to concentrate the support functions into two new corps. The first, for service support, will comprise much of the existing Royal Corps of Transport, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, the Royal Pioneer Corps and the Army Catering Corps, and will handle all aspects for keeping combat forces supplied in the field. The second, responsible for equipment support, will he centred upon the existing Royal Electrical and

667
Mechanical Engineers. The effect of these changes will be to reduce the number of support corps from 18 to 10.
"There are ten army districts in the United Kingdom each commanded by a general. This number will be significantly reduced; as a first step, a new combined Wales and Western District will form in September replacing three existing districts. We shall also rationalise the Army's training organisation, concentrating training on a much smaller number of larger and more efficient establishments.
"We are anxious to manage this reduction of more than 40,000 in the Army over the next four years in the most considerate and fair manner. Most of the reductions will be achieved by natural turnover, but there will be significant redundancies particularly affecting middle rank officers and senior NCOs. As far as possible, we shall seek voluntary redundancies but some may need to be compulsory if we are to maintain a proper balance of ages, ranks and skills in the Army for the 90s. The normal redundancy terms will apply; all those leaving the Army will have access to full resettlement assistance. My honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is giving details of redundancies in the other services in a separate Written Answer today.
"I turn now to a subject that concerns both those leaving and those continuing to serve in the Army. Under this Government there has, over the last decade, been a major extension of home ownership, including new forms of co-ownership and part-ownership, made available through new organisations in the voluntary housing sector. These developments have not been matched by new opportunities for service personnel. The proportion of home owners in the Army is on the whole low. We intend to make comparable changes in the housing opportunities open to servicemen and women, and to bring service housing policy up to date with developments in the community.
"This Government have always ensured that service personnel are properly rewarded for the work they do. We also wish servicemen and women to have the best possible insurance cover for serious injury as well as death, off duty as well as on, and we are planning new initiatives to bring such arrangements within the reach of all our services.
"I turn now to reserves. Our volunteer and other reserves will continue to make a vital contribution to our defence effort. They, too, will need to adapt to changes in the Army as a whole and have regard to how many they can realistically expect to recruit and retain, given the unfavourable demographic trends. We have taken no final decisions on the Territorial Army, and we do not wish to turn away willing volunteers, but we envisage that the long-term future strength will settle at between 60,000 and 65,000 against 75,000 today. We are studying the best mix of regulars and reserves and
668
we are consulting with the Territorial Army associations. I hope to make further announcements on the way ahead for the TA later this year.
"Turning to the changes in front line forces. I deal first with the particular issue of the Gurkhas. In May 1989, my right honourable friend the Member for Ayr announced the plan to retain some 4,000 Gurkhas following withdrawal from Hong Kong. But he also made clear that it might be necessary to reconsider this if circumstances changed, such as the size of the British Army as a whole. This is now the position and we have reviewed our plans for the brigade along with those for the rest of the Army. The Gurkhas play an important role in Hong Kong and Brunei. We intend to retain Gurkhas within the British Army after 1997; but we believe, subject again to any major change in circumstances, that a smaller force of around 2,500 based on two infantry battalions and support units would be more appropriate. As a first step, two battalions will amalgamate in 1992.
"Reductions in the combat arms will reflect the needs of the new force structure. There will, for example, be no change to the present number of six Army Air Corps regiments, reflecting the increased importance of the armed helicopter on the future battlefield. By the mid-1990s there will be 11 armoured or armoured reconnaissance regiments compared with 19 today. The Army will reduce from 50 United Kingdom and five Gurkha infantry battalions to 46 and four respectively by the end of 1992 and progressively thereafter until, by 1997, there will be a total of 38 battalions of which two will be Gurkha. Together with the three Royal Marine Commandos we shall then have available a total of 41 infantry roled units.
"The Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment will remain unchanged and the Life Guards and The Blues and Royals will form a combined armoured reconnaissance regiment retaining their separate identities. In the Royal Armoured Corps, the Queen's Dragoon Guards, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and the 9/12th Royal Lancers will he unaffected. The six regiments of Hussars will amalgamate to form three regiments, the two regiments of Lancers will amalgamate and the four Royal Tank Regiments will amalgamate to form two regiments. The Royal Regiment of Artillery will reduce from 22 regiments to 16, the Corps of Royal Engineers will reduce from 15 regiments to 10 and the Royal Corps of Signals will reduce from 15 regiments to 11.
"Turning to the infantry, we plan to make changes over the next four years as follows. In accordance with precedent, the second battalion of each of the Grenadier, Coldstream and Scots Guards will be placed in suspended animation. The Irish and Welsh Guards are not affected. The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the Royal Anglian Regiment, the Light Infantry and the Royal Green Jackets will all reduce from three battalions to two. The Queen's Regiment will amalgamate with the

669
Royal Hampshire Regiment and form a regiment of two battalions. The Parachute Regiment is unchanged.
'Within the Prince of Wales's Division recruiting from Wales, the Midlands and the West Country, the Cheshire Regiment will amalgamate with the Staffordshire Regiment; and The Gloucestershire Regiment with the Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment.
"The following will be unaffected: the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment; the Royal Welch Fusiliers; the Royal Regiment of Wales; and the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment.
"In Scotland, the Queen's Own Highlanders and the Gordon Highlanders will amalgamate, as will the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers. The Royal Highland Fusiliers, the Black Watch, and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are unchanged.
"In the King's Division we are taking the opportunity to bring the Ulster Defence Regiment more fully into the Army by merging it with the Royal Irish Rangers. The new regiment will comprise one battalion for worldwide service and up to seven battalions for service in Northern Ireland only; its likely title is the Royal Irish Regiment.
"In the remainder of the King's Division covering the North of England, the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, the King's Regiment, the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire, the Green Howards, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, and the Duke of Wellington's Regiment are unchanged.
"The restructuring of the Army along the lines I have described has inevitably required painful choices and difficult decisions. While there are no actual disbandments in the armoured or infantry regiments, nonetheless I recognise that there will be sadness at the amalgamations and at the possible loss of some famous names. Everyone who recognises the great benefits that flow from regimental loyalty and tradition understands that, but also understands that, as with amalgamations in the past, that same spirit is carried forward into the reformed regiments. That has been the strength of the regimental system which we are determined to maintain.
"The Army which emerges in the mid-1990s will meet the challenges for the next century. It will have a new and demanding role. It will be fully manned. It will be properly supported, and it will be well equipped. I am in no doubt that it will continue to offer an attractive career to the high quality young men and women who have served us so well in the pass and whom we shall continue to need in the future. I commend my Statement to the House". My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.13 p m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State. I have
670
to tell the Minister that I find the contents of the Statement profoundly disturbing. I do not know, and I have asked the Minister on previous occasions, how the figure for the number of troops and battalions in the Army has been arrived at. What magic calculation has led to the Statement today? It seems to us that the strategic problems outlined in the White Paper which the Statement introduces cannot be met by an Army of 116,000 men.
It may be that our strategic requirements are less than the White Paper says, and there may be extenuating circumstances. But we cannot see how the number of battalions and troops that the Minister suggests will meet our strategic commitments, as the Government outline them in their White Paper.
Will the Minister clarify the assistance that the Government propose to give to those who are made redundant? In the White Paper the expression used is, "We will be considerate"; in the Statement, the Minister said:
"Most of the reductions will be achieved by natural turnover, but there will be significant redundancies particularly affecting middle rank officers and senior NCOs".
Those are people in the middle of their lives. They have served Queen and country well. It is no good merely being considerate. There must be some clear arrangement for ensuring that if there are redundancies there will be proper compensation and support from Her Majesty's Government to ensure that those faithful soldiers will be able properly to integrate into civilian life. Nothing else will do.
My next question to the Minister is about the reserves. I understand that he will make a Statement about the reserves. It is our belief that, although no final decisions have been taken on the Territorial Army, if we are ever again to put an Army on the ground against a European threat, we need a proper emergency reserve. That cannot be done by having 65-odd thousand people turning up for the occasional weekend. It must be done in a professional manner in the Army—and if I may say so, in the RAF and the Navy. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the future of the Territorial Army and the reserves because that is the only way, and it is a cheap way, of ensuring that, at short notice, we can put armies on the ground in strength. The Americans do it; the Australians do it; why should not we do it?
The Minister reflected on the Army. I have no wish to go into the allocation of regiments and regimental amalgamations that he announced. I am sure that many noble Lords will comment upon them. But it seems odd—I speak as one who was a subaltern in a regiment that was amalgamated—that we can just amalgamate regiments, apparently without serious regard to the local loyalties that they inspire.
Perhaps I may put in a plea for Wales. I am glad that the Royal Welch Fusiliers has been preserved. On the other hand, I have to tell the Minister that in the White Paper—not the Statement—the Government announce that in the new districts:
"As a first step, Wales, Western and North West Districts will form a new Wales and Western District in September. The new District will be commanded from Shrewsbury".
Does the Minister have any idea what offence that will give to the Principality? Has anyone consulted anyone

671
in Wales on that? Scotland will remain a district in its own right, although I understand that it will be downgraded a grade from Lieutenant General to Major General; but Wales is merely to be subsumed into Shropshire so far as defence is concerned.
The Statement does not say much about civilian employees, but the White Paper does. Again, many people will be put out of work at a time of high unemployment with no clear idea of what their future career will be. The Government should take that much more seriously.
I have a residual worry—no doubt others of my noble friends will take up the issue—about the amalgamation of the Ulster Defence Regiment with the Royal Irish Rangers, but that is something upon which I shall not concentrate. In the Statement, the Government have, in a sense, given Parliament a challenge. The strategic criteria are laid out in the White Paper—I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the House does not feel that this matter is interesting enough for him to stay—and I believe that the Government need to justify the numbers that they propose.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in the light of the extraordinary changes that have taken place in Europe in recent years, the scale of the reductions in the Army proposed by the Government seems reasonable enough. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, it is true that the number of commitments remains the same. However, the big commitment and by far the most important military commitment we had in Europe and Germany is now only a shadow of what it used to be. In my view, the Government would have been very much to blame if they had not adapted to the new situation and adjusted the Army to meet the situation that now exists.
The proposed reduction was agreed by NATO in line with the NATO conference in May. Those who believe that the reduction is reasonable enough cannot fairly object to each individual proposed cut. I do not wish now to go into the detail of what was announced by the noble Earl. We shall examine the proposed changes with great care. We regret that the Recess is upon us. It was a fortunate coincidence for the Government that the long, difficult and politically dangerous task of sorting out the cuts should come to fruition just two days before the Recess. However, when we return we shall no doubt have a great number of questions to ask about the detail of the Statement and in particular about the amalgamation of the regiments.
One point that we can make straightaway about the Statement is that we should have expected a long and clear explanation of the criteria used by the Government in amalgamating or ending the lives of the regiments. What were they? Is morale a factor? Is the record of recruitment a factor? Is the record of retaining servicemen in the regiment a factor? Is fighting efficiency a factor? I may have missed all that in the noble Earl's Statement, but I saw no reference whatever to the criteria used in reaching these decisions. That makes one a little suspicious that the
672
Government have been responsive to pressure rather than deciding what needed to be done and then firmly imposing the best solution from the Army's view.
We were told little about the procedures used by the Government in reaching the decisions. We should have liked to know more about them. Another point puzzles me about the number of battalions remaining —38. Previously it was 36. What does that mean? Since the manpower total is the same, does it mean diluting the manpower of the battalions? Perhaps the noble Earl will explain.
One good feature is the advancing of the concept of the multinational formation. On these Benches we warmly welcome it. We believe that it can go further, especially with multinational formations of the countries of the Western European Union.
One point which applies to all the Options for Change statements is the lack of any distinction between those commitments such as the Falklands which we might have to handle on our own and the other commitments which we know we shall only undertake with the support of allies. In military planning to decide the nature and structure of the Army one would have expected that distinction to be clearly made. I see no sign that it is made either in the Statement or in Options for Change.
However, I do not wish to end on too critical a note. On these Benches we are glad that the Government have not been pushed off their manpower targets by the heavy pressures put upon them from various sources.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should straightaway make it quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the noble Lord the Leader of the House was forced to go to a Select Committee meeting. He in no way intended any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, nor to your Lordships' House. It was a matter of urgency for him to leave at that moment.
I shall deal first with some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised and, secondly, with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. The former was concerned that we did not have sufficient troops both for our requirements for commitments abroad and for the defence of the country. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we are completely satisfied that there are sufficient infantry battalions in the proposed force structure to provide an appropriate balanced commitment to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and to the defence of the United Kingdom and our overseas garrisons.
I am sure that very much in your Lordships' minds will be the point that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, quite rightly brought up on redundancy and pension schemes and how they are to work, since there may have to be some compulsory redundancies in the future. Much of the reduction will, we hope, come from natural wastage, but there will be a requirement for a substantial redundancy programme among officers and NCOs to ensure the balanced structure of age, ranks and skills.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell me, as a matter of clarification, what "substantial" means in this context? What are the numbers involved?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will allow me, I shall reach that point later and will clarify it. The precise numbers will depend on many factors but are likely to be in excess of 10,000 between now and the mid-1990s. Volunteers for redundancy will he sought, but compulsory redundancies cannot be ruled out. It is not expected that British personnel with less than 12 years' service will be made redundant. The financial terms will be similar to those in all previous service redundancy schemes since 1975. They will provide immediate pension and capital payments. Of course, in addition, resettlement support will be provided and a careful eye will be kept on it in order to see that integrity, honour and decency are put forward on both redundancy schemes and resettlement schemes of the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the territorial reserves. All our volunteer reserves will continue, as they always have done in the past, to make a vital contribution to our defence effort. However, they too will need to adapt to the changed commitments of the Army. Some TA units will be part of the ARRC while others will take over responsibility for direct defence of the United Kingdom from regular units. We must also have regard to the numbers we can realistically recruit and retain, given demographic trends which affect them as much as their regular counterparts.
Although no final decisions have yet been taken on the future role, organisation or size of the TA, as I stated in the Statement we would not wish to turn away willing volunteers. We envisage that the long-term future strength will settle at between 60,000 and 65,000, compared with 75,000 today. We have set in hand a study of how best to balance a mix of regular and reserve manpower in the new force structure. Consultations will now take place with TAVRAs and others We hope to make a further announcement towards the end of the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, commented upon a few aspects of the Statement and certain anxieties that he had. He was particularly concerned about the restructuring of the Army. Under the new structure, the Army will reduce progressively from 50 United Kingdom and five Gurkha infantry battalions today to 46 United Kingdom and four Gurkha battalions by the end of 1992. Then it will reduce to 36 and three by 1995. There will be a reduction of one further Gurkha battalion by 1997, following its withdrawal from Hong Kong. Together with the three Royal Marine Commandos, we will then have available a total of 41 infantry roled units. By the mid-1990s there will be 11 armoured or armoured reconnaissance regiments, compared with today.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also asked what was the rationale behind all this. How and why was it done? The answer is that it was done with extreme care and great understanding by the Army Board. A wide range of factors was taken into account, including past and present manning considerations; future recruiting
674
projections; the history of amalgamations; the need to maintain representation across the country; future accommodation, deployment and equipment plans and views expressed during the consultation process.
Given the scale of the reductions, difficult decisions and painful choices have had to be made. The outcome represents the collective judgment of the whole Army Board as regards what is best for the Army. We recognise that, inevitably, there will be those who will disagree and wish that different decisions had been taken. But those are the criteria and the rationale upon which the future manning of the regiments was based. I hope that answers some of the questions that have been raised.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement. I welcome the Statement if for no other reason than that, defence expenditure having already declined by some 11 per cent. over the past five years, while commitments, force structure and spending have remained largely unchanged and in certain areas have had to be increased, decisions on Options for Change were most urgently needed if the defence programme was not to get even more out of alignment than it already was and thus leave itself open to the Treasury imposing arbitrary "salami" cuts of the most illogical kind without a proper strategic basis from which to argue the case.
This review was therefore highly appropriate and some of the force level reductions now announced by the Minister were bound to be necessary, whatever strategic rethinking took place, just to get the defence programme into better balance and correct the mismatch. So my first reaction is one of relief that the nettle has been grasped. Indeed there are certain points in the Statement which I warmly applaud, for example the improved housing opportunities for servicemen and women—that is long overdue—the need not to turn away willing volunteers from the Territorial Army, the need to keep the third battalion of the Parachute Regiment and the need to rationalise the logistic corps.
However, in this still dangerous and uncertain world it is essential for our national security that all the decisions now announced, which have been taken either in whole or in part—there are still many details to be filled in—are the right ones on the periphery as well as centrally, with the Government seen to be giving a clear lead on what they now require the armed forces to do and, just as importantly, what they are now prepared that the armed forces should no longer do, and providing the force structure and the resources to make that strategy possible.
Some cynics may say that that is a Utopian world, but that is what ought to happen. I have to say that neither the Statement nor the White Paper—leaving aside the rhetoric —offer much prospect that, with resources continuing to fall so sharply in real terms, and commitments other than the forward defence in Germany and Berlin staying virtually the same for the immediate future, there will not still be a debilitating mismatch with now the added disadvantage—the

675
point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams —that there will probably not be quite enough men and units in the Army to perform the tasks and commitments which have little to do with the Russian threat, or the absence of it, but which occur every day of the week from Belize to Hong Kong and from Northern Ireland to the Falklands.
Time alone will show how much damage has been done to the spirit and the effectiveness of the armed forces. Presumably, after this hotch-potch of amalgamations, some people will be a good deal happier than others. But in any case the debate after your Lordships' House reassembles will be the proper time to pry into the more suspect and vulnerable areas of Options for Change right across the board, including the indescribable organisational muddle that the infantry seems to have got itself into. But that is beside the way.
At this stage I wish to ask the Minister two questions confined largely to the Army. The first follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. Is the Minister really confident that the British Army will be left with enough units at a proper establishment to carry out its everyday commitments in a professional way without undue overstretch? Secondly, can the Minister give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and myself that the two extra infantry battalions—they are extra, over and above the much bandied around figure of 36—which, for whatever reason, whether military, because of concern about overstretch, or political, the Government are now prepared to retain, will be backed by the necessary manpower and finance? If that is not the case, it will merely mean that the remaining units will be even weaker than they are now, or the rest of the tightly drawn-up programme will be seriously unbalanced across the board.
Finally, does the Minister really believe that, with a level of resources pegged over a year ago, before the Gulf War and before it was known how NATO strategy, force structures and our part in them were to be revised and whether or not we were to retain a general war capability—both points now answered by the requirement for a rapid reaction force—and with only 116,000 men, when as far as I know the professional advice has never deviated from the figure of 120,000, the Government can deliver the rhetoric that is expressed in chapter 4 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates? That rhetoric states unambiguously what the Government wish to do. I hope your Lordships' House will bear with me while I read from page 40 of volume 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates. It states that,
"the requirement remains for armed forces that are properly manned, supported and well equipped. They should be able to engage in high-intensity conflict".
The White Paper also states that the armed forces must be modern, sophisticated and versatile, capable of rapid deployment to respond to a wide spectrum of possible changes away from Europe and,
"should retain the organisation, skills and military technology to permit a rebuilding of larger military capabilities to meet an increased threat should the need arise".
676
Does the Minister really believe that the armed forces can do all that, operationally and logistically, and cover all the restated commitments of today with a defence budget that will decline by 6 per cent. over the next two to three years for starters? As I have said, the professional advice has always been that the armed forces should be much stronger. Until those questions can be answered positively and with conviction, the anxiety must remain that despite our unique commitments in Europe and the exemplary record of the armed forces in peace and war, with many chestnuts pulled out of the fire, we shall end up with smaller armed forces which are equally underfunded and even more overstretched. That is scant reward for the past and augurs ill for the future.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I say straightaway to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that unless we thought that we were fully equipped and properly manned and could carry out our current requirements in this country and Germany and our other out-of-area requirements, we would not have introduced this Statement to your Lordships' House. I can certainly say that the 38 battalions will be properly manned, properly equipped and properly financed. It is extremely important that your Lordships understand and appreciate that fact. We are satisfied that there is sufficient capacity within the infantry, the Royal Marines and other sectors to meet the full range of peacetime operational commitments, while permitting training in wartime roles and meeting the readiness requirements of the ARRC.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred to housing. He asked about the arrangements that were being made for housing ex-servicemen. I stress that we expect the majority of those taking redundancy will be in a position to make firm arrangements for their future housing needs. We shall assist those who experience difficulties in a number of ways including giving them priority should they wish to buy married quarters under the discount scheme. We shall give sympathetic consideration to those who will lose their entitlement to service quarters as a result of redundancy. The resettlement package will include advice on how to set about the matter of housing and how to put redundancy payments and pensions to best use in this regard. Where possible we shall make available to housing associations some surplus property to provide short-term help to those personnel in severe housing need.
As regards the remaining points raised by the noble and gallant Lord, of course the Government understand the pain and grief that will be felt among the armed forces as a result of some of the decisions which have been made today. But it is extremely important that, in spite of these painful and difficult decisions, once regiments have sorted themselves out, the very high morale that has always existed in the British Army will return once again.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that many of us who have had great loyalties to the Army in the past now have great feelings of sadness for much that is likely to happen, albeit understandably? I ask the noble Lord, Lord

677
Williams, to understand that his somewhat overt party political approach did a great deal to hurt people like myself who do not like being hurt in that way row. I do not feel it is in the sort of traditions I should like to see.
Given, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall said, that commitments and resources are dangerously balanced, will my noble friend make certain that when we debate this matter in the autumn, as I trust we shall, he, his right honourable friend and the Government will be prepared to consider carefully, and will not have a totally closed mind towards some of the considerations which will inevitably be put forward as a result of the Statement.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as my noble friend said, there will certainly be a chance to debate this matter in your Lordships' House, I think on the Wednesday when we return from the Recess. As regards the considerations that my noble friend has asked for, I shall certainly pass those remarks, and indeed other remarks that your Lordships may make today. to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, while accepting that there must be substantial reductions, I wonder whether it would not have been better if the cart had been put before the horse and if we had had a clear statement on the reduction of commitments before the reduction of the manpower to match them. It will be in the recollection of the House that the Army has been greatly stretched over the last 30 years. Every time there has been a crisis, whether in Aden in the 1960s, Northern Ireland in the 1970s, or recently in the Gulf, the necessary forces to meet the commitment have had to be brought out of Germany in default of our treaty commitment to maintain a force of 55,000 troops there. That has been practical and it has had to be done many times. However, in the new context of an ever ready reaction force, I imagine that it will not be possible to take a battalion here and there whenever one feels like it.
As regards the infantry, I hope we can have an assurance from the Government that they will not seek to make good their numbers, matching the number of battalions, by reducing the establishment of those battalions. My experience in the 1970s was that allowing, as one must, for people being sick, on leave or going on courses, no battalion when I took office in 1976 was really in a fit state to go to war had it had to. I found a very urgent need to increase the establishment of the Army to make up that deficiency. I hope that we can have an assurance that the establishment of the individual battalions will be as important as maintaining the numbers that are given.
It is some satisfaction that my own regiment, the Worcestershire Regiment, having already merged satisfactorily with the Sherwood Foresters (usually it is the older members of the battalion who make the trouble rather than those serving), has been kept. But it is important that we seek to clarify our commitments before we cut further into the forces.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have carefully planned the strategy of our world requirements and military presence. I refute any suggestion that this was resource driven. It was certainly not.
At the same time, the noble Lord makes a very good point. From the point of view of the full manning of the battalions, one of the reasons for having fewer battalions is that whereas they have not been fully manned hitherto, and many of them have been under strength, in the future we hope they will be fully manned and therefore able to play a much more effective part.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, we must recognise both the changing circumstances of our time and the fact that the need for our armed forces on the vast scale no longer exists. But, as I have done before, I urge the Government not to cut too far and too fast. Professional servicemen are not trained overnight. Therefore, I appreciate the statement that there will be a four-year programme to achieve the cuts.
As one who had to undertake that painful task way back in 1975 on a similar scale, I have in mind that cutting our defence requirements—a measure affecting the security of the realm must be done with full consultation and with the utmost caution and sensitivity. In that regard, the welfare of those who are to be demobbed should be at the top of the scale, whether it concerns housing, pensions or finding them jobs.
There are three matters that I must raise. First, there should be a determined effort to cut administrative and military staff at the top which is in need of vigorous pruning. Secondly, to be fair to the Army's cutting edge—the teeth units which are to be adversely affected—the units and forces of pomp and circumstance should likewise be reduced. They have not been touched at all. Thirdly, I urge the Government to maintain the strength of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve. When the professional Army is being cut the reserve arm must not be weakened. Indeed, I believe it should be strengthened. If we had played a bigger part in the Gulf War the Terriers would have been required. They were trained and ready. The Americans recognised the value of their reserves on that occasion. So let us maintain substantial reserve forces.
Finally, I hope the House can be assured that we shall have sufficient professional servicemen, adequately equipped with both conventional and nuclear weapons, to play a prominent role within to stave off any new threat that may emerge as a result of the unsettled state of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think I can satisfy the noble Lord on all those points. Certainly, he is right to mention the welfare considerations. I hope that I have given your Lordships some notification and some idea of where we think those particular considerations will fall, particularly with regard to redundancies and housing.

679
If I can go further and reply to the noble Lord about the programme that we have already set out, next month in August the Defence Council instruction will be issued to the Army inviting volunteers, setting out the terms of the redundancy scheme and giving notice that any shortfall will be made up by compulsory redundancies. During the winter applications will be sifted, and in March of next year redundancy notices will be issued and appeals will be sifted. April next year will be the first opportunity for volunteers to leave, and between September of next year and March the following year, 1993, the main period of redundancy exits will take place.
The noble Lord raised a point concerning the support areas from the point of view of cutting similarly from teeth to tail. What he said is very important. From the point of view of support we are cutting approximately 20 per cent. from teeth to tail, but at the same time we have to be careful about cutting support too much, for we must remember that support is extremely important from the point of view of supply of the front lines in war and at every other time.
Lord Alport: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question for information. Can my noble friend confirm that the headquarters of Eastern District will remain in Colchester?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no decisions have yet been taken on that matter.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us are grateful for the rethinking that has taken place between the publication of the White Paper and today's Statement? Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that there are many people in Wales who are even more grateful than I am for that rethinking. However, is the Minister aware that there are still suspicions among knowledgeable people that resource pressures have been given a disproportionately higher priority than political considerations as to the kind of armed forces that this country will need in the 1990s? As the Minister will be aware, there are many people in the armed forces who believe, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, that, as a result of that, our armed forces are now not large enough to discharge the commitments with which they will be confronted. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that we can return to this matter after the Recess.
Finally, I hope that the words that have been addressed to the Minister on the subject of the 40,000 men and women who are about to become redundant from the armed forces will be given very special attention. This is not simply a question of another resettlement plan. It is not a question of a marginal increase in the number of unemployed. It is a special case which happens only once in the lifetime of a serviceman or servicewoman and I hope that special attention will be given to their future.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government take seriously those final remarks of the noble Lord. As regards his other remarks, we shall have a chance to debate those matters in the debate in October.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry—
Lord Coeks of Harteliffe: My Lords, I should have thought that the Deputy Chief Whip would not wish to intervene in a matter of such national importance at this stage.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry, but your Lordships have agreed a time limit of 20 minutes for discussions after Statements. We are now in the 21st minute. We could make exceptions, but if we did so on this important Statement I think that the House would be making a mistake. I suggest that we proceed to the next Statement. I remind your Lordships that we shall have a debate on the White Paper when we return after the recess.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will excuse me. I must support the Deputy Chief Whip. The Procedure Committee has approved a time limit of 20 minutes after the Front Bench spokesmen have sat down. We must observe that rule.

Local Government Finance and Structure
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's proposals for the local authority finance settlement for England for 1992–93 and about our proposals for local government in the years ahead.
"Two years ago, local authorities in England spent £32.3 billion. This year they have budgeted to spend £39.9 billion. That is an increase of 23.5 per cent. in just two years. In anyone's terms it is a very substantial increase.
"Over the same period, the external support distributed by Government to local authorities has increased by even more: this year alone, it has increased by one-third. We are paying an extra grant to enable councils to cut their community charges by £140. We are also providing over £2.5 billion of support this year to individual chargepayers through the community charge reduction and community charge benefit schemes. Overall, the net contribution from local people to local expenditure now stands at just 15 per cent.
"Mr. Speaker, we have made it possible for councils to provide decent levels of service at lower community charges. The councils have to play their part too. Local government is not immune from the pressures and restraints faced by everyone else. Central government, businesses and individuals must all plan to spend only what they can afford. Local government must do the same.
"Against this background, the Government believe that local authorities in England together ought to spend no more in 1992–93 than £41.8 billion. That would be 7.2 per cent. more than the corresponding figure for total standard spending

681
this year. With inflation falling even before next year to 4 per cent., this is a realistic increase: it takes account of the pressures on local authority budgets, and it also takes account of the opportunities which the', have to improve the efficiency and value for money of the services which they provide.
"I propose to set the level of external support distributed by the Government to councils next year at £33.1 billion. That also is 7.2 per cent. more than this year, including the extra amount which we paid to cut the community charge by £140. This should ensure that next year, overall, local people will again not have to contribute more than 15 per cent. of council spending through the community charge. As in previous years, I shall announce our proposals for distribution of the Government grant in the autumn.
"Mr. Speaker, there are still too many authorities which budget each year to increase their spending regardless of the consequences for chargepayers. We have protected many community chargepayers by capping, and many councils were persuaded this year to moderate their increases so as to avoid being capped. Next year, if authorities budget excessively or for an excessive increase in their budget, I intend, as this year, to use my capping powers to ensure that the extra grants from government are translated into lower community charges and not frittered away in extravagant spending.
"As I did last year, I intend to announce provisional capping criteria for 1992–n the autumn, so that local authorities can take them into account in their budgets. And my intention is that these criteria should be expressed in the same sort of format as those adopted for 1991–92. Authorities will thus know what to expect well in advance. We hope that all authorities will choose to budget sensibly. But if they do not we shall not hesitate to cap them.
"Mr. Speaker, the settlement I have proposed is fair and realistic. The community charge for standard spending next year will be about £256. The actual charges set by authorities will depend on the budgets which they make and their determination to collect the charge. Millions of people will, of course, pay substantially less than £256 because of rebates and the community charge reduction scheme.
"1 now turn to our proposals for years after 1992–93. In April the Government published a consultation paper, A New Tax for Local Government. We have received over 800 responses. The great majority have welcomed our proposals to replace the community charge with a new council tax.
"The consultation process has, of course, produced a great number of useful comments, which we are still considering and will take into account in framing the new legislation. There is one matter which I must, however, deal with now.
"I am glad to confirm to the House that the Government intend to proceed with legislation along the lines proposed, with a view to bringing
682
the council tax into operation by 1st April 1993, the earliest feasible date. Subject to enactment of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill, the task of putting properties into bands will start in the autumn. We will introduce legislation next session to set up the new council tax regime.
"However, many responses have queried whether the seven council tax bands we proposed in April extend far enough up the range of house prices. We have considered this carefully, and we have concluded that there should be one additional band, taking in properties worth more than £320,000 in England. Houses in this new band H will be subject to a council tax of twice the amount for a dwelling in band D.
"The response to the consultation paper The Structure of Local Government in England has been very positive. Nearly 1,900 individuals and organisations have written in with their views, overwhelmingly in support of our proposals. There have been some useful suggestions for minor improvements. We intend therefore to introduce legislation in the autumn to set up a new Local Government Commission to review the structure of local government in England area by area.
"I shall publish a consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities next week. It will invite comments by the end of November.
"Mr. Speaker, I believe that my proposals represent the right way forward for local government in 1992ߝ93 and in the years ahead". My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.59 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. This is the season for Statements. It is the time when Government seek to take advantage of the imminent Recess in the hope that debate will be stilled and consultation papers can flow out while our backs are turned. This Statement is no exception. We understand from the end of the Statement that the consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities will be published next week when we are not here. I congratulate the Government on keeping to their determination to keep Parliament in the dark as far as possible.
The bulk of the Statement is concerned with the 1992–93 settlement. It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that we consider that settlement to be quite inadequate. The Statement purports to show that there is an increase of 7.2 per cent. in local authority expenditure. That is the usual trick of comparing the Budget with the previous Budget rather than looking at the actual expenditure. As the Statement rightly says, actual expenditure was £39.9 billion. A provision for spending of £41.8 billion is an increase of 4.8 per cent. and not, as the Statement says, 7.2 per cent.
There are two major reasons why such a settlement is quite inadequate. Both of them are largely out of the hands of local authorities. The first relates to pay. Just this week we have learnt that police pay is to rise by 8.5 per cent. We know already that teachers' pay is to

683
rise by 8.6 per cent. When one adds to that the full year effect of the phased award which has already been made, it is likely that the cost of teachers' pay will go up by approximately 10 per cent. next year. Even though administrative, professional and technical grades as well as manual staff have settled for lower amounts, the best calculation that we can make is that the average increase in pay costs for local authorities will be approximately 7.3 per cent. From that point of view a 4.8 per cent. settlement is quite inadequate.
There is a substantial list, many pages of calculations, made by the local authority associations of additional pressures on local government from legislation. I have only time to cite a few: the implications of the Children Act, which rightly occupied many hours in your Lordships' House; the implications for the staffing of residential homes—the qualifications of those manning residential homes—as a result of the inquiries into the pin-down affair in Staffordshire, also concern staff in other parts of the country; preparations for care in the community—care in the community is now to be introduced in April 1993 but that means that local authorities will have to incur considerable expenditure on preparations in 1992-93; the implications of the food safety legislation; the implications of environmental protection and in particular the code of practice on litter which comes into force next year and involves a very significant sum; the cost implications of local management of schools and, as I already said, of discretionary pay awards to teachers; the implications from the New Roads and Street Works Act of the computerised street works register; and, to continue with legislation that has occupied a considerable amount of time in your Lordships' House, the cost implications for local authorities of the new legislation on dogs.
The best assessment that can be made, and I understand that it has not been seriously challenged at meetings between local authority associations and the department, is that those additional legislative requirements on local government will cost £1.7 billion in 1992–93. That is only the legislation. If we were to take seriously the Citizen's Charter announced yesterday—I confess that I find it difficult to take seriously—it is fantasy to think that such a programme can be carried out, with the obligations of local authorities that it implies, without any additional local authority expenditure. I forbear to suggest that the cost of name badges for local authority staff might be thought to be an additional consideration.
No, if one takes together the inevitable consequences for local authorities of pay awards which have already been made and of the legislation which has already been passed, let alone that which may be passed in the future, it is quite clear that local authority budgets will have to rise substantially more than the Government estimate. It is quite clear that the Government's estimates of the average level of poll tax at standard spending are quite inaccurate.
Another reason why they are inaccurate and inadequate is that they assume 100 per cent. collection. The Government have resolutely refused to
684
deal with the scandal of the 20 per cent. minimum payment from those who otherwise would receive rebates. It is clear from all the evidence that local authorities will spend more in collecting that 20 per cent. than they receive from it. That too will add to local authority expenditure, increase the risk of less than 100 per cent. collection—it is not a risk but a certainty—and ensure that, as in previous years, the Government's proclamations about the average level of poll tax will be proved quite inadequate.
I turn to the proposals for the council tax next year. I recall that only six days ago the Minister rose from the same Bench on which she now sits to proclaim that the seven band system was irrevocable, that nothing could be changed and that it would be enormously expensive to increase the number of bands. Clearly any movement in the direction that we have been advocating for many months is welcome. But I point out to the Minister that it is not just the number of bands that is critical. The ratios between the bands in liability is the critical point.
I remind the House that the ratios between the top level of house prices is approximately eight to one, whereas even under this proposed amendment with eight bands the difference between the top and the bottom levels of liability for council tax will only be three to one. In other words, when the poll tax is abolished we shall not return to a fair system of local authority finance but to a system which very much protects the better off at the expense of the worse off.
Finally, as I said, the Statement refers to a consultation paper next week on the internal management of local authorities. I remind the House that, when the consultation process was set up in January this year, it was proposed that the order of decision should be, first, to settle the functions of local authorities; then, in the light of the functions, to look at the structure of local authorities; and, finally, in the light of the functions and structure, to consider what best arrangements should be made for the finance of local authorities. Exactly the reverse has happened. Everything has been done in the wrong order. All the decisions are being made about the finance before decisions are made about the structure, which decisions in turn will be made before any proper investigation of the functions.
A consultation paper on internal management is another even more extreme example of working the wrong way round. How can we assess what should be the internal management system for local authorities until we have given proper consideration to the functions? I suspect that the consultation process on this consultation paper will be particularly sterile.
The Statement claims that this is a sound way forward for 1992–93 and for years to come in local government. I fear that it is nothing of the kind but that it is simply another of the rather sordid attempts to limit the damage done to the Conservative Party's electoral prospects as a result of the poll tax.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I emphasise the word "repeating" because I believe that the tone of the Statement is not one which she herself would wish to use in this House.

685
The Statement seems to me to be yet another quite savage attack on local authorities. Assumptions are made that local authorities are anxious to waste the resources of the taxpayer and the local community charge payer. Frankly I do not believe that in most cases they are capable of vast increases in efficiency. I do rot know whether there is inefficiency in local government but I do not believe that it is as widespread as the Government suggest as the basis on which they put forward such statements.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has more than adequately dealt with the inadequacy and inaccuracy of the figures. However, the statement that inflation will fall to 4 per cent. "even before next year" tests the credibility of your Lordships' House. As we know, the underlying measure of inflation—that is to say, the index with mortgage payments taken out—rose last month from 6.6 per cent. to 6.9 per cent. The Statement refers to:
"inflation falling even before next year to 4 per cent.".
Presumably we are referring to levels of inflation relating to local government and not simply the headline rate.
The Statement is riddled with numerical inaccuracies so far as I can see: we shall cap a lot more people; we shall be as draconian as we possibly can. However, the truth is that because the Government are not allowing local authorities to fund themselves properly we shall have further cuts in services. In my county of Somerset, control passed from the Liberal Democrats to a Conservative council some time ago. We are now seeing the way in which Conservative promises are falling by the wayside daily.
It is a dreary business. I wish that the Government would recognise that local authorities are being put under incredible pressure by restraints and by the increased responsibilities that are constantly placed on them by this Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to an increase in teachers' salaries and other matters which are way above the level of items referred to in the Statement.
On the council tax, the Statement says that the Government have received over 800 responses:
"The great majority have welcomed our proposals to replace the community charge with a new council tax".
I have to tell the Government that a large proportion of people would welcome anything rather than the community charge, even if it is as bad as the new council tax, the horrors of which have yet to be repealed to a waiting public. I do not believe that the waiting public are entirely aware that the community charge will continue until 1st April 1993. That is a long time for people who remain unable to pay. It is a long time for councils suffering from the lack of ability to collect money from people who do not have it.
We welcome the increased tax band. We have been pressing for it. We are about to give a Third Reading to a Bill which does not contain that provision. But we face a moving target with regard to local government. We would prefer to have seen more bands which were more realistic in terms of people's ability to pay. However, one recognises the Government's problem. If they introduce too many tax bands, they will find
686
themselves very close to a local income tax. We know that that is not what they wish to do, although that is of course the way forward.
I am glad that the response to the consultation paper, The Structure of Local Government in England, has been positive. I hope that we can get that right. I believe that there will be a general welcome for the intention to introduce legislation to set up a new local government commission to review the structure of local government. It is long overdue.
It is a dismal Statement. I do not hold the noble Baroness responsible for it, but I wish that she did not have to read such a Statement to the House.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I can thank the noble Lords for a cautious welcome for the Statement because I know that both of them have philosophical objections to what the Government are seeking to do. However, I wish to pick up some of the individual points raised by them.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about pay. He referred to two settlements having been made. I remind him that they have not been made. We talk of a settlement for 1992–93. The pay settlement for teachers will not be known until early 1992–93. With inflation coming down, we would expect the effect of pay settlements to be lower than the 7.3 per cent. that he suggested. Indeed, the same can be said for the police pay award.
At no time throughout the passage of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill have I stated that we have said the last word on the number of bands. On every possible occasion that I have referred to the issue, I have said that consultation was continuing and that we would announce our final determination about the number of bands as and when we have made that consideration. We have now done so. I have come before the House as quickly as possible with our definitive view.
There is a big gulf between the noble Lords opposite and the Government. They advocate local authority spending with absolutely no limits. The implication of that is that macro-economics would simply go out of the window. As a percentage of the whole, local authority expenditure is considerable. I do not believe that any responsible government should turn their face against being concerned about the overall level of expenditure. However, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, that view will be tested at the polls.
The noble Lord referred to my figure of 7.2 per cent. as opposed to his figure of 4.8 per cent. It is wrong to start from actual spending, which is what he did. He would always include the overspending of local authorities and make that a starting point. That is not what we have done. We have given a genuine increase on last year's grants of 7.2 per cent., and that is what we intend to stand by.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene to ask a genuine question. If it is wrong to use the actual figures, why does the Statement use the figure of £39.9 billion as the

687
budgeted spend in order to make the point about the increase over the past two years? The noble Baroness cannot have it both ways.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no; that is the point that I made. The actual spend increase over the past two years has been at that level, which we believe is too high. It is not as high in the current year as in the previous year. However, with regard to the TSS increase year on year we still stand by the 7.2 per cent.
The noble Lord also referred to the cost of collection of the community charge. Again we believe that the provision of £41.8 billion that we propose is adequate for local authority services, including the cost of the efficient and effective collection of the community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the point about whether efficiency savings could be made. First, I wish to join with him in what he said about the incredibly good job being done by the majority of local councils. They are doing a very good job. Nevertheless we know that in aggregate there is a difficulty. We also know from Audit Commission assertions that savings of £280 million can be made by local authorities in just one year. Therefore there is scope for savings. It is also worth repeating time and again that there is a discernible downward trend in both inflation and interest rates. Interest rates have come down from 15 per cent. to 11 per cent. We predict that inflation will come down too. Local authorities simply cannot be immune from the responsibility of controlling public expenditure. They must be part of the fight against inflation.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was straightforward in saying that the council tax would not have been the choice of the Liberal Democrats. I accept that there is a genuine difference between us. Nevertheless, he welcomed the extra band which has been introduced in genuine response to public consultation. I also thank him for his positive response to the consultation on the structure of local government. At some time he will be able to see those responses.
The noble Lord also said that there was only limited scope for authorities to make efficiency savings. I have made the point that the Audit Commission has stated that efficiency savings can be made.
I must rest my case on the fact that there is a genuine difference between the Government Benches and those of noble Lords opposite. We believe that there must be a concern for macro economics. We do not believe that local authorities should be divorced from that responsibility. That is an important and rather substantial difference between us.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister recognises that we on this side of the House find this a deeply disappointing document. As regards the size of the overall settlement, even Mr. Roy Thomason, Conservative chairman of the Conservative-led ADC, has said that it needs to be £44 billion and not £41.8 billion as declared in the Statement. It must be higher in order to meet not only the increased pay and responsibilities facing local
688
government next year but the continuing costs of the poll tax, which, as the Audit Commission reminds us and which is confirmed by independent studies, is now costing local government between £800 million and £1,200 million every year that it continues.
Secondly, I wish to query the Minister's comment in paragraph 3 of the Statement about the net contribution from local people to local expenditure now standing at just 15 per cent. That excludes, as government have consistently excluded in the past couple of years, the contribution coming from the business rate. That rate now contributes approximately 32.5 per cent. to total local expenditure, which is almost one-third. That local tax raised by local people has been centrally hijacked by this Government and redistributed by national criteria. But if one does as one should and groups the UBR with the rates, the money raised by local people is nearer 45 or 50 per cent. of local expenditure. It would well become the Minister occasionally to recognise that. Indeed, many noble Lords continue to be baffled about why the Government should break the link between the local community, local expenditure and the local economy that business rates have always represented. We would have expected the Minister to reforge that link rather than continue to see it severed.
Thirdly, the Minister commented on valuation. It would be grudging not to welcome the eighth band. It is a marginal but welcome improvement in the right direction. How much warmer the welcome would have been if the Minister had stretched the number of bands to 12 or 14 as would have been appropriate. How many properties does she expect to fall into that band? Can she give the number for each region? We should love to be wrong but we fear that, nonetheless, it will in almost every region of the country remain a four-band tax.
It appears from the figures that in the East and West Midlands, the North, Yorkshire, the North West and East Anglia it will remain the case that four-fifths of all properties will fall into the bottom four bands, with only one-fifth in the top four bands. However, in London and to a lesser extent in the South East approximately 55 per cent. of properties will be included in the top four bands. In other words, because the Government have resolutely refused the proposal put forward my noble friend Lord McIntosh to have 14 bands and that put forward by the Liberal Democrats to opt for regional positioning, most households will fall within one of four bands. The tax will remain deeply unfair because it compresses the differentials.
Fourthly, in response to my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the Minister reiterated a comment which she has frequently made and on which we have tried to challenge her. She has said that we on this side of the House believe in unlimited local government spending. That is not the case. We believe in value for money and in spending that is indeed controlled and limited. The philosophic difference between us is not whether expenditure should be unlimited but who should do the limiting. The Government's position is that central government should limit expenditure but

689
our view is that it should be the ballot box and the democratic accountability of councils to their local people. We believe in limiting expenditure to what local people are willing to support, vote for and pay. That is the philosophic difference between us, and until the Minister can bring herself to support that position she will not be supporting democratic local government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall first deal with the fourth point which the noble Baroness made. We have all seen what happens to local authorities when expenditure is left only to the ballot box and when the Government have no view; spending goes through the roof Even predecessors of the Labour Party when in Government had to say at the end of the day that the party was over and that local authority spending must be curbed. One of the reasons for that is that the split of 8:5 per cent. and 15 per cent. means that national moneys put into local authority expenditure almost inevitably require some national concern about the overall level of spending.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness welcomed the eighth band and I am sorry that we disappointed her by not increasing the number.
As regards the uniform business rate, I have some painful memories. During my time in local government I put myself in the shoes of local business and commerce. I was not proud when in one fell swoop my authority in one year increased the rates by 33 per cent. and took out of the pockets of business and commerce £20 million. That money could have been used to expand businesses and companies and save jobs. Some local authorities across the country went as far as putting up the rates to local business and commerce by 60 per cent. I believe that the health and wealth of business and commerce are too important to national government and to the country as a whole to be left to the vagaries of local authorities' unlimited whirls when it comes to levying rates on local business and commerce—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she comment on the recent statements issued by the Institute of Directors and the chambers of commerce that they precisely favour the return of the business rate to local authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am speaking for the Government and I am also injecting a heartfelt feeling of my own. I believe that when business rates were with local government businesses were dealt a severe blow. We saw cities emptying of business and commerce because they could not face up to the swingeing increases that were levied on them by local authorities.
The noble Baroness referred to the judgment that local authorities need to spend £44 billion. Such a settlement is the equivalent of an additional £100 per charge payer. The Government's judgment is that that is too high and they do not wish to go down that road.
The noble Baroness asked for a breakdown of the figures in the final hand; that is band H. One per cent. of all properties will fall into that band. Those people
690
will pay £132 more for a standard level of service than in the 23rd April figures. Band D bill for standard spending will remain unchanged at £400—that is to the nearest pound. Sixty per cent. of band H properties are in London or the South East, with the highest proportion—3 per cent.—in London. I do not have the breakdown of all regional bands but no doubt as the story unfolds the noble Baroness will return to that debate.
I re-emphasise that the business rate is not a locally-set tax. It is a contribution of business to local expenditure determined centrally and on a common basis. We believe that that is how it should be.

Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is customary at this stage of a Bill to perform the usual courtesies. I do so with no hesitation whatever. I am pleased to be able to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her team for the way in which this short but important Bill has been conducted through your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness will recall that there was an awkward stage in Committee, which we sought to redress on Report, when briefs became slightly mixed up. However, that is so unusual for the noble Baroness that she will not mind me referring to it this once.
I am grateful also to my noble friend Lady Hollis for the constant support she has given me in Committee and on Report. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is not here because, for a very new Member of the House, she made an outstandingly coherent and confident contribution to the consideration of the Bill and she deserves our congratulations and thanks.
When the original poll tax Bill came before your Lordships' House and the amendment was moved by the late Lord Chelwood I was severely tempted—and I may have said so—to welcome the Bill and to say that it would be death knell of the Conservative Party's chances at the next election. Throughout the four-year history of the poll tax, if one includes Scotland, it has always been clear that the interests of party and the public do not coincide. From the public interest point of view we must oppose such legislation; we know it is wrong. However, at the same time

691
anything which is so conspicuously and outstandingly an own goal for the Conservative Party, as this legislation has been, deserves the support which we cannot always express in public. I have restrained myself throughout those years and have avoided welcoming legislation which will damage the Conservative Party. Finally I thought, "To hell with it. I welcome the Bill. It will do a great deal of damage to the Conservative Party". Having done our duty in opposing the detail of the Bill, we should not oppose the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Perhaps I may look at what the Bill contains and then consider one or two provisions which it does not contain which it should have contained. Primarily the Bill enshrines a new view for the Conservative Party, as it is new in politics generally in this country for over a century —that capping, the central determination of local government expenditure, is not just an exceptional feature but a regular feature of every system of local government finance supported by this Government.
Until recently they took the view that capping was required only because a few rogue local authorities were extravagant. They took the view that, on the whole, local authorities could be left, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said, to respond to the needs and wishes of their electorate. That has been the view not only of the Labour Party but of the Liberal and Conservative parties ever since democratically elected local government started properly in the last century.
The Conservative Party has now abandoned that view. It has abandoned it, leaving behind not just all members of other parties but also Conservatives active in local government. I remind the Minister of the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, in Committee. He told the House of his experience as chairman of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils at its annual conference. It was faced with the proposition that the association should condemn government proposals for extension of poll tax capping to the smaller authorities. The noble Lord asked the meeting of 1,500 people whether anybody in the association wished to speak in favour of the Government's proposals. He told the Committee that nobody was prepared to stand up and defend government policy.
That is the extent to which the Government have isolated themselves—to which they have abandoned the constitutional relationship between central and local government which is at the heart of local democracy in this country. That is what they are now proposing to enact into legislation as a permanent feature.
They are no longer saying that there are a few irresponsible local authorities or that they must deal with an exceptional circumstance. They are no longer saying that they can devise a system of local government finance which, because it is accountable in itself, avoids the necessity for central control of individual council budgets. All that has been abandoned. The Conservative Party nationally has isolated itself not only from every best tradition of local democracy but from its own local councillors.
692
It is not as though the proposed capping were based on any rational estimate of what local authority expenditure should be. It is based on the standard spending assessments, which are not based on an accurate, up-to-date and well thought out calculation of local authority needs and resources. They are based on a centrally determined estimate of what central government can afford to pay in support of local authorities. That is then imposed in a blanket and uncaring way on local authorities' total expenditure.
Secondly, on what the Bill contains, it contains the preparations for a valuation system for what is politely called a council tax. It is evident from the discussions which we have had on the Statement that we shall not have a tax based in any sensitive or effective way on ability to pay. The tax will be crude, coarse and designed to protect the better off at the expense of the less well off.
That was bound to be the case. The attraction of the poll tax to the Conservative Party was that the better off people who vote Conservative did better from the poll tax and the worse off people did worse. That was what it was all about. That was why Members of your Lordships' House who had any conscience, whichever Benches they sat on, recognised that a Bill introducing a new system of local government finance which made them better off and people poorer than they were worse off was profoundly wrong. That was why Lord Chelwood challenged the Government in Committee.
We are not going back from the poll tax to a tax based on ability to pay. We are reverting to a crude, coarse and unjust taxation system. It is not only unjust but will be seen to be unjust. That is an inevitable consequence of having only eight bands of local property taxation and the proposed differences between them. The valuation system will be secret and not comprehensive. It does not cover individual properties. People will believe that they are being hard done by and will appeal. Over the period before the next general election—but not after the next general election—we shall have a situation where the Government are in constant conflict with local people. It will do the Conservative Party immense damage.
What does the Bill not do? The first thing it could have done easily and which could have been done right up until the Statement made this afternoon, was to abolish the 20 per cent. rule on rebates. In other words, it would have been possible to abolish the absurd insistence that everybody, however poor, should pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax assessment. That 20 per cent. costs more to collect than it brings the local authority in revenue; it inevitably encourages non-payment; it inevitably encourages a conflict between otherwise law abiding people and the law of the land, and it inevitably increases the alienation of poorer people in our society from central government and unfortunately also from local government.
The Government have missed the opportunity that was available to them if they had chosen to draft the Bill differently. It is a matter of regret that, because of the way the Bill was formulated, we were not able to table amendments to deal with that gross injustice. More important than that is the failure of the Bill to

693
make the real preparations needed; that is, to take out the poll tax from April next year. It was possible when the Bill was introduced; it is just possible now. We might not he able to go over to the long term system we want—whether it is local income tax for the Liberals or a fair rate system for the Labour Party —but we could have gone immediately away from the poll Lax and returned to rateable values from April 1992. The Government have missed that opportunity in this Bill. The Conservative Party will live to regret it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wish to offer the House the apologies of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who would have been present today save that she is attending a meeting of the London Planning Advisory Committee, of which she is the chairperson.
Noble Lords: Chairman!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am glad of that reaction from around the House. I am in a difficult position as regards thanking everybody because I have not been present for much of the time during the passage of the Bill. I know that my noble friend would wish to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his remarks concerning my noble friend's interventions in this series of debates. I was impressed with the way in which she took to this subject, of which she has considerable experience as a councillor in the Liberal Democrat borough of Richmond. However, it was good to see somebody getting their feet wet so quickly in your Lordships' House and taking to our discussions so well.
With regard to the Bill I do not know that I can go as far as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in congratulating the Government and thanking them for bringing this self-destructive Bill upon themselves. There are other considerations in relation to both local government and the people who must pay for the running of local government. The system that has been brought forward is a bad system; it is not fair; it will be seen to be unfair and I fear that that will damage local government once again. The idea of extending capping to small districts is a particularly malevolent action on the part of the Government against local government. Furthermore, it is one which will not make any significant impact on the problems that the Government see in their fantasies about local government.
We are glad that, since the Bill was before the Home on the last occasion, the Government have, in a Statement this afternoon, announced an increase in banding. However, the way out of the dilemma is not to continue increasing the number of bands but to introduce a proper system of funding local authorities based on people's ability to pay. Clearly we are firmly in this belief that local income tax is the simple, fair and effective way of doing that.
Having said that, I do not want to be in the position of going over old ground once again. On behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I thank all those who have taken part in the debates.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, nobody enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, more than he; he obviously thoroughly enjoyed himself. However, one day he may come to regret a good many of the things he said and be a little unhappy if noble Lords perhaps from this side of the House remind him of his prophecies as to the likely political effects of this measure. He may well find that the sensible British electorate will see that there is a great deal of good sense in the Bill and that all his cheerful ribald suggestions that it may be to the benefit of the Labour Party will turn out to be an anti-climax.
I want to deal specifically with his criticism of the continuance of capping. The reason for it is absolutely straightforward. It is central government that is responsible for the management of the economy. One of the major aspects of the economic management of the national economy is the control of expenditure. In recent years local government expenditure has become so massive as to amount to a substantial element in the working of the national economy. If central government are not to have the power to control that expenditure by local authorities, then they will not have effective power to manage the British economy. They would be liable to be taken to task for inflation, a breakdown in competitiveness and various other aspects of economic decline because of something they had no power to prevent. Therefore it is essential that central government should have the power to control the totality of local government expenditure; that is to say, to have powers of capping.
It seems to me that no one would be free to criticise central government for their economic management if central government did not have that essential power, which I say to my noble friend the Minister I hope that she, with her colleagues, will firmly decide to retain indefinitely.
I have only one other point to make. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in a fit of what I can only describe as fantasy, suggested that the present community charge should be allowed to lapse next April. Then, as I understand him, he suggested that for one year we should return to the rating system. That is a perfect recipe for confusion and extravagance. If that is really a serious concept and policy of the Labour Party, it only confirms my suspicion that the party is totally unfitted to govern this country and that were it to have control of the government we should be in for serious depression and decline.
The noble Lord may say that he did not mean it. If he says that, of course we accept it. But if it is really the intention of the Labour Party to do that, that gives a powerful argument to the British electorate not to have it back at any price.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may express my regret, having heard his fascinating speech, that he did not feel able to take part in the proceedings on the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that delightful comment. However I ask him

695
to consider that sometimes noble Lords in this House are thought to be more of a nuisance for taking part in a debate than for not taking part in it. Perhaps the noble Lord will give that concept a little reflection in the future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I
understand that at this stage of the proceedings it is customary both to thank Members opposite (the Ministers in particular) for their courtesy and to engage in remarks about how much better the Bill is. As regards the first of these, I have very great pleasure in being conjoined with my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I thank the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for their impeccable courtesy throughout.
However, when we come to the second part of the convention, which is that at least we congratulate ourselves that the Bill is much better now as it leaves the House than when it arrived, I wish that were true. Of course it is not. But for the marginal improvement that has occurred not so much to the Bill itself but in the Statement today, the Bill leaves this House virtually unaltered and certainly not improved by any of the revising work of this Chamber. It remains ill-advised, ill-prepared and ill thought-out. Opportunities have been lost, amendments have been rejected and occasions for clarification have not been taken. My noble friend Lord McIntosh made the point about amendments lost.
I return to the two main themes of the Bill. The first is that of universal capping and the second is valuation. As regards universal capping, I do not want to engage in the democratic argument that my noble friend has expressed so well. I wish to remind the House why the £15 million rule was introduced in the first place. First, it was because local authority spending is based on standard spending assessments, which are the hinge on which both grant and capping will be determined. Every expert in local government, every advisory body in local government, every local government treasurer and every local authority association will tell you, and all have told your Lordships and the Minister repeatedly, that the SSA—the hinge on which grant and capping depend is an excessively fragile tool. It considers only one element of the services. In so far as that is wrong—because everyone believes that it is wrong and inaccurate—so will the capping and the grant be wrong.
The second reason for the £15 million figure is the recognition that the SSA was not sufficiently sensitive to pick up the spending of small authorities, unlike the metropolitan areas and counties, where 12 or 13 considerations come into play. A further consideration is that, as regards the district councils, we are talking about modest levels of total expenditure. The average district council may spend between £4 million and £6 million. One large item such as a car park or a contribution to a swimming pool, will allow it to exceed enormously its SSA in one year. It is not sensible to try to deal with that by capping. It is not worth it. It is neither fair nor administratively sensible.
696
Universal capping is therefore not about accountability, because local people have voted for that level of expenditure. It is not about sensible discipline, because, as I have tried to argue, the SSA is not a reliable tool. Universal capping is not about saving money, because the sums involved will be extremely small. They will be perhaps £90 million in total from all the districts overspending below £15 million this year. That is less than half the cost of rebilling in paperwork and administration alone for the charge-capped authorities this year, which will come to about £200 million. That is the kind of sum we are talking about. The total saved will be perhaps a quarter, a fifth or one-eighth of the budget of the average county council. Therefore, the issue is not about saving money, accountability or levels of spending. If it is anything it can only be about, I fear, a vindictiveness which has no place in government legislation.
If the first part of the Bill is about applying universal capping, then I suggest to your Lordships that what we are to see is exactly the mirror image of what we have seen with the 20 per cent. That is the Government chasing a large number of authorities for very small sums which are regarded by the local authorities as unfair on the one hand and as unreasonable to collect on the other. If the Government learnt anything from the poll tax they should have learnt that chasing a large number of bodies for very small sums is not worth it. The below £15 million capping figure is not worth it. Leaving aside the democratic arguments, in terms of straightforward administration, common sense and sanity, it is not worth it.
The second part of the Bill is about valuations. We have already explored some of the arguments earlier this afternoon when talking about the eighth band. At Committee and Report stage the Government consistently refused to take on board amendments for the individual valuation of houses moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh; for 14 bands, which was the proposal of an amendment moved by my noble friend; or for the regional positioning of bands, which was an amendment moved from the Liberal Democrat Benches. As a result, even with the eighth band and in the light of the information which the Minister has given us today, three-quarters of the country will be in the bottom four bands and for the rest of the country, including the South East and London, the majority of the properties will be in the top four bands. In other words, we shall still see the compression and therefore the approximation of council tax to flat rate charging. When we add to that discounts for single people and the like, then every subsequent adjustment of the Bill will make it closer to the poll tax which we have learnt to hate.
At Report stage we also hoped that we might at least see some professional expertise going into the assessment of the Bill. With capping we have seen an insistence on central government controlling the total local authority spend. But what is at least as important is what share of that individuals will pay. That brings us to the point about valuation. An amendment which we consistently moved sought to ensure that the valuation procedure would be handled by those who

697
are professionally qualified with qualifications recognised by the Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the like.
As I have said, we hoped at Report stage that we had received an advance on that matter from the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I recognise that that was not the case. He used the words "professional expertise" at Committee stage. That produces in me even stronger regret that we failed to persuade him of the importance that valuation assessments are not trusted by people and that that simply adds to the pressure on the appeal system. That is what is going to happen because the Government rejected our amendment to ensure that valuation was carried out by those whose qualifications are beyond dispute. All the work going into control the total local authority spend will be squandered because individuals will challenge the part that comes to them because they will not trust the potential wideboys who are too often associated with the estate agency profession.
We have argued and fought hard for the Government to abolish the 20 per cent. contribution and to restore the 100 per cent. rebate. The Government are committed to that in the full council tax. While it remains, local government will continue to have a tax that not only lacks moral integrity but which it cannot collect. The summonses are not being delivered and they are being turned into liability statements. When the liability orders go out they are not being paid. When the warrants go out they are not being delivered. The whole of our legal system for enforcing that aspect of the poll tax has fallen into disrepute. The Minister has consistently refused to accept an amendment from us that might at least, in the twilight years of the poll tax, have made its collection less expensive and objectionable.
Yesterday we saw the announcement of the Citizens Charter. That charter contains many good things, but it does not contain very much about citizenship. If that means anything it surely means not just being an active consumer, but in having a voice, a vote, a power and a presence in decision making. It means recognising the value and virtue of local government and allowing people to shape and empower their own lives. Instead we have had recent speeches from the Secretary of State of a centralist complexion that I have not come across during 25 years in local government.
We have to say to the Secretary of State that there is a Europe out there which is prosperous, progressive, pluralist and committed, unlike us, to enshrining the constitutional rights of local government into law; which also affirms the local government powers of general competence; which supports the principles of subsidiarity; and which has signed the Council of Europe charter of local self-government.
Whether the Government like it or not, in the next decade that is the way that government is going to go. Our only regret is that the Minister and the Government have not taken the opportunity of this Bill to bring us into line with the best and most
698
progressive pluralist and prosperous thinking in Europe rather than continuing to hold on to tenets that we know have been exploded.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, not only because it is the convention but because I wish to do I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his co-operation on this Bill. He is always courteous and a formidable opponent. Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, he is even more formidable. I thank him for that. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I wish to say through the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, how very much I welcomed her to the Benches. I said that after her maiden speech. It was an excellent performance which she presented in great style. She was enormously courageous because she was a very new Member when this Bill set out. I hope that the noble Lord will pass on my thanks to her for her part in the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Astor, who, as a relatively new Whip, has been an excellent support to me during the course of the Bill. I also thank, in his absence, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for his support.
We have considered the Bill in great detail both in Committee and on Report. The Bill has two purposes both of which prepare the way for the introduction of the council tax in April 1993. The Bill deals, first, with strengthening our capping powers and, secondly, with valuation; that is, the task of allocating domestic properties to bands.
I should like to deal first with capping. By strengthening our capping powers, both north and south of the Border, we shall ensure that local authorities will not be able to raise their spending unnecessarily in the run up to the introduction of the council tax. In introducing the community charge we had high hopes for the ideal of unfettered local accountability—high hopes for the ideal of local people holding their local authorities to account for their spending decisions. But we have learnt a bitter lesson. In 1990–91 local authorities in England overspent by nearly £3 billion, pushing household bills up by 30 per cent. on the previous year. Contrast that with 1991–92, when the Government announced their intentions for capping in advance. Local authorities' budgets were only about 0.5 per cent. above that for which we provided in the settlement. In Scotland, local authorities have ignored the principle of accountability and continued to spend at high levels, resulting in an increase in the original charges set for this year of an average 30 per cent.
The Government have a duty to manage the national economy. They have a duty to protect chargepayers from the consequences of excessive local authority spending a point very strongly made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The message from the Opposition Benches during our consideration of the Bill has shown quite clearly that they would not be prepared to accept that responsibility. They advocate no limits whatever on local authority spending.
The capping provisions in the Bill seek to remove the £15 million exemption from capping for local authorities in England and Wales and to strengthen and widen the scope of the capping powers in Scotland

699
by bringing them broadly into line with those in England and Wales. Experience in the past two years has shown that there is a need for all chargepayers, even those living within the areas of small district councils, to be protected. Given the fundamental shift in the burden of paying for local services from local to national taxation, implemented by the Government from 1991–92, it is vital that the extra resources provided by the Government be used to keep charges down, rather than fuel higher spending. In the run up to the introduction of the council tax the ability to take action wherever necessary is an imperative. This Bill provides the powers to do just this.
I turn now to the second purpose of the Bill: the valuation of domestic property. The Bill enables the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to get started with the task of allocating domestic properties to bands in preparation for the council tax. As the House knows, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has today announced in another place certain decisions about the banding of properties. They are decisions we have reached following the detailed consultation exercise on our proposals that we have undertaken. We have listened carefully to all the comments put to us before reaching those decisions which give, subject to the passage of the Bill, a firm platform for the valuation task.
I wish to emphasise only one point this afternoon, which relates to the process of the valuation itself. We have provisionally estimated that the banding task can be carried out for a sum of £250 million. That is not a small sum of money, though it pales into insignificance beside the cost of the precise individual valuation which would be required to set up the so-called fair rates proposed by noble Lords opposite.
The banding task needs to be carried out cost effectively if we are to keep within our budget. It also needs to be carried out on time in order to deliver a council tax in April 1993. The Bill provides that the job will be carried out by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and, in Scotland, the local assessors under the direction of the commissioners. Under the terms of the Bill they can call on the private sector to assist them. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis sought on Report to claim a great conversion on the part of these Benches when my noble friend Lord Astor informed her (Hansard, 17th July, col. 233) that we were determined to use "the best professional expertise" to do the job. There was no conversion. That has always been our position as stated precisely in Committee and on Report. That has always been the position of these Benches. We seek to use the best expertise to do the job whether from the public or private sectors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that it really was not worth chasing those small amounts of overspend. Some individual chargepayers are paying in excess of £40, £50, £60, £70 or, in the case of one authority, £95 more each. I submit that they are the people who require the protection of the Government. The noble Baroness also said—I hope that it was a slip of the tongue—that the Minister rejected her
700
amendments. We live in a democracy. The whole House can reject any amendment that is put to it for consideration.
The Opposition raised two further points. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to the cost of re-billing. She said that the re-billing of a capped authority costs about £100,000 to £200,000. That is a far cry from the actual cost which is £200 million. The final point is that noble Lords opposite have indeed put down a challenge to this Government. Perhaps I may in return put a challenge down to them. They have yet to define specific details of their system of fair rates. What we do know is that local authorities would be unfettered and be allowed to spend unlimited sums at local level with no interference from national government. We know from what is said at Question Time daily that they would throw a great deal more money at local authorities. We also know that an incredibly complex valuation of all properties would take place annually—every single property in the land —on the basis of capital values, rental values, maintenance values and replacement costs. We also know that details of our incomes will be required in order to relate what we pay to income levels.
The Opposition have said very little about whether they would retain the split of government and business rates of 85 per cent. to local authorities 15 per cent., though they remain critical of that split. They also have said—or rather, by implication, have suggested —that business rates would go back to local authorities, who would then be at the mercy of the vagaries of local authorities. The Bill paves the way for the council tax. Noble Lords opposite have to explain to the community what they would do.
The council tax will be a long lasting and fair tax. By strengthening our capping powers we can look forward with confidence to a tax that will be levied at acceptable levels. By making an early and effective start on the banding task we can be confident of an orderly introduction for the new tax. I notice that the noble Baroness was anxious to get to her feet on something I mentioned earlier. The actual cost of £200,000—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that I said—I certainly meant to say, and Hansard can be checked—that I understood that the cost of re-billing last year for the capped authorities was £200 million in total. I was setting that against the £90 million which it is assumed the Government will be able to collect from the local authorities that are capped to under £15 million on this year's figures.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in fact I reversed the millions and the hundred-thousands. The actual cost was £200,000. The noble Baroness used the figure of £200 million. I believe that we have a fair and balanced alternative to offer the community. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
6.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Dogs bred for fighting]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert:
'(f) keep such a dog unless there is in force in relation to the keeping of the dog by that person a policy of insurance providing cover against third-party risks.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as Amendment No. 2 is consequential upon Amendment No. 1, I shall speak to them both at the same time. The first thing that needs to be said is that this is not a re-run of the debate we had last Thursday at Report stage. Last Thursday the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, assured the House that Clause I dogs—to use a convenient piece of shorthand—that is to say, fighting dogs, would definitely be covered by compulsory third party insurance, albeit not until 30th November and even though that would not be written into the Bill. We accept those assurances unreservedly. I still feel that it would give more effective protection to the public if compulsory third party insurance could be in place rather sooner than 30th November, which should not be difficult given that the business section of the Sunday Telegraph has revealed that it will cost no more than £10 per annum to insure even the most dangerous breed of dog against third party risks. However, that is not the real purpose of the amendments before the House today.
The essential purpose of the two amendments is to make it possible for this Government, or any future government, to extend the principle of compulsory third party insurance to what we must call Clause 2 dogs, by which I mean, in the words of the Bill, "specially dangerous dogs" which do not fall into the category of fighting dogs. Unless that is done there will be a great gap in the protection which is ostensibly afforded to the public under the provisions of Clause 2. Of course it will help—I do not deny it—that dogs designated as specially dangerous under Clause 2 will be required to be muzzled and kept on a lead when in a public place, but it will not realistically succeed in preventing all serious attacks by such dogs on innocent men, women and children, in respect of which they risk receiving not a single penny in compensation unless the owner of the dog happens to be will off. Acceptance of the two amendments would remedy that defect.
Having said that, I must point out that these are essentially enabling amendments. They would not compel the Secretary of State to do anything that he was not going to do already. Yes, indeed, they would oblige the Secretary of State by statute to require Clause I dogs to be compulsorily insured, but we already know from the statement last Thursday of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that he is going to do that anyway. There is no change there.
So far as concerns Clause 2 dogs, the present Secretary of State or a future Secretary of State will still have complete discretion as to whether to make use of the powers the amendments would confer on
702
him. Should the Secretary of State feel it right to do so, the mechanism will be all in place, without any need for delay. However, if by some misfortune the amendment is rejected and it is subsequently found that a particular breed of dog—a non-fighting dog —turns out to be very much more dangerous than was previously imagined, it will be too late. New primary legislation will be required—time consuming, controversial primary legislation—dealing with dangerous dogs. I cannot believe that either the Government or the Opposition would welcome that. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in a sense, the thrust of the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and of Amendment No. 3 standing in my name is the same. I refer to the relationship between the two methods of giving compensation to people who have been injured and their relationship with various clauses in the Bill.
Perhaps I may set out the matter in this way. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, applies to Clause I dogs. Those are fighting or prohibited dogs, whatever phrase one likes to use. As I understand it, the Government are saying that the amendment is unnecessary because in the scheme to be introduced under Clause I they will ensure that anyone who is allowed to keep a pit bull terrier will have to make sure that it is covered by a policy of insurance providing cover against third party risks. So far, so good. We then come to what I shall call Clause 2 dogs. Those are other specially dangerous dogs, to which, if the Government decide to do so, they can apply some of the restrictions set out in Clause 1. I refer in particular to the muzzling requirement and the necessity for keeping a dog on a lead.
At the moment someone injured by one of those dogs is without a claim for compensation. He may be able to go against the owner if he can prove that the owner has in some way been negligent. However, unless he can find the owner, or unless the owner has been negligent, or indeed unless the owner has means with which to pay, there will be no compensation. Can the Government give an assurance that, if they extend the provisions of Clause 1 via the operation of Clause 2 to another type of dog, they will include the same prohibition against keeping a dog without third party insurance, which at the moment applies only to prohibited dogs? If they extend the Clause 1 prohibitions, or some of them, to Clause 2 dogs, can we have an assurance that there will be a necessity for a policy of insurance providing cover against third party risks?
That brings us to Clause 3 dogs, if I may put it that way—dogs that are dangerously out of control in a public place. In relation to such dogs, unless, first, one can find the owner, and, secondly, the owner has some money, there is no way in which someone can get compensation for what might turn out to be very serious injuries. Although we are not discussing at this stage the amendment standing in my name, perhaps I may point out that it is designed to fill precisely that gap. In other words, unless we get to the stage where

703
there has to be a compulsory insurance policy, rather like motor insurance, for all dogs—Clause 1 dogs, Clause 2 dogs, Clause 3 dogs, and indeed dogs which are not dangerously out of control; dogs which are not covered by the Bill—we shall see a continuation of what happens at present whereby someone who is injured finds great difficulty in getting compensation. That is the purpose of my amendment. It requires that people who suffer such injuries should be eligible for compensation from the Criminal, Injuries Compensation Board.
I know that we are not discussing Amendment No. 3 at this stage but it is important, in considering the merits or otherwise of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to bear in mind that his amendment taken with my amendment would provide a structure by which most people who are injured as a result of dogs being out of control can receive compensation. I ask the Minister again whether he can give us an assurance that, if some of the prohibitions in Clause 1 are extended to Clause 2 dogs, the necessity for third party insurance will go with it.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It is somewhat of a fall-back situation for me because I moved an amendment at a previous stage dealing with strict liability. I withdrew the amendment because I agreed with the noble Earl the Minister that the whole question of liability was too complex to be dealt with in this quite simple Bill.
If one is bitten by a dog—whether it be a Clause I, a Clause 2 or a Clause 3 dog—it is an unpleasant experience. I was discussing it with some friends from another country who came to your Lordships' House for dinner with me. They were wide-eyed with amazement when I tried to explain to them as succinctly as I could, although I was tired after so many debates on dogs, exactly what the situation is in this country if one is unfortunate enough to be bitten by a dog. I tried to explain the first bite concept and other arcane matters which had arisen during the proceedings on the Bill. The fact remains that if one is bitten by a dog one has precious little chance of compensation as the law stands at the moment. One is more likely to be bitten—I shall probably go out now and be bitten by a Clause 1 dog—by a Clause 2 dog or a Clause 3 dog. Clause 2 dogs, as any dog warden will testify, are the Dobermann, the German shepherd and the Rottweiler.
Those are the dogs which cause the most trouble in the areas which have many problems with dogs. Let us take, for example, Bradford. I talked to the dog warden in that area at some length on the telephone. If you are bitten by one of the three Clause 2 dogs, you will suffer and you may incur expense. Moreover, it will be extremely difficult to get redress against the owner of the dog—that is, if you can find the owner. It will be difficult to do so because we do not have a dog registration scheme. I am sure that the Government are bored to tears with my continual reference to the necessity for such a scheme. But a dog registration scheme would cure many of the ills which we have as regards dogs.
704
The simple amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at least makes it possible, if it is imposed upon owners and if it should become necessary, to have third party cover. It goes only a small way towards meeting the problem. However, I have to support it until such time as we have proper legislation in this country to cover those who suffer expense or injury as a result of an attack by a dog. Unfortunately, such attacks are becoming more and more frequent.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, at each of the various stages of this Bill in your Lordships' House we have raised and debated the question of insurance. We have explained our position as fully as we are able. The Government support the need for compulsory insurance for dogs covered by Clause 1 and have already made clear their intention to make this an integral part of the scheme which is made by order. We have always been definite about that and your Lordships' House has always welcomed it. On the face of it, therefore, we would have no objection to accepting this amendment to Clause 1(2).
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made clear these amendments are not really about Clause 1; they are about Clause 2. By inserting a requirement for insurance into Clause 1, the scope of Clause 2 is automatically extended to be able to cover compulsory insurance for any dogs which are specified under an order under Clause 2.
We have already explained to the House why the Government do not wish to go along this route. There is an inevitable tension in Clause 2 between those who appreciate the need for the additional powers which it gives to the Secretary of State and those who would rather the Secretary of State did not have such powers, even though they are reserve powers, curtailed by specific consultation and the need for the agreement of both Houses by affirmative resolution. We have attempted to strike the right balance. We think that the balance is right and that to add this apparently minor addition to Clause I would upset that balance. It is as simple as that.
Clause 2 cannot be used to put a ban on existing breeds of dog. It is for the better control of dogs of a type which appear to have become especially dangerous. There would need to be serious circumstances for the Secretary of State to have to act to cause an existing breed of dog to be muzzled and on a lead in public. We feel that Parliament has judged that this is as far as it wants the Clause 2 powers to go. That is why we cannot accept the additional insurance requirement, which, by implication, is transferred to Clause 2.
As I have consistently told your Lordships' House, insurance and civil liability are complicated matters which are not well suited to a Bill of this kind. We have met the requirement for compulsory insurance for the very small number of Clause 1 "fighting" dogs by making it part of the exemption scheme. But many people would be worried by the possibility of such a requirement being applied in the case of any Clause 2 dogs. We do not wish to extend the scope of Clause 2 any further. Therefore, I ask your Lordships not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount can clarify something which very much puzzles me. I understand—and my noble friend has just confirmed this—that a dog is allowed one bite; in other words, it is allowed one bite and it will get a way with it. When one is bitten, how is one to know whether the dog has already had its one bite? If it is not registered, and no one has reported the incident, the dog is not going to admit it. I repeat, how are we to know?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am a little unclear about the noble Baroness's question as to whether a dog bites once or twice, or, indeed, how you know whether a do g has bitten someone before it bites you. It is a separate matter which is perhaps relevant to some degree. But at this stage I am not entirely sure to which of the arguments it applies. I can only say that that issue does not affect the argument that I was trying to put forward on insurance in respect of Clause 2 dogs.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Viscount. As I understand it, the dog would not be registered but the bite would be. In other words, if a dog has had a bite and has been brought before a court, the incident will be entered on the dog's record. If the dog then has a second bite, it will be a "second biting dog" and not a "first biting dog". Therefore, the bite would be registered in the court but not the dog.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that we are getting very close to the stage where dog bites man and man bites dog. However, luckily we have not gone into such arguments so far on this Bill. The one bite rule stems from the Animals Act 1971 which deals with the issue of whether the owner reasonably expected that the dog was liable to bite. One needs one bite to take place before an owner could expect that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if a dog has had one bite and is not brought to court, how does it get on the record?
Lord Richard: My Lords, surely there is a presumption of innocence in respect of dogs just as there is in respect of humans.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for their support. The noble Viscount set out the case especially well. However, I cannot say the same for the response of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He is perfectly right to say that the amendments are not really about Clause I and that they are essentially about Clause 2. That is the whole purpose of them and there is no question about that.
However, the noble Viscount said, most curiously, that Parliament has decided how far,
"it wants the Clause 2 powers to go".
To paraphrase his remarks, he said that Parliament did not want them to go any further. But Parliament has not had much of a chance to discuss the matter. The Bill was rushed through the other place in no time at all. I do not believe that there was any time to discuss insurance. Moreover, your Lordships' House has riot had the chance to discuss Clause 2 dogs
706
specifically. It has discussed insurance for all dogs, but I accept that the government will not agree to that proposition: I am not trying to push that argument. I am simply trying to extend the clause to give the Secretary of State the possibility—not an obligation—to extend compulsory insurance from Clause I dogs to Clause 2 dogs. It does not impose any obligations upon him. It is an enabling amendment; it is permissive.
As the noble Viscount agreed, they are reserve powers and would have to be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, if anyone seriously objects to such powers being put into use there are plenty of minefields in the way which could ensure that they will not come into force. No one seriously thinks that they will necessarily be used, but they ought to be held in reserve in case what the Bill refers to as a "specially dangerous dog" comes to light; for example, a breed hitherto not suspected of being especially dangerous.
There have been many jokes and references to old proverbs about dogs having one bite and so on. Of course sometimes it is a joking matter: one thinks, for example, about a postman being nipped on the ankle. It may not he amusing for the postman but it is not unreasonable for other people to joke about such incidents. However, I am not talking about that minor sort of thing; I am talking about people who are seriously injured, who have had their features disfigured, or their limbs, their sight or whatever else damaged by dogs. Unless these amendments are agreed to, there is a possibility that innocent men, women or children will not receive the substantial compensation to which, I submit, they are morally entitled. I cannot let the matter rest.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes his remarks, he mentioned again new breeds of dangerous fighting dogs. Perhaps I may remind him that under Clause 1(1) (c) the Secretary of State must have regard to the dog in question,
"being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose".
If the dog qualified under paragraph (c), it would become a Clause 1 dog.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I obviously did not make myself clear to him. I was not talking about new breeds of fighting dogs—I accept what he has just said. I am talking about dogs which are not fighting dogs but whose especially dangerous characteristics have not yet become evident. Those dogs can never be covered by Clause 1 because they are not fighting dogs. Nevertheless, they fall into the category covered by Clause 2. Those dogs are potentially the Rottweilers or Dobermanns, which can cause serious injuries. Parliament has not had a chance to consider the matter: the Minister did not give a fair summary of the situation. The other place might well be delighted to have the amendments to consider. They can always reject them. Therefore I feel that I must test the opinion of the House.
630 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinless, Ly.

Bark, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Bledsoe, V.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Colwyn, L.

Molloy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Desai, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Greenway, L.

Tenby, V.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Harrowby, E.

Whaddon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wharton, B.

Hollick, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Grimond, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Arran, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Astor, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Auckland, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Barber, L.

Harvington, L.

Beloff, L.

Hemphill, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Hothfield, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howe, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Joseph, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L. [Teller.]

Kitchener, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Long, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Crathorne, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Downshire, M.

Merrivale, L.

Elles, B.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milverton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Flather, B.

Munster, E.

Fortescue, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Nelson, E.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

O'Cathain, B.

708

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stockton, E.

Pender, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Reay, L.

Suffield, L.

Rees, L.

Tranmire, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renwick, L.

Vinson, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Waddington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Savile, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sharpies, B.

Wise, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Other specially dangerous dogs]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
6.39 p.m.
Lord Richardhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Right to claim compensation
. Persons who suffer injury from dogs dangerously out of control, whether in a public place or elsewhere, and whose injuries are attested to by a general medical practitioner or other suitably qualified medical person, and a police officer, shall where the owner of such a dog cannot be identified or traced, be eligible for compensation upon application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of such injuries.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the debate we had on the previous amendment, I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Seizure, entry of premises and evidence]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 29, at beginning insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9, also in my name, since they stand or fall together. As your Lordships may have observed, Amendment No. 9 appears to be in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but it is not. A correction slip has been produced from the Printed Paper Office which makes clear that it is in the names of myself, my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
As the Bill stands, the accused may be convicted, on the word of the Secretary of State, of an absolute offence related to certain types of prohibited dog without production of a veterinary certificate which certifies that the dog is a prohibited dog. By concession, problems of definition of type of dog are bound to arise. The proposed regime appears to be oppressive and unjust.
The initiative of the Government to deal with a matter of urgent and serious concern is welcome, but there must be fair play for the accused. The object of the amendment is to introduce an essential measure of safeguard for a fair trial. My noble friend the Minister and I start on common ground. He said that we all shared the obvious anxiety behind the amendment that the trial should be as fair as possible to those accused of the criminal offence under Part I of the Bill.
These are offences in which knowledge, suspicion or the state of mind of the accused are totally irrelevant. It is sometimes called by lawyers the absolute offence. (e). There are five offences for certain types of dog. The matter is important because we are not just dealing with pit bull terriers. The types are: the pit bull terrier, the Tosa, the dog bred for fighting, two more from South America, and also dogs having the characteristics of a type bred for fighting.
Under Clause 2(1), an absolute offence under Clause 1(2) (d) and (e) arises and two offences arise for another type of dog. That is the specially dangerous dog. It is the Secretary of State who decides whether a dog is of a type bred for fighting or has the characteristics of a dog bred for fighting or is a specially dangerous dog. If it is alleged by the prosecution that the dog is a dog to which Clauses 1 or 2 apply, it is to be presumed that the dog is such a dog unless the accused proves otherwise.
This presumption applies again to the pit bull terriers, Tosas and dogs which appear to the Secretary of State to be bred for fighting, or to have the characteristics of a type bred for fighting or to be specially dangerous dogs.
At Report stage, my noble friend the Minister seemed to think that the effect of the amendment which is only to require a veterinary certificate identifying the type of dog it is, in order to enable the presumption to operate—shifted the burden of proof back to the Crown. However, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rightly pointed out that it does no such thing. It does not shift the burden at all. It merely requires the Crown to produce the veterinary certificate.
As the Minister said, if there is no precise way of defining a pit bull terrier, is there any precise way of defining any of the other categories of dog? The say-so of the Secretary of State is no substitute for a definition in criminal proceedings. Resort to this presumption without the amendment adding the veterinary certificate could work most oppressively and be unjust. If my noble friend the Minister says —as he did—that there is no precise, scientific way of defining a pit bull terrier in law, how is it that he can inform the House—as he did in a letter in my possession—that the British Veterinary Association has bold us that there should be very little difficulty in proving that a dog is not a pit bull terrier? I have never heard such an argument before to justify a presumption to reverse the burden of proof.
It seems to be conceded that there are difficulties of definition. All I ask is that the prosecution may not rely on the statutory presumption to obtain a conviction unless the presumption is supported by a veterinary certificate. We are concerned with dogs which appear to the Secretary of State to be within five different categories.
With an absolute offence I cannot accept that the accused should be liable to be convicted in this way unless the offence is proved. The importance of the veterinary certificate is that it lets the accused know the case he has to meet. It informs him of the type of dog, the category of dog, the characteristics. Thus,
710
knowing the case he has to meet, he can seek advice from his own vet. If the vet says that the Crown is perfectly right, in 99 cases out of 100 there will be no contest.
Apart from anything else, it seems to me that the minimum requirement of natural justice which is established throughout the common law is that a man must know the substance of the case which he has to meet. It seems a little strange that we should introduce into our criminal law a statutory presumption that rides counter to the fundamental concept of natural justice.
For those reasons, I have maintained my stand on the matter. I know that it is a small matter looked at from one viewpoint, but it is not so small looked at from the point of view of the accused. I see in it the seeds of serious injustice. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, when I take part in debates of this kind I like to mention first that with a name like mine I ought to know something about the subject. Surely, subsection (5), which we are dealing with, is unsatisfactory in the way that it is drafted as it will lead the prosecution to say, "When in doubt, prosecute" because the burden of proof to prove the negative is upon the accused.
I am not suggesting that prosecutors act irresponsibly, but in a case of considerable doubt the temptation on the prosecution will be to prosecute and let the accused do the work of showing—if he can—that the prosecution is wrong and that the dog in question is not one of the dogs referred to in the Bill. It would be very bad for prosecutors to fall into the habit of prosecuting in doubtful cases when it is up to the accused to do the work. Our amendment is a great improvement.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. We really should think hard before changing the burden of proof in criminal cases. It is one of the most fundamental principles of our criminal law that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty by the Crown. But there are examples in our law of the shifting of the burden of proof. There have always been very strong reasons for doing so, and generally some good safeguards.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has not entirely shifted the burden of proof. He has, however, introduced safeguards which I must say I would regard as the minimum in order to secure justice and a fair trial. Frankly, there is not a great gulf between the Government and my noble friend. Both are saying that there should be something produced at least 14 days before the hearing. In the clause as originally drafted, it was 21 days. My noble friend Lord Ferrers will have his period of 21 days reduced to 14.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will either say that he accepts my noble friend's amendment or that he can give an undertaking, although that may not now be possible, the Bill having already gone through the Commons. This is therefore our last opportunity; the amendment has to be made now. It would be too late to leave it simply to he dealt with in the Commons as a result of an undertaking. So we

711
have no alternative but to press my noble friend Lord Ferrers who has conducted this difficult Bill with great understanding and patience. I shall be very disappointed if we cannot reach an agreement.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I support the amendment. However, I am sorry that it occurs so late in the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House as to put it in danger of being overruled because we are so close to the end of the Government's timetable on the Bill. However, I hope I am mistaken in believing that this is the first time in the long proceedings in your Lordships' House on this Bill that attention has really been given to the injustice of the measure as regards dog owners. The whole emphasis of the debates has been to strengthen the bias against the dog owner and to fortify the position of the private citizen who may suffer injury at the hands of one of the dogs we are discussing. The risk of such injury is small but, of course, such injury matters a great deal to an individual who suffers it. Nevertheless, this is an unjust Bill from the point of view of dog owners. Little consideration has been shown to their position in a Bill which was introduced in another place only in the first few days of June but which had completed all its stages there by 10th June. All stages were completed during a day and a night on 10th June. The Bill was finally completed at 3.30 in the morning.
The legislation affects the rights of the citizen. In my opinion such rapid treatment of legislation imperils the right of Parliament to say that it has legislative authority in its hands. Such treatment cannot possibly be justified. The amendment fortifies the position of the dog owner who otherwise is at a great disadvantage in disproving the presumption made in certain cases that he has a dangerous dog. It is the least that can be done in terms of offering some measure of protection to those who may be charged with a crime that carries quite severe penalties.
I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will pay serious attention to this amendment. I am bound to be cynical about it because I believe that all is set on this Bill and the Government want to adhere to it. As I said the other day, the Government do not want any measure that will start an argument in the House of Commons if it is returned there for reconsideration. I believe that this House would be failing in its duty—as I believe that it has so far—if it failed to provide adequate minimum protection for those who may fall on the wrong side of this new law with all its retrospective consequences. I sincerely hope that the amendment will be taken seriously and that we shall be able to ask the House of Commons to reconsider the matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope I may have your Lordships' leave to speak again to make a procedural suggestion to my noble friend. It has just occurred to me that if he is unable to accept my noble friend's amendment, and we in return enabled him to make his amendment, his amendment could be amended in another place on lines acceptable to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Speaking for myself I would support that as an alternative provided that my noble friend Lord Ferrers could give an undertaking
712
that in another place an amendment drafted to the Government's satisfaction, but containing the sub stance of my noble friend's amendment, were moved by the Government in another place as an amendment to a Lords amendment.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, before the Minister replies to that request, I hope I may say that I am a little concerned about one of the practical applications of Amendment No. 7. However, I am not concerned about the philosophy of the amendment. Amendment No. 7 demands that a veterinary surgeon shall examine a given dog and certify that it is of a type bred for fighting or has,
"the characteristics of a type bred for such purpose",
or is,
"the type of dog which presents a serious danger to the public".
I have had representations from the British Veterinary Association which is very concerned that many veterinary surgeons may well be unwilling to provide such a certificate. As has been said in previous debates, they support the Bill but there is the difficulty of their being certain enough to provide a certificate. That is the major problem. It is possible to give a professional opinion, but to be at the point of being so certain that one is willing to certify—this from a veterinary surgeon is virtually accepted as a statement with the force of law—is a different matter.
The pit bull terrier may not be a problem in this context because a description of it which extends over two pages has been provided by a special commission to the Dutch ministry of agriculture. That is probably the most helpful description that we have, but the difficulty will lie in the other two categories under the proposed amendment and the type which presents a serious danger to the public.
Until we know more about the genetics of these dogs and we are able to do some impartial test such as fingerprinting, which is not at the same stage as it is in the human field, it will be very difficult for many veterinary surgeons to issue the sort of certificate which is demanded here. The intent and the philosophy are good, but many veterinary surgeons may well have a problem when they are asked to issue a certificate.
7 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether I may put a point to him. He is making the point that in fact it would be difficult for any veterinary surgeon to certify that a particular dog was of the type which presented a serious danger to the public. As I understand the object of the amendment, it is to require a veterinary surgeon to certify that an animal was of the type known as a pit bull terrier or that known as a Japanese Tosa or the Argentinian dog or the Brazilian dog, or that it was of the type which the Secretary of State had named as a Rottweiler or Alsatian, or whatever the dog was, under Clause 2.
As I understand it, the veterinary surgeon would therefore be starting off with a dog that had been named as a Clause 2 dog. In other words, for the sake of argument, if the Secretary of State were to say that Clause 2 applies to Rottweilers because they are

713
a serious danger, all the veterinary surgeon would have to dc would be to certify that the particular dog he was examining was a Rottweiler or was of the type known as a Rottweiler. I would welcome the noble Lord's view on whether that presents a great difficulty to veterinary surgeons.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it would not be a problem with Clause 1 or Clause 2 dogs. It would be a problem with Clause 3 dogs.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if I may now speak to the amendment, as I understand it the intention is that Clause 3 dogs should not be covered by the amendment, and that it should apply only to Clause 1 and 'Clause 2 dogs.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, for the sake of the record—we are getting into a muddle—this does not apply to Clause 3. I will deal with some of the other misunderstandings when my turn comes to speak.
Lord Richard: My Lords, what we are concerned with is whether or not, before a prosecution can succeed, it should be necessary for a veterinary surgeon to certify that a particular dog was a Clause 1 dog or a Clause 2 dog. As I understand it, if it is a Clause 3 dog that does not apply and is not the purpose of the amendment.
I understand what the noble Lord has just said: it would not cause such a great problem for the veterinary surgeon to certify if it was Clause 1 or Clause 2. If that is right, it seems that some of the practical problems which appeared to arise in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, have disappeared.
A: Committee stage of the Bill I said that I had a conflict between my views as a barrister on where the onus of proof should lie and my views as an individual who, on the whole, supported the Bill. I am bound to say that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, seems to me to be sensible and the type of amendment which the Government should be able to accept. It is important that before a prosecution is brought a veterinary surgeon should actually say whether the dog is a Clause 1 dog or a Clause 2 dog, rather than that it be left to a clerk in the Crown Prosecution Service, who then establishes a presumption which it then becomes necessary for the defendant to surmount. That latter position seems to be intrinsically unfair. Therefore, in principle I would support the amendment.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Richard, sits down, may I point out that my comments previously applied particularly to the Clause 1(1) (c) type of dog?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I see the point that the noble; Lord is making, but if the Secretary of State designates a dog as a Clause 1(1) (c) dog, then the dog will presumably be named. It will be a breed of dog or a "dog of the type known as". As I understand it, Clause 1(1) (c) is now being used to deal with the
714
Argentinian dog and the Brazilian dog, so one has a body in existence against which one can weigh and can certify.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, coming to the matter afresh and purely as a barrister, there seem to be two serious points here. First, people talk about the prosecutions as though they were always brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, but it is presumably open to an individual to prosecute. A prosecution could be taken out in respect of a corgi or a poodle. The person would come along with his dog expecting to show it to the magistrates and say, "This is obviously not one of those", but he cannot do that because he has not given notice 21 days earlier. So he has to get a veterinary surgeon or somebody to come along and give evidence against the private prosecution.
But, perhaps more seriously, if there really is difficulty in a vet giving a certificate that it is a dangerous dog or belongs to one of these categories, how much more difficult is it for the private individual to find a vet to come along at his, the owner's, expense to give evidence that it is not one of those kinds, because it is very much easier for an expert to say positively that something is than that something positively is not. If there is real difficulty in the point about the certificate, surely it is very unfair to put on a private person an onus of proving that any dog that an individual chooses to prosecute is not in one of these categories.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has got us all into rather a tangle. My noble friend has produced this amendment on other occasions and, if I may say so, he reminds me of a Jack Russell with a piece of wood: he has got hold of it and he is jolly well not going to let go. He has stirred it around and all sorts of misapprehensions and difficulties have arisen as a result.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said he hoped that the Government would give the matter serious attention. I can assure your Lordships that we have given it very serious attention. We are as much concerned as everyone else is that we should be as fair as possible to those who are accused of criminal offences in Clause 1 or Clause 2 of the Bill. In order to achieve that aim, my noble friend would require the prosecution to produce evidence on every occasion to back up the statement that the dog in question is one to which Clause 1 or Clause 2 applies. It would not be possible for the prosecution merely to rest on its own view.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he was torn because he was a lawyer. My noble friend Lord Renton was torn too because he was a lawyer, as was my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I am not so torn because I have the advantage of not being a lawyer. It seems perfectly simple to me. We are making rather a meal of something that is quite simple. My noble friend Lord Renton asks, with even more guile, why do we not think about this? Might we not accept the

715
principle of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and have the Bill altered in another place?
My noble friend Lord Renton is a past master at being a parliamentarian. He has learnt the business over the years and knows the ropes through and through. He knows perfectly well that that argument is not a runner. He realises that we are up against the buffers slightly. It is pushing the bounds of reason a little far to suggest that we should amend the Bill and send it back to another place for it then to be sent back here.
That is not the reason why I ask your Lordships not to accept the amendment. The reason is quite simply that the business of identifying that a pit bull terrier is in fact a pit bull terrier is difficult. My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior was quite right. It is much easier to say —all veterinary surgeons will say this—that an animal is not a certain type than it is to certify 100 per cent. that it is a certain type. We have been advised by the British Veterinary Association that it is far easier, even for an expert, to prove that a dog is not of a type than to state categorically that it is of a type. We do not want to go down the road of asking the prosecution routinely to produce statements when we have been advised beforehand that they might be difficult to obtain. That is a fairly basic point that we should consider.
I am aware that my noble friends' amendments do not just apply to pit bull terriers but to other types of fighting dog that may he specified under Clause 1(1) (c) and other types of especially dangerous dogs that might be specified under Clause 2. There may well not be the same problems in identifying those kinds of dogs, although there will be few people with experience of those kinds of dog. I cannot recommend, however, that we go down the road of accepting an amendment which may work well for other types of dog that might be added later but which we fear will not work well for the one type of dog to, which we know it will have to apply. We all know perfectly well that there was only one Tosa in this country and that the problem relates to pit bull terriers. Your Lordships have been told that they are a cross-breed and that, as such, it is much easier to prove that a dog is not a pit bull terrier than to say with certainty that it is.
I hesitate to recommend that your Lordships should accept the amendment for the other simple reason that I fear that it may well involve courts in unnecessary additional work. I said that there may well be difficulty in obtaining certificates stating that a dog is of a type to which Clause I or 2 applies, but there would be no difficulty in the owner himself obtaining a certificate confirming that his dog is not one of those types. After all, if an owner is to be told that he will be prosecuted because he has a certain type of dog and he knows that his dog is not of that type, he can produce the evidence. He knows where he bought the dog. He knows what its antecedents are and whether it has a pedigree. None of those facts would be available to the prosecution, but the defendant could perfectly well produce them if he
716
knew that the dog that he was accused of owning was not that dog. I have no doubt that, if he knew that his dog was not a pit bull terrier, he would be able to prove that.
It therefore seems much more sensible that we should look to the defence to produce evidence if they wish to rebut the prosecution's assertion that the dog is of a Clause 1 or 2 type. That should ensure that, in those cases where there is genuine dispute or uncertainty as to whether a dog has been correctly identified, appropriate time is given to considering the matter. However, where there is no dispute as to the dog's type, it is not reasonable to say that the prosecution should be bound to go to take the time and expense to call out a vet and obtain a certificate.
Cases will come to court—I believe that they will be few—only where the prosecution is sure that the dog is of the type to which Clause 1 or 2 applies and that the owner has not taken the appropriate steps. The police and local authority dog wardens—we should think of those people; the dog wardens will know all about this—will be given advice on the identification of pit bull terriers and other relevant types of dog. Many already have considerable experience in that field. When they are not sure, they will call for expert advice from veterinary surgeons. That stands to reason. I do not believe that the police will prosecute someone because they think that that person has a dog which might be a pit bull terrier. If there is any doubt, they will obtain advice beforehand. I do not think that there will be many cases of dogs being incorrectly identified as dogs to which Clauses 1 and 2 apply.
I noticed in Amendment No. 9 that my noble friends have extended the notice that the defence is required to give before rebutting the prosecution's assumption about the type of dog from five days to seven days. I hope that my noble friend will be pleased that in the amendment that has been tabled in my name we have decreased the amount of notice that the defence must give from 21 days to 14 days in order to accommodate his anxiety. I accept that if the burden of proof is to remain on the defendant, it is only fair to give the defendant a reasonable time to bring forward his own evidence on the simple question of fact. At present there is a requirement for him to give notice that he will bring forward evidence no later than 21 days before the trial. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to allow an accused person a little longer. That is why we now propose that the accused person should have to give only 14 days' notice before trial.
I hope that my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble Lord, Richard, who is still wrestling with the anxiety of being a lawyer, will agree that that concession goes some way towards meeting their concerns. I can only reiterate that we are not contemplating a traumatic change to British justice. It is merely a case of making something fairly simple work in a fairly cost-effective and simple way which will affect very few people when the time comes. It would be better to leave the Bill as it is.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, how does the noble Earl suppose that the Secretary of State will get into the position of asserting that a dog is of a particular type? He must consult an expert, who will probably be a vet. He would not do it off his own bat. If he is to consult a vet for that purpose, why not make it clear, as the amendment does, that it is on the say-so of the vet —the expert—that the prosecution is founded? I see no reason to have any doubts about that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the reasons why the noble Lord might have a doubt is that he has got the matter wrong. The Secretary of State does not come into this. The police approach a person and the Crown Prosecution Service then takes up the matter. What are the facts about this? We are talking basically about pit bull terriers. Everyone who has a pit bull terrier knows that this law is coming about and that they will have to have their terrier treated, obtain a veterinary certificate and muzzle the dog. It is only when someone has not done that and when the police find that there is a pit bull terrier which has not been subjected to the law—I believe that those cases will be very few—that the police will go along and say, "You are breaking the law. We will take your case to the Crown Prosecution Service". It is then up to the CPS to decide whether to prosecute. It is not likely to prosecute the individual if the person says, "This is not a pit bull terrier. It's a chihuahua". The person will go to a vet and ask, "Is this a pit bull terrier?" The vet will say, "I cannot guarantee that it is, but I can tell you that it isn't". If it is not, the person will not be prosecuted. The Secretary of State does not come into it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be very brief. On this occasion my noble friend the Minister has produced some entirely new arguments which in fact are entirely misconceived and, unknown to him, will work the inevitable injustice. Perhaps I may be allowed a little indulgence to explain why that is so.
One of the misconceptions of my noble friend—I think that I correctly noted his remarks—is that one has to certify 100 per cent. Let us consider that for a moment. To begin with that is not the way in which evidence is led. It is expert evidence. It is a matter of opinion. There is no question of certifying 100 per cent. It is: "In my opinion as a veterinary surgeon, this dog belongs in one of the five categories". This situation is not just concerned with pit bull terriers. It is a matter of opinion. There is no question of 100 per cent. One does not have to prove it 100 per cent. All that has to be done in a court of law, even in a criminal case, is to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. That is not 100 per cent.
The whole concept of my noble friend is adrift. Therefore he cannot see or allow himself to see the manifest injustice that this provision will produce. To say that it could apply to some types of dogs and not to other types of dogs again is a total misconception based on the 100 per cent. problem of the certificate. It is in the opinion of the veterinary expert that the dog
718
is of that type. It is idle to pretend that we are concerned only with pit bull terriers. We are not. That problem arose on the last occasion.
One thing is manifestly plain: the longer that my noble friend the Minister addresses your Lordships, the more apparent it becomes that there are serious problems of definition involved here. If there are serious problems of definition involved, it is plain, straightforward, manifest justice that the accused should know what type of dog, in the opinion of the expert, he is alleged to have.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope that I am not being tiresome, obdurate or a Jack Russell (not a pit bull terrier) with my piece of wood, if I maintain my stand. I may be right or wrong—it is a matter for your Lordships—but I believe that this measure is basically unjust. I am not prepared to do otherwise than take the opinion of the House.
7.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Milner of Leeds. L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Renton, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Feversham, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Stockton, E.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Greenway, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hacking, L.

Turner of Camden. B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tweeddale, M.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wharton, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kagan, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Alport, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Arran, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Astor, V.

Crathorne, L.

Auckland, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Barber, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Downshire, M.

Blyth, L.

Elles, B.

Boardman, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Flather, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Carnock, L.

Gisborough, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Glenarthur, L.

719

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mountevans, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Moyne, L.

Harvington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hayter, L.

Orkney, E.

Hemphill, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Hooper, B.

Pym, L.

Howe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reay, L.

Joseph, L.

Rees, L.

Kimball, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Kitchener, E.

Rochdale, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Savile, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sharples, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Suffield, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Vinson, L.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Seizure, entry of premises and evidence]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 34, leave out ("twenty-first") and insert ("fourteenth").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Dogs owned by young persons
(" .Where a dog is owned by a person who is less than sixteen years old any reference to its owner in section 1(2) (d) or (e) or 3 above shall include a reference to the head of the household, if any, of which that person is a member or, in Scotland, to the person who has his actual care and control.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the place of the new clause after Clause 5 tabled in my noble friend's name at Report stage. Your Lordships may recall that at that stage my noble friend begged leave to withdraw our amendment because we felt we needed further time to consider its precise wording. We have now had an opportunity to review the drafting of the new clause, and the policy behind it, and have come up with what we consider to be an improved form of words.
The amendment as it now stands still provides that where a young person owns a dog the head of the household is included also as the owner. This is a most important provision as it means that a parent cannot escape responsibility for a dog to which Clauses 1 or 2 apply, or a dog which is dangerously out of control (Clause 3), by claiming that the dog is owned by a minor. I am sure that we all wish to prevent an adult from trying to evade responsibility for a dog on the basis that it was "owned" by a child.
As was remarked during our debate on the subject at Report stage, there could be cases where the actual
720
owner of the dog is a neighbour, unrelated to the child, and where the parents have no idea that their child was walking the neighbour's dog. We would not seek to make the parents responsible for their child's actions in those circumstances, although it would of course be possible for action to be taken against the owner as well as, or instead of, the child in charge of the dog if an offence under the Bill were committed. We want to preserve the important principle that the parent should not be able to be held responsible for the criminal actions of a child when there is an absence of criminal intent on the part of the parent. Many of your Lordships will know far better than I do how essential that principle is to criminal law generally.
Our Bill has other provisions which bear on the parent/child relationship. The combined effect of the leash requirement in Clauses 1(2) (d) and 6(1) (b) means that a person under 16 cannot lawfully be in charge of a Clause 1 dog in a public place. Moreover, in respect of dogs generally, an adult who allows a child to take charge of a dog which the child cannot control could not avail himself of the defence in Clause 3(2). I hope that this reassures your Lordships that we have been careful to protect children where necessary and to ensure that parents do not evade their responsibilities. I hope, too, that noble Lords will agree that we have not placed unreasonable or unacceptable burdens on the shoulders of parents. We have tried to make sure that responsibility for their child's actions is only transferred to them when it is appropriate for that to happen. I hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for the amendment, which we support. However, in view of what the noble Viscount said on the importance of retaining the sanctity of the principle that the parent should not be responsible for the sins of the child, I cannot resist saying this. We spent a great deal of time during debate on the Criminal Justice Bill discussing provisions by which the Government were precisely trying to make the parent responsible for various sins that the child might have committed. They were trying to haul parents up in court, to bind them over and, if necessary, to send them to prison if the child were in default. I am glad to see that the Government have had a change of mind.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the noble Viscount answer the question that I put at the previous stage about the identity of the head of the household? Is the definition laid down in statute? How is that decided?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may give an example. When a child owns a dog, he may be a minor. Therefore the head of the household is included as the owner. Presumably the head of the household would normally be his parents.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am trying to understand whether the head of the household is the father or the mother, whether that has been decided by statute and, if so, in what way.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the phrase "head of the household" comes from the Animals Act 1971. I can only refer to common usage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. As your Lordships know, the Bill was introduced as a response to an emergency. It is quite unusual for a piece of emergency legislation to undergo quite such careful and close scrutiny as that to which your Lordships have subjected the Bill.
I am glad that this much needed piece of legislation has, in general, commanded the support of your Lordships' House as it did in another place. We have made a great many important concessions. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said in conclusion that he was glad to see that the Government have had a change of heart. We are always prepared to have changes of heart when change is shown to be better. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, claimed during Report stage that the only amendments which the Government had made, or intended to make, were amendments which were in the Government's mind in the first place. In parallel with the noble Lord's generally generous disposition, he also has a generous imagination. Many of the amendments to which we have been able to agree are amendments for which we can take little credit ourselves. Some are ideas which were put forward in another place and some are ideas which have been put forward by your Lordships.
The amendment to enable the relevant criminal offences in the Bill to be applied to the communal areas of blocks of flats which are secure-entry controlled reflects a suggestion which was put forward in another place. The same is true of the amendment which we have made to prohibit people under 16 years of age from being in charge of dogs which are covered by Clause 1 of the Bill.
We introduced an amendment to Clause 3 to make it an offence to allow a dog to become dangerously out of control in a place in which it was not permitted to be. That now appears as Clause 3(3) of the Bill. It closes a loophole by making sure that the dangerously out of control offence can apply in the case of dogs on private land such as school playgrounds or a neighbour's back garden.
We have been able to accommodate suggestions made by your Lordships at Second Reading and other stages of the Bill. It will be a requirement of the certificate of exemption for Clause 1 dogs that the owner must keep the dog in secure conditions in or around his home. That was a point urged on us by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I was sorry that we could not agree the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, put forward at Report stage. He was keen that it should be on the face of the Bill that those Clause 1 dogs should be insured. I told the noble Lord that that would be one of the conditions of the certificate of exemption. He appeared doubtful and said, "Let's have it on the face of the Bill". He must recognise a concession when he sees one. It is rather the same as if he went into a restaurant and asked the waiter for a meat pie. If he is given a meat pie he must
722
recognise it. He wanted Clause 1 dogs which had been exempted to be insured and they will be under the order made by the Secretary of State.
We have introduced an amendment which would prevent the owners of Clause 1 dogs, or other dangerous dogs, from trying to avoid the full force of the law by claiming that the dog belonged to another member of their household. That was an idea which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and it was one to which we agreed even though it took us a couple of tries before we got it right.
I know that we have not been able to go as far as some noble Lords would have liked. In Committee and on Report my noble friend Lord Mancroft put forward an amendment relating to hunt saboteurs. That stretched the confines of the Bill about as far as one could go, but, nevertheless, he had a shot at it. I hope that I have convinced my noble friend that we take the problem of hunt saboteurs most seriously and that we are taking action to combat such things. I am glad that, if nothing else, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has mastered the elementary fact that trumpets are instruments which are played in orchestras and not on the backs of horses.
We went a long way towards meeting the anxieties of my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Kimball in the amendment which we made to the offences in Clause 3 of the Bill by changing the expression "causes injury" to "injures". I was glad in particular to be able to agree to a change in the Bill which will ensure that police dogs and other dogs which are controlled by people in the Crown service do not fall foul of the criminal offences in Clause 3. That was a matter about which my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding was concerned. The idea was originally put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, during Second Reading. It was taken up in the form of amendments by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and my noble friend Lord Radnor.
I am sorry that we could not go further to accommodate the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Radnor. He was worried about the person who, while walking along the road, was hit on the head by a cat which during the excitement of the day had accidentally moved backwards off a balcony on the fourteenth floor of a block of flats and whistled through the air. My noble friend asked, "What would have happened if that had been a dog?". Indeed, I ask what would have happened had it been a scaffold pole or a flower pot.
We could not accommodate—I am afraid that the sight of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who periodically gets an attack of the giggles, slightly disorientates one.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, always puts forward his points most forcefully. That is part of his character. I do not believe that having seen the savagery of the attacks on little Rukhsana Khan and Frank Tempest and the terrible injuries that they suffered, any responsible Government could have stood by and done nothing.
I was sorry that I could not meet my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton in the amendments that they tabled this evening. I was

723
grateful in particular for having the benefit of the comments of my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, whose knowledge on veterinary matters is considerable.
The noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, spoke movingly about the attack on Mr. Tempest and his courage in recovering from it. The Bill provides tough measures to rid the country of the menace of those fighting dogs. Equally important, it provides the means for tackling at an early stage similar problems which might arise in the future. If the powers which are now available in the Bill had been available 15 years ago when the first pit bull terriers reached these shores, I doubt whether we should have had to bring forward this measure today.
We have had a number of interesting and informative debates on the Bill. The arguments have made it a much more effective piece of legislation than it was when your Lordships first received it from another place. I am grateful for your Lordships' contributions and for the ideas put forward. I hope that the changes that have been made to the Bill will now be endorsed by another place and that it will pass into law very soon. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the Bill. He has done so with humour and flexibility, although perhaps not as much as we should have wished. I sometimes believe that the noble Earl is one of the grand emulsifiers of the Government. He comes to the House when a difficult situation presents itself. He rises and oil is poured. On some occasions it is poured with more success than on others. He has poured oil on the whole of this Bill fairly successfully. However, although we on these Benches have supported the structure of the Bill and have agreed with most of its provisions, there are gaps about which he knows and has referred to tonight.
Whatever I say about the Motion, I am afraid that I shall be unable to satisfy the views of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I suspect that he will make his views known to us tonight in his usual trenchant fashion. I can say only that in relation to the last amendment upon which we voted I attempted to go some way in his direction. I was delighted to find that the pair of us were in the same Lobby. That appeared to be at least an accommodation.
Insurance will be a serious issue which at some stage the Government must address. How does one compensate people for the terrible injuries that we have seen? I have considerable sympathy with the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in that respect. I am not sure whether we have the term "public place" absolutely right. I am not sure whether we have the term "owner and keeper" absolutely right. I am certainly not sure whether we have the onus of proof at criminal proceedings absolutely right —I believe that we have got it wrong.
On the whole the Opposition have been able to support the Bill and therefore we support this Motion.
724
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debates—at least those who have participated on the side that I have tried to advocate. Finally, I thank the Government for having accepted some of the amendments that we tabled.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches echo what has already been said. I thank the noble Earl for handling the Bill with his customary good humour and courtesy. I have done particularly well and I thank the noble Earl for meeting the anxieties that I expressed about the keeping of dogs in secure surroundings. He was kind enough to communicate to me in a letter his solution to the problem. I was happy to accept his undertaking that a condition of the permit would be that the owner of a Clause 1 dog must undertake to keep the dog under secure conditions. He said that the permit would be revoked if he failed to do so. The noble Earl introduced an amendment to the House which met the anxieties that I expressed about police dogs. I remain worried about the strict liability provisions and we have had interesting arguments about compensation.
During the course of the Bill I tried to explain some of the more arcane points to my noble friend Lady Seear. I have been at some pains to explain the gravity of the matters that we have been discussing, but perhaps I have not often communicated that satisfactorily. She has seen some of the funnier points of the matters which we have discussed. After we leave the Chamber I shall attempt to tell her how serious this has been and that she has misinterpreted some matters. I shall explain to her that perhaps they are not as funny as she thinks they are; or perhaps they are. Having said that, I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I briefly echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I thank the Minister for the courteous and witty way in which he has piloted the Bill through your Lordships' House.
Nothing on earth would induce me to go into a restaurant and ask for a meat pie. I can think of many other things which I should prefer to order, not least because one would be suspicious of the type of meat of which the pie was composed. In this case, the pie which the Government are offering is not suspect because of the type of meat of which it is composed but merely because there is far too little meat of any sort in it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says, I believe that we must return to the question of insurance before long because the public will not be satisfied with the Bill in its final form. It may not have made any difference to the result, but when speaking to my amendment earlier this afternoon I should have mentioned that the RSPCA is fully in favour of my amendments and acknowledges that they are not connected with a registration scheme. It believes the amendments to be worth while all the same. Once again, I thank the noble Earl.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I get no fun out of the Bill at all. I do not

725
deny any humour which the noble Earl or anybody else can get out of it. However, the task assumed has been heavy and disagreeable. I am deeply depressed about the Bill because I have lived through the period of government inactivity, indolence and apathy. I saw them bursting forth a few weeks ago with a remedy for a situation which they call an emergency. The noble Earl called it an emergency a few moments ago. It was nothing of the sort. There is no statistical evidence whatever which provides a basis for calling the situation an emergency.
This Bill is the ugly sequel to the complete break down over the past 18 months of communications, mutual understanding and co-operation for constructive legislation on the control of dogs. That could have been averted with better understanding and wisdom on both sides. Quite candidly, I believe that the pressure for a national registration scheme for dogs was pressed so far and with such success that the Government eventually regarded it as a matter of confidence in them. They were determined to resist and defeat it at all costs. The costs were great. Ministers and others were called from all over the world to vote in a Division in the House of Commons which the Government nearly lost. They did that to fend off the threat to their position.
Discontent and worry about the position of dogs in society were undoubtedly canalised in the campaign for a national registration scheme which conveyed the wrong impression; namely, that it was the panacea for all the problems as regards dog control and regulation. However, it commanded sufficient support to threaten the Government's self-confidence. They issued discussion papers in 1989 and 1990. They discarded both of them in order to erect a defence against the assault of the case for a national dog registration scheme. There was a complete breakdown in what would otherwise have been a constructive period. A good deal of thought had been given to the matter by both the Government and the animal welfare organisations.
The discussions were complicated by the fact that on the question of dogs one had to deal with the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Ministry of Agriculture. Agriculture came into it because of the farmers. The Home Office came into it because of the courts, and the Department of the Environment is apparently the department which has the main responsibility for dogs. We then had to deal with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, a meeting on matters arising from various recommendations made by the Government was almost a mass meeting. One tried hard to distil out of that an effective and acceptable policy for dogs. Good progress was made.
However, it was interrupted because the Government broke off while they defended themselves against the threat of dog registration. That was a great pity. To press the matter so far was a miscalculation and a political misjudgment. Some of the organisations which took part in the debate should consider various of their activities in trying to manipulate Parliament. They tried to pressurise both Houses of Parliament—we have had a dose of that in other
726
connections also. The relations between pressure groups and societies and Parliament need to be studied afresh. Otherwise, Members of both Houses will be under very strong pressure to bend towards the propaganda which they are asked to take on board.
As I say, in June on no sound statistical basis the alarm seemed to be sounded. The tabloid press mounted a virulent and vicious attack upon the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is a vulnerable Minister. He is probably the biggest vote loser for the Government in the present Administration. His record as regards the poll tax, education reforms and chairmanship of the Conservative Party is not impressive. There is trouble left behind in each sphere and there will be trouble left behind here. In 12 months' time the Home Secretary will not be there but the aftermath of the Bill will still be with us. Considerable trouble is brewing as regards the administration of the Bill.
We do not have the answers to a great many questions. We are in the dark because of the haste with which the Bill was brought forward. We do not know what it will mean to the citizen in a week or two's time. Without any consideration whatever this measure has been forced on dog owners at the beginning of the holiday period. Apparently they are to be given until the end of October to obtain clearance. That must be done under the pressure of the next few weeks.
This is a cruel and brutal Bill. It takes no account of the interests of dog owners who are citizens entitled to own dogs. Do your Lordships realise that never before in the history of the British people has an Englishman been denied the right to have the dog of his choice so long as it behaves itself and does not do harm to others? The first Bill on dogs was in 1871 and it dealt with the control of dogs. That was the last government Bill introduced on the subject.
The mischief is that for some inconceivable reason successive governments, including Labour governments, have regarded some matters of grave public concern and parliamentary interest as suitable for the Private Member's Bill procedure. That system is one full of obstruction and frustration in which one can try one's best year after year without accomplishing any result. The moral issues have been relegated to the private initiative, as it is called—abortion, contraception, marriage, divorce, dogs and animals generally except farm animals. Farm animals are money; they are a farm interest and that is why a special department looks after farm dogs.
In spite of all those obstacles, some of us have worked year in and year out attempting to obtain acceptance by Parliament and the public of a different approach to dog ownership in this country. When this outburst came, the Government submitted to the explosion that came from Fleet Street. They went out into the open and made idiotic exclamations about exterminating all dogs and other wild threats as to what would happen. There was no consultation before that happened. Out of the blue appeared the Home Secretary uttering such threats. When he came to consult with the organisations that would be required to co-operate in giving effect to that extreme measure, he quickly realised that what he had wanted to do

727
initially was not on. That is the kind of Government and Minister that we have. They do not show the strength of character and wisdom that we need.
The Government have no qualifications to introduce this Bill. Their record belies all this activity. They have no authority to do it. I doubt whether the Bill, when it passes into law in a few minutes' time, will have any authority; it will have no moral authority as the law of the land. I believe that we need a well equipped properly advised canine defence league to form an organisation which will defend the interests of those who own dogs and who have lawfully owned them until now but who will be placed on the wrong side of the law when the Bill is passed.
I do not know which way the welfare organisations will go on the matter. It is time they took fresh stock of their attitude to a number of problems relating to animals. There is a lot of money involved, much of which has been wasted. This is the ugly outcome of the breakdown of that communication which promised so much and was progressing when the Government became startled because your Lordships' House passed an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill to bring about the setting up of a national dog registration scheme. What a tragedy all that turned out to be.
Where are we now? What do we do next? Is this the end of dog control? There was much more to be considered than is contained in the Bill. The Bill concerns dangerous dogs. I introduced the last Bill on dangerous dogs in 1989, with government aid and government support. The Government did not do it themselves. Because it had been relegated to the Private Member's Bill procedure I had to do it on my own. In all the attempts I made to improve the lot of animals I never once had the support of my party to bring about any change. Private Member's Bills procedure implied neutrality on the Front Benches of both sides of both Houses. What a shame that has been.
I find it difficult to control my feelings at this time. I have no time to spare for the vision of the future regarding dogs in society. It is 18 years since I produced the first study of dogs in society, which was followed immediately by an interdepartmental committee which produced similar recommendations. Nothing was done. No government would take it up. No government wanted to raise the dog licence fee; they did not want to ask people to pay more to keep their dogs. The whole thing withered on the bough. Efforts were made—the Government co-operating up to a point—to get things moving again.
There are other matters contained in the book published in June of last year on dog control. What is to happen to them? Strays went into the Environmental Protection Bill. The Government used that as a lever to fend off the attack which they felt was impending on a restoration into the Bill of the clause regarding the national dog registration scheme. They loaded the whole thing into an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill; they forced it through the House of Commons and your Lordships' House at the last minute on 31st October last year. Since that
728
time they have been denying that there is any problem in regard to dangerous dogs. They have given no warning that they were concerned about dangerous dogs. When they wanted to fend off the attack in October of last year it was not dangerous dogs that were brought to the fore; it was the stray dogs, the dogs on the heap that were portrayed in pictures that so upset the public.
There are dozens of questions to ask about the Bill. We know practically nothing about its administration. We do not yet know the identity of the agencies to which dog owners who wish to retain their dogs will have to go in order to obtain a permit. We do not yet know what fee they will be asked to pay; whether it will be loaded with a hostility tax; whether it will be realistic or whether the Government will intend, by an exorbitant fee, to discourage people from wanting to retain their dogs.
What guidance is to be given under the Bill to all concerned about that position? Will the owner decide initially whether or not he owns a pit bull terrier? If he is of the opinion that it is not a pit bull terrier, will he therefore be entitled to take no action? How is the pit bull terrier owner to come forward? Will he be asked to report somewhere to give evidence about it? Is the Act to be enforced by the threat of heavy penalties? Or are we to have, as hinted by the Home Secretary, a kind of social espionage where neighbour will inform upon neighbour and people in the streets and parks will say, "That looks to me like a pit bull terrier. You should have it muzzled and obtain a permit"? Will we live in an informer state in the matter of dog control? We want to know more about that.
Another important question concerns the role of local authorities. An appointed officer of the local authority, along with the police, can enter and seize a dog. But I do not see that the local authority has any role in this scheme otherwise. Why not? What is it for? There are other questions with which I shall not weary the House. Never in my experience have we reached this stage knowing so little about how a Bill will work when there is a time limit within which the citizen must act and he may be guilty of a criminal action if he does not.
Yet at this moment nobody really knows how the legislation is to be implemented. Are we to have a breakdown in administration and problems with the inability to get attention? Is the new agency to have offices throughout the country? Will the dog owners have to take the dogs long distances to the permit office? Nothing has been said as to how people stand. The reason is that these matters have not been thought about at all. The legislation has been scrambled together as it has gone along. The Government subordinated the House of Commons and coerced it. The Government control Parliament so that they can control dogs as a matter of emergency when there is nothing of the kind. This Bill is offensive. It is an offence to anybody like myself who has worked so long to get a reasonable and sensible answer to a difficult and complicated problem.
I ask forgiveness for this outburst. It is the last that I shall make on dogs. Therefore, I am bidding the subject farewell in your Lordships' House. I have done

729
my bit and I have done it voluntarily. I have done it for no money and very little reward. I am a very depressed person at the end of the day. However, that is a purely personal feeling and it need not affect the progress of government legislation or the policy of the day. At any rate, having the Floor of the House, I am using it to the full to express my indignation at the way in which, quite unnecessarily, this legislation has been handled. I hope that before very long someone else will make a better job of it than this Government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, everyone knows the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about dogs: he is perfectly justified in giving vent to them. It was never within our expectations that the noble Lord would come round to seeing the Bill as necessary and as a good measure. The noble Lord said that he had watched indolence and apathy on the part of governments that do nothing about Bills. But when the Government produce a Bill he has done nothing but castigate it and try to sink it. He said that the Bill had no qualification or authority in the country. He said that there was no moral authority for it and no evidence of its necessity. He said that there was no emergency.
There was an emergency and evidence of its necessity. The evidence was that these dogs injured people in the shocking way we have seen. It is because we do not want such dogs in this country that the Bill is before us. The noble Lord says that there is no emergency. I remind him that in the United States 34 people have lost their lives as a result of attacks by pit bull terriers. If that happens there, then all we want is that it does not happen in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is entitled to his views and to express them. We marvel at the way in which he expresses them with a fluency few of us have in this Chamber. I am glad that on this occasion his is a solo voice. The majority of your Lordships have decided that the Bill is desirable. I commend it to your Lords hips.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Prison Disturbances: The Woolf Report
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to implement the main recommendations of the report of Lord Justice Woolf and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim (Prison Disturbances April 1990, Cm. 1456).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the long list of distinguished speakers is evidence of the importance which the House attaches not only to this subject but also to the necessity of having a debate on it before the holidays. I shall not go through the names because in doing so I would use up my time. I am not giving myself a great many minutes. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will follow me. He has written arguably the best book on penal matters in recent years. Its only rival is a book which I may not mention here on the grounds of indecency. The noble Lord will be dealing with the remand
730
system for prisoners. That is perhaps the greatest scandal of all in our prison system. I shall not be dealing with that matter.
I am also happy that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is to reply. His energy seems inexhaustible. Someone is bringing a libel action against him. He is accused of receiving replacement hormones. I do not know whether that can happen to a gentleman. However. the noble Earl obviously has some source of strength denied to most of us. He has been dealing with dogs all day and something else before that. Now he is here before us winding up this debate. Does he never eat, drink or sleep? He is a phenomenon. However, his good humour is proverbial. It may be rather strained this evening because, in my mild way, and others more venomously perhaps, will be criticising the line that the Government are taking. I know that his good humour will survive it all.
I submit three propositions with what I consider to be brevity and therefore rather dogmatically. No doubt other speakers will deal with particular aspects. The first proposition is that the state of our prisons and of the life we provide for our prisoners is, at the present time, quite unworthy of our supposedly Christian country. I do not think that anyone who has read the scathing reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumim, can deny that proposition. I am glad that he joined with Lord Justice Woolf in the inquiry.
The second proposition is that the Woolf-Tumim report opens up a vision of a prison system and life in prisons of which we can be genuinely proud. Thirdly, it is the urgent duty of the Government of the day, who happen to be our friends opposite, although it could be any government, to commit themselves to the vision unfolded to us by Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim and to move rapidly toward its fulfilment.
That is the background. I pay tribute in passing to the services rendered to all those interested in these questions by at least three organisations and no doubt others. In particular I am thinking of the Prison Reform Trust, NACRO and the historic Howard League for Penal Reform which was much refreshed recently by the accession of Mr. John Mortimer as its president. I wish to quote a sentence supplied to me by the Prison Reform Trust. It sums up the crucial issue before us in better words than I can command. The trust says:
"Woolf should be particularly commended for its support of more purposeful regimes for prisoners".
That is the most important aspect of all. It is more important than slopping out and such things, although they are vital. The trust also states that with,
"the provision of appropriate opportunities for prisoners, there is a chance of helping them to lead a more law-abiding life on release".
I quote that particular sentence because it combines the two objectives of the Woolf-Tumim approach and puts into words what many of us have tried to say over the years.
On the one hand, we are thinking of the more humane treatment of prisoners; on the other we are thinking of rendering prisoners better citizens, which is in the interests of society. I wish to quote one other sentence: it is from David Evans. He submitted it to

731
me in evidence when I was writing a book last year. He is the much admired general secretary of the Prison Officers' Association. He has no doubt whatever that conditions in prisons are worse than they were 20 years ago, when standards and conditions in the country generally are rising and are certainly better than they were 20 years ago. Social services also are generally much improved. David Evans told me that,
"prisoners can be rehabilitated but if they are locked up for most of the day with no work there is no chance of rehabilitation".
That is the opinion expressed by someone who is in close alliance with the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
I turn now to the Tumim report which makes 204 specific recommendations. Fortunately for all concerned, 12 key recommendations were selected for us. Of those I shall touch on only five, and those very briefly. I accept all the recommendations in principle. I shall not go into them too closely except to comment upon the recommendation concerning the more visible leadership of the prison service by the director general. That seems to me to be rather a red herring, but no report is perfect. The report contains that rather unhappy suggestion. That said, I support almost all the recommendations.
I shall speak on just a few of the recommendations. Recommendation No. 4 demands what it calls "an enhanced role for prison officers". That could mean many things, but those are the words used. I certainly subscribe to that wholeheartedly. When I opened the first debate on prisons in this House in 1955 my main constructive suggestion was that prison officers should be given the same kind of training as social workers. Nothing of that kind has happened over the past 36 years. Some improvements have been made, but there have been many retrograde steps. The idea of giving prison officers an altogether new role was mentioned by me 36 years ago. Of course, I now support that recommendation in the Woolf Report. If the Government mean to do anything about that, they must show some sign of action in the immediate future and not merely use weasel words.
Recommendations Nos. 6 and 7 can be taken together. I ask leave to quote them as that will make the House more aware of their content. Recommendation No. 6 states:
"A national system of Accredited Standards, with which, in time, each prison establishment would be required to comply".
That is crucial. In a sense, it contains all the other reforms. If we had a system of accredited standards we would achieve the Woolf aspirations. Recommendation No. 7 suggests:
"A new Prison Rule that no establishment should hold more prisoners than is provided for in its certified normal level of accommodation".
If those recommendations were carried out they would transform the whole of prison life. However, I emphasise that that cannot be achieved without great expenditure. There is no way around that. Results cannot be achieved merely by clever management, by a prisoners' charter, a prison officers' charter, or any other charter. To bring about those great changes large sums of money are needed. If I were to be quoted on only one sentence tonight, it would be "you cannot
732
have Woolf on the cheap". That is crucial. If anyone thinks they can achieve the Woolf recommendations without spending extra money, they need their head examining.
The story is different with regard to Recommendation No. 8 which refers to the provision of proper sanitation for all inmates. To be fair to the Government—I am not going out of my way to be fair to them tonight—they say that they hope to be doing better than is suggested in the Woolf Report. Let us give them credit at least for their aspiration.
The last recommendation to which I shall refer is No. 12. It is a long recommendation, but I must read it in full. The recommendation states:
"Improved standards of justice within prisons involving the giving of reasons to a prisoner for any decision which materially and adversely affects him; a grievance procedure and disciplinary proceedings which ensure that the Governor deals with most matters under his present powers; relieving Boards of Visitors of their adjudicatory role; and providing for final access"—
and this is very important—
"to an independent Complaints Adjudicator".
Those four recommendations would obviously have a great humanising effect on the life of prisoners. They would not require a great deal of money. I do not see why they cannot be carried out within existing limits. I would not put them on the same level as the recommendations I mentioned earlier which require substantial expenditure.
Before saying a few words about the Government's attitude, I must refer to a subject that was often discussed during the course of the debates on the Criminal Justice Bill. I refer to sentencing policy. We are aware that the Woolf/Tumim inquiry was not mandated to discuss sentencing, and I do not say that it should have been. It was instigated as an inquiry into the prison riots. I have not even mentioned the riots, though I did visit Strangeways Prison twice during that period. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is dealing with the Strangeways situation. However, the inquiry was not set up to deal with sentencing. As has been said so often, we send too many people to prison. We send more people to prison than do other European countries. We do so because the judges send them there. Until we achieve some kind of control over the judges and thereby bring about a new approach on the part of the judges we shall still have the overcrowding which results in an unsatisfactory situation. That is not a criticism of Woolf/Tumim; the inquiry was not asked to deal with that. If we were looking for a complete penal policy it would be essential to establish some kind of sentencing council, or whatever one wishes to call it, and the sooner the better.
I turn now to the role of the Government. There has been increasing cynicism in recent times. I was not sure whether those who were advising me were quite correct in referring to that cynicism. I want the noble Earl to hear what I am about to say because it is the least pleasant part of my remarks and I do not want him to miss it. I was preparing my remarks when it came to my notice that it had been reported in a newspaper—not widely reported, but it was reported —that the present Home Secretary had said that the whole Woolf programme would take 25 years to

733
implement. I have been given a copy of what he said. Where the Home Secretary made that remark last week it caused widespread dismay and despair.
I hope that that is not the Government's last word. If it is, it is a complete betrayal of the Woolf recommendations. It is nonsense to pretend that the Government are in any way accepting the Woolf recommendations if they say the recommendations will take 20 or 25 years. I want the noble Earl to realise that, on the face of it, that remark by the Home Secretary has defeated any possibility that the Government are accepting the Woolf Report. However, this Government will not be here for ever. Governments come and go. We may hope for better things.
The penal reform movement will not disappear. Nothing is likely to undermine it. It has deep and varied. roots. I shall mention only a few names but there are many. Among Christian leaders I think of Archbishop William Temple and of the noble Lord, Lord Super. I think also of Cardinal Hume, without whose efforts even a measure of justice—full justice has not been achieved—would not have been secured for the Guildford Four and the Maguire family. I think also of Victor Glance, who in his latter days called himself a Judea-Christian, and of Barbara Wooten, the great rationalist. I had the great honor to introduce her into this House.
In his hook, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred to Barbara Wooten's services to prison reform. As a magistrate, a criminologist and above all as a promoter of alternatives to prison, I would place her first among the penal reformers of our time. It has not been a Christian monopoly but there has been a strong, Christian tradition, a point which I am sure will be amplified by the right reverend Prelate when he speaks later. I think also of famous reforming Home Secretaries—Sir Winston Churchill while still a Liberal, Lord Butler, a Conservative, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hill head, while still Labour. He was a very enlightened Home Secretary. I think of all those people and of many humble people whose names are not known to history.
For myself I can only express my attitude in words which I used in a previous debate. I was asked by someone whether I could feel any kinship or point of contact with someone who had committed a terrible crime. I said that I feel all the kinship in the world— we are both members of the human race. That is the root of the matter. We are all, whether prisoners, prison staffs, or the general public, and never forgetting for a moment the victims of crime, members of the same human race. Any government who deserve the name enlightened in this field should recognise that and try to give effect to it. At the present time the omens are not good. It is the eleventh hour. I can only hope and pray that the light will fall on the Government before they themselves descend into darkness.
8.33 p m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, it is a coincidence that earlier today we were debating the final stages of the Criminal Justice Bill. It is worth remembering that
734
legislation is not simply the culmination of a long drawn out process of carefully considered policy formulation by Ministers, civil servants and political parties but is also greatly influenced by unexpected events. The more serious those are, the more likely it is that an inquiry will ensue. It is more often than not the case that that inquiry will be presided over by a judge. The resulting reports and recommendations then form part of an agenda for governmental action. Therefore there is topicality in debating the report on the riots that took place at Strangeways and at other prisons in April 1990. Once again the House owes a debt to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising this matter for debate.
The thanks of the House are also due to Lord Justice Woolf, to Judge Tumim and to those who assisted them in their inquiry. The report shows the thoroughness that they brought to their task and the fair-mindedness and the judicious nature of the many recommendations that were made as a result of a period of 10 months' intensive work. I gave evidence to the inquiry on the subject of remand prisoners and also took part in one of the seminars arranged by Lord Justice Woolf, which was a welcome innovation. I should like to concentrate again on that subject.
One of the key approaches towards penal policy at the moment is to try to work towards removing unconvinced and unsentenced prisoners from the grossly overcrowded local gaols and placing them in separate establishments, whenever, that is, they cannot safely be granted bail. The figures tell the whole story. At Strangeways at the time of the riot the total number in custody was 1,647. That was by no means a record. The number had been higher for some months before. Out of that total 500 were adult or young prisoners either awaiting trial or, having been convicted, awaiting sentence. The certified normal accommodation was 940. Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim have already pronounced in their report that the conditions for remand prisoners at Strangeways were impoverished and totally inadequate. They described them as wholly unsatisfactory. They went on to make a wider analysis arising out of what they found at Strangeways.
At that same time—30th March 1990, the eve of the disturbances—the total prison population in England and Wales was 47,304, of whom 8,114 were untried and unsentenced prisoners on remand. I checked with the Home Office today and found that the number on remand has risen sharply to a total of 9,310. That is still around the one in five proportion, which is 20 per cent. or thereabouts. I also found, most regrettably, and perhaps to the surprise of some in the House—it surprised me—that 1,174 are now confined temporarily in police cells. It seemed that there had been a realistic possibility of ending that highly undesirable practice. Indeed, for a period—a period of many months—there were so far as I know no remand prisoners in police custody. To find that the figure has now gone back up more than 1,000 can only be described as a disappointment.
Some of those held in custody on remand are by any standards peculiarly inappropriate prisoners—juveniles and mentally disordered persons.

735
Widespread concern has been expressed about the practice of remanding juveniles to adult prisons and to remand centres where they are exposed to intimidation, bullying and the harmful influences of older and more experienced offenders. It is a sign of some progress that the Home Secretary, only a matter of weeks ago, announced plans to end remand to prison for juveniles when local authorities can provide alternative secure accommodation. It may take a period of up to four years, but it is to be hoped that the period can be greatly foreshortened. Mentally disordered people, some of whom are unable to cope adequately in the community pending trial, are also particularly ill suited to pre-trial detention in overcrowded gaols.
I contend that it is wrong in principle and harmful in practice that those persons who have been charged with criminal offences which are punishable by imprisonment and who are awaiting trial should be subject to the same, or very often worse, conditions as sentenced prisoners who have been deprived of their liberty as a punishment. We should never forget that the justification for pre-trial detention, the denial of bail, is preventive; it is not punitive. That point is vividly made by Lord Justice Woolf in the report. That separate status should be marked by regimes and, wherever possible, separate establishments which are designed to meet the needs of the unconvicted prisoners who are of course innocent until they are found guilty; that is, if they are found guilty, because a certain number of them are acquitted.
The consequence of sending remand prisoners to the same establishments as convicted and sentenced prisoners has been to get the worst of both worlds. Local prisons, as we have seen from the example of Strangeways, have become more and more overcrowded, causing physical conditions to deteriorate still further. The extra burdens of escorting remand prisoners to and from court and supervising frequent visits can only be met by prison officers neglecting their responsibilities towards the work, training and exercise of sentenced prisoners.
It is true that under the Bill which left this House for the last time earlier today there is a prospect of some relief in the matter of escorts and court security staff. However, the central point is that, so far as I am aware, it has never been public policy, worked out by officials, put before Parliament by Ministers and authorised by Parliament, that accused persons who have been remanded in custody by the courts must go to prison. The reason why an overwhelming majority do so is that there is no other secure accommodation to which they can be sent.
In the report Lord Justice Woolf had much to say. He made sensible and practical observations about diverting remand prisoners from the local gaols and indeed from prison. He spoke about the procedures in court, about bail information schemes, prison bail schemes, bail hostels, special hostels, secure hostels and a number of other alternative policies which could be adopted to divert people from prison who do not have to be held in custody.
736
My contention is that there is now an opportunity to go further and pursue more far reaching reform, recognising the fact that there is a different status for pre-trial detention from punishment as a result of conviction following a criminal offence. A policy objective should be to separate so far as is possible remand prisoners from those who are serving sentences of imprisonment as a punishment. At the very least, there should be a separate prison department division for remand prisoners and separate rules governing the treatment and entitlements of those who are held on remand. I gave the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, notice of this question. I hope that he will be able to tell me whether the Home Office has made any move as yet in that direction.
In conclusion, we should remember that one in five of the total prison population is unconvicted or unsentenced. Therefore, if a substantial group of several thousand pre-trial detainees can be detached from prison service establishments, not only would their separate status be recognised but the prison service, freed from such a substantial part of the total prison population, would be free to concentrate on the urgent task of providing proper regimes, including proper security for sentenced prisoners, in the way so clearly described by Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim in their notable report.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for the very moving way in which he ended his speech. He reminded us that in all our discussions on the treatment of prisoners we are actually talking about fellow human beings. His is that kind of humanity which is sometimes lacking in our discussions. Certainly, it gives that feeling of talking about brothers and sisters which is very true to the Christian tradition.
I too should like to thank the noble Earl for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. I say that because I am deeply aware of the necessity to bring a sense of urgency into dealing with the problems identified in the report of Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Stephen Tumim. Like the noble Earl, I was alarmed to see reported in the press on 19th July a prediction by the Home Secretary that it would take Ministers 25 years to implement the recommendations of the Woolf Report.
His remarks, it was commented, fed fears that the Government were preparing to reverse their unequivocal welcome of the report's recommendations, while the director of the Prison Reform Trust added wistfully:
"I cannot believe that Lord Justice Woolf envisaged that it would take until 2016 to put this report into effect".
I devoutly hope that there will not be any tardiness on the part of the Government in dealing with the deplorable prison conditions of which many of us are only too painfully aware.
Chelmsford Prison, a category B prison built in the early 1800s, has the distinction of being the second most overcrowded prison in the country. With a certified normal accommodation figure of 240, it

737
currently accommodates 400 prisoners. It is not difficult to understand what such overcrowding means, nor to imagine some of the strains it puts upon the system. Moreover, despite the density of the prison population, the introduction of integral sanitation has not yet started at Chelmsford.
I cannot but believe that custodial sentences are far too many. But, if custody is to be a penalty which is in any way meaningful or humane or worthy of a Christian country, it must be seen first and foremost as the deprivation of liberty, not entry into a degrading environment in which basic human requirements are either ignored or suppressed. The Mission statement of the prison department of England and Wales has this to say:
"Her Majesty's Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the Courts. Our duty is to look after teem with humanity and to help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release".
That is a noble statement, but too often the harsh regime in existence in our prisons makes the fulfilment of its aims and ideals seem an impossibly long way off.
What are the factors which contribute to that situation? The Woolf Report speaks of an enhanced role for prison officers. Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I believe that that is crucial. Our prison officers carry out on behalf of society duties which are tough, demanding and wearing. Many people are greatly encouraged by the new staff members who have been recruited over the past few years since the introduction of Fresh Start, and, to some extent, with the new training that they are given. However, that lasts 12 weeks only, while those in middle management as wing managers clearly need additional training in social skills if they are to play their part in the transformation of attitudes and relationships.
Lo:-d Justice Woolf speaks of a compact or contract for each prisoner, setting out the prisoners' expectations and responsibilities to the prison in which he or she is held. The rightness of such a proposal would be seen immediately in any other social or industrial environment, but the introduction of such a compact would have to mean more than do the so-called "rights" which prisoners already "enjoy".
It i a presently the right of prisoners to be able to attend an act of worship weekly. A fortnight last Saturday, Roman Catholic mass at Chelmsford prison was cancelled because not enough prison officers were available. No one wants to be protective about the Church; no one wants to dismiss the practical difficulties faced by the prison service: on the other hand, those opportunities for worship; for receiving ministry from a band of skilled, experienced and dedicated chaplains; for learning something of forgiveness and of the values of God's kingdom must be safeguarded and ought never to be put under threat.
In addition to those difficulties encountered by the chaplaincy service, library visits are frequently postponed, and the education programme is devastated by frequent cancellations. The idea of the compact is to be welcomed, but it must be understood that it will need to he based upon something firmer than existing prisoners' rights.
738
The Woolf Report recommends:
"better prospects for prisoners to maintain links with families and the community through home visits and home leaves and through being located in community prisons as near to their homes as possible".
Clearly, prisoners need to maintain close links with their families and loved ones if they are to be reintegrated into the wider community after release; but relationships are difficult to sustain during imprisonment, nor does the present system make it easy for relatives. Relatives are often treated with less than civility, almost as if they were criminals themselves. The portacabin beside Chelmsford prison is an attempt by Churches and charities to provide shelter for visitors, who have to wait outside to be summoned by a voice over the Tannoy. It has no toilets or changing facilities for children.
There can be no doubt that stamina is required by those who visit loved ones in prison. What a failure to recognise the importance of encouraging the maintenance of home and family links if hope is to be kept alive, the coarsening effect of prison life is to be counterbalanced and the number of suicides kept to a minimum.
Lord Justice Woolf speaks of remand prisoners. Your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the expert way in which he dealt with that matter. In Chelmsford, they may be required to stay on remand for 12 to 15 months. Technically innocent until proved guilty, they nevertheless experience the harshness of a regime which, due to the strains on the system, copes more easily when prisoners are locked away. I cannot believe but that much greater effort needs to be made to ensure that only offenders who clearly cannot be granted bail are remanded in custody, and that the possibility of bail is constantly explored by probation officers on behalf of remand prisoners.
Finally, the Woolf Report calls for improved standards of justice. Surely that is fundamental. If justice is felt to be absent by those who are confined to prison, what respect for law and order does that experience engender? A touch more humanity and respect for the human being would not come amiss either, remembering the words of the One who said:
"I was in prison and you visited me … for inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me".
8.56 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join other noble Lords who have commended the initiative of my noble friend Lord Longford in promoting this timely and important debate. It is to be regretted that after some five months we are now considering this crucial report at this late hour at the tail end of the parliamentary Session. It is unlikely that the debate would have occurred were it not for the interest and efforts of my noble friend. Is there not every justification for the accusation that the Government are dragging their feet over the urgent issues highlighted in the report?
The Woolf Report is a weighty document in many respects. It is weighty not just in its size but in the amount of media attention it generated, the high degree of informed public interest and debate it has

739
stimulated, and the measured insight and influence it has brought to bear on prison regimes and the role, functions and structures of the prison service. It is a wide-ranging and constructive report which deals in a penetrating, analytical and positive way with the issues raised by the widespread prison rioting and disturbances which occurred in April 1990. It was an outbreak of prison disorder that shocked the whole of the United Kingdom and attracted worldwide media coverage.
It must be stressed that the report deals with more basic and fundamental issues of urgent penal reform than the immediate causes of last year's prison riots. If accepted in principle and implemented in the fullest practical terms, the 12 recommendations and 204 proposals would be the greatest step forward in penal policy and reform in the history of the United Kingdom prison service.
We await the publication of the White Paper on the future direction of the prison service in England and Wales. We also await whatever administrative short-term measures and the more long-term legislative changes the Government propose. The time scale of those measures must be seen in the light of the Government's history of inertia and neglect in relation to the existing destabilised situation in the prison service. In that connection, we must consider the White Paper, the Queen's Speech, the new parliamentary Session, the new legislative programme and the forthcoming general election. Where, in this programme of events, do the findings of the Woolf Report become substantive? When will the concepts and the words be translated into practical reality—into action that is meaningful to the prison service and the community?
Having mentioned the forthcoming general election, I must say that I do not perceive a public outcry about penal reforms and prison services. Nor do these prison issues feature high on the political agendas of parties' election manifestos. People serving life sentences for the murder of police, security personnel, prison officers, terrorist murders, murders by firearms in the course of robbery and the sexual or sadistic murder of children are not the kind of political causes to be well received or welcomed at party political meetings. In these matters I am sure that we must all be realistically human and acutely sensitive to the sufferings and feelings of the families of the victims of such evil crimes.
At the same time, I am sure that most, if not all of us, agree that people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. Punishment may be necessary to establish the authority of the laws for civilised living. Prison may be necessary for the containment and control of malevolent and dangerous people. However, any form of punishment or imprisonment which makes it harder for the offender to find forgiveness and repentance in plain secular terms diminishes the human dignity of all those who perpetrate such forms of punishment and such conditions.
The declared purpose of the prison service, as stated by the Woolf Report is,
740
"to ensure that a prisoner serves his sentence in a way which is consistent with the purpose behind the court's decision to take away his liberty and his freedom of movement; while ensuring he is treated with humanity and justice".
That declared purpose is much more consistent with the essence of a faith in the grace and forgiveness of God, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned.
I wish to put the following points to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who will reply to the debate. I have heard the praise that has already been given to him in this Chamber for the hard work he has undertaken and the attention he has given to the subject. If he is not forthcoming in the matters that I raise, I shall understand his reasons.
First, what is the timetable for the full implementation of each of the measures announced following the Statement on 25th February on the publication of the Woolf Report? When will we have the proposed White Paper on the future direction of the prison service in England and Wales? Does the Minister agree that there is a huge and widespread increase in the expressed public concern about the steep rise in gaol breaks and the escape of prisoners from custody? A Home Office report published a few days ago indicates that in England and Wales, in the six months to the end of May, 726 men and women absconded, 651 failed to return from home leave and 289 went missing.
The report also states that 67 men had escaped from prisons during the five-month period from January to May this year. The average of three escapes per week is double the average figure for the previous three years. During that period there were also 50 escapes from escorts. Is there not a need for urgent government measures to remedy the situation? Would the Minister care to comment on the report published last December which is relevant to the Woolf Report? It was on the review undertaken by Judge Stephen Tumim of the,
"effectiveness of the current policy and procedures for the prevention of suicide and self-harm in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, with particular reference to the risks posed by mentally disturbed prisoners, and to make recommendations".
I understand that the number of self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales rose dramatically from 29 in 1985 to 46 in 1987, to 48 in 1989 and 42 in 1990. Can the Minister confirm that the number of mentally disturbed people in prisons in England and Wales is estimated at 9,000? That is about one-fifth of the total daily prison population. What measures do the Government propose to overcome the situation and to take action on the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales?
For a number of years I have taken more than a passing interest in prison affairs in Northern Ireland, especially in matters concerning prisoners and their families, child care and young offenders. I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of excellently researched, well presented and helpful publications that have emerged from the Home Office. One such publication which is directly relevant to the Woolf Report was sent to me a few days ago. Its title is The Offenders' Tale: Janus Studies. Basically, it is a

741
summary of a new index system of offenders. I understand that the index is one of the largest criminal data bases in Europe.
On., of the findings stated in the publication is that, of all males born in 1953 by the age of 30 one-third had received a conviction for a serious offence. That does not mean that in 1953 people were in some way genetically affected so that they committed crimes. It means that on a population basis in the age group I mentioned one-third of the male population had at some stage been found guilty of a major crime. Those figures, issued officially by the Home Office, are challenging and must be faced squarely by anyone concerned with the future of the prison service.
There are many matters in the Woolf Report which are relevant to the Northern Ireland prison service. However, I am sure that the Minister will be glad to know that I do not propose to raise matters concerning Northern Ireland. I am glad to say that the Province is well ahead of the situation that exists in England and Wales. The House might be interested to hear L. quotation that might indeed be relevant to procedures that could be adopted. The Government information service in Northern Ireland issued a document on 28th June 1991 which stated:
"The Paymaster General, Lord Belstead, today launched a new strategy which will provide a blueprint for the Northern Ireland Prison Service into the 21st Century.
Introducing the booklet Serving the Community, the Northern Ireland Prison Service in the 1990s he said:
'It describes in simple, straightforward language, how the Service will build on its achievements of the past few years and emphasises the wider context within which the Service will operate. Its overriding purpose is to serve the community and the community has a right to know what the Service is about and what is expected of staff.
The Minister explained that the strategy emerged from a lengthy consultation process involving staff at all levels in the Service and representatives of groups with a particular interest in prisons and prison matters and added that he was struck by how much common ground there was and how the direction established two years ago by the Service's Aims and Objectives had been validated".
The document also stated:
"The extensive consultation stage included the holding of 6 one-day workshops. Five of these involved over 80 prison staff, the sixth, representatives of groups with a particular interest in prisons".
That document shows us the way forward. I believe it is through consultation and co-operation at all levels between the Government and those involved in the prison service—including those who work in prisons and these in the community who take a voluntary interest in these matters—that the recommendations of the Woolf Report can be implemented.
9.9 p.m.
Bareness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, we are very much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing the Unstarred Question about this extremely important report. The report is of vital interest to everyone.
My association with criminal justice and the prison service started immediately after the Second World War. Herbert Morrison, who was the Home Secretary of the day, appointed the Home Office Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders. At that time I had been the chairman of the National
742
Association of Youth Clubs for many years. Herbert Morrison asked me to represent on the committee youth organisations which helped young people between the ages of 15 and 21. During this period crime was at its lowest level. Prisons were closing due to a lack of prisoners. That is hard to imagine today.
Many highly knowledgeable people were on the committee including prison visitors, the heads of different types of prisons, justices of the peace and many others who had knowledge and experience of the prison service. During that period I visited almost every prison in the country, from Peterhead to Dartmoor. I remained a member of the advisory committee for 10 or 12 years. It was at that time that I became aware of many of the measures that Lord Justice Woolf refers to in the remarkable report that we are discussing today. It is about 40 years ago when I was a member of the advisory committee, and it is rather depressing to learn that the recommendations we made then have still not been fully implemented.
Sanitation was an awful problem 40 years ago and it is still a problem today. Prisoners used to spend long days and weeks in their cells with nothing to do. There was a lack of training offered to them to enable them to cope with the outside world. Those problems are still apparent. Overcrowding was not such a problem when I first became involved with the advisory committee but it became increasingly bad every year thereafter. As we know overcrowding is now a nightmare in our prisons.
Plans to build new prisons were under way 40 years ago but it took a long time for those plans to be executed. I believe that much the same situation applies today, although we all know that new prisons have been built. I have visited the women's prison at Holloway. Enormous improvements have been made there. However, our prisons still have a long way to go and all the 12 specific Woolf recommendations are of great importance. Lord Justice Woolf stresses that it is important that establishments should not hold more prisoners than they were built to hold. That is an absolutely vital consideration. Lord Justice Woolf refers to sanitation. Adequate sanitation is also a vital consideration. He speaks of the need for close co-operation between the different elements of the criminal justice system. He says that more local responsibility should be encouraged and suggests that prison officers should play a more important role.
Lord Justice Woolf has suggested there should be better arrangements for prisoners to see their families and to enable them to maintain contact with the outside world. I believe that more visits from families would be a great help to prisoners. We on the advisory committee recommended that measure but it never seems to have been implemented fully. At that time I obtained some pretty depressing impressions. Some prisoners sentenced for the first time who had no experience of prison life came into contact with long serving prisoners. The latter knew everything there was to know about crime. That had a very bad effect because the incoming prisoners, who knew very little, learned much from the prisoners who had been there for a long time. I felt at that time, and still feel, that it is very important to try to keep offenders out of

743
prison and for them to be treated and taught by probation officers, in probation centres, youth centres or any other training establishment. That is the principle today, but crime has increased so enormously that it is hard to apply it.
The method of treatment of mentally disturbed offenders provides another serious problem which is extremely difficult to solve, but the treatment would be more likely to succeed if it were carried out outside rather than inside prison cells.
I shall not speak for longer as there are so many experts here. Until the general public can be persuaded to support the spending of money on all that the Woolf Report recommends, it will be difficult for any government to use taxpayers' money, but this is vital if we are to succeed. We must be prepared to pay for improvements in the prison service if we are to eliminate the problems which face us today.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is clearly out of the question to attempt any detailed analysis of this voluminous report in the course of a short debate, particularly when we have not had the White Paper which was promised for the summer. I am very conscious of the fact that my own direct knowledge goes back so far that I am at considerable risk of making comments which are out of date, but the subject is most important and we must all be grateful to the noble Earl for giving us this opportunity to put points to the Government for them to consider as they brood over the findings of the report.
It is an obvious fact that, thorough though the review has been, it is not the first. Apart from the general policy report to which the noble Baroness has just referred, we have had in particular the May and Mountbatten Reports, and recent events at Brixton and perhaps Leeds will no doubt be followed by another report which will go back to emphasising the security aspects, although we did not really need such grim reminders that the problems facing those responsible for our prisons have many facets.
To justify my making a brief contribution to the debate, perhaps I should say that a long time ago I was deputy chairman of the Prison Commission for a few years. Perhaps I am the only prison commissioner to have sat in your Lordships' House. I was also much concerned with matters of these kinds at various stages of my career in the Home Office.
The report does not take a position on the question of whether the prison department should become an agency, but it has led to comment elsewhere which yet again looks back to the days of the Prison Commission before 1963 as some kind of golden age —a view not altogether discouraged by The Times. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that it was nothing of the kind. It is not always remembered that the chairmanship was a stepping stone for civil servants on the way up. Three of the last four holders of the post went on to become Permanent Secretaries and the fourth, the distinguished Lionel Fox, never served in a prison although he stayed to retirement. Nor should it be forgotten that in Civil Service terms
744
the gradings of the five prison commissioners were lower than those of the present heads of the service. I shall not continue on that point except to say that since my day in the Prison Commission the position has been transformed by problems of overcrowding, AIDS, ethnic minorities and the rest. The noble Earl is probably right in saying that conditions are now worse than they were 20 years ago. Certainly, the old regime could not have coped.
I was glad to see that Lord Justice Woolf recognised that improvements were already in hand well before his inquiry. These events should not obscure the debt we owe to the work put in by Mr. Chris Train during his eventful time as director general of the prison service.
Naturally, I read with particular care what the report said about the leadership of the service. I agree with the comment made by the noble Earl in his opening speech on the recommendation about visible leadership. I add that I do not see that there is all that strong a case for any future head of the service to have had direct prison experience. That is not to my mind anything like the first requirement, but, whoever it may be, it is essential that there should be a clear definition of his or her responsibilities and in particular his or her relation to Ministers. I found the rather brief discussion of that vital issue in the report just a little thin. The report recommends some kind of contract or compact with the head of the service, but does not go into too much detail about its possible content and where exactly the lines of responsibility should be drawn between the head of the service and Ministers.
For my part, I should like to see some kind of statement which would require parliamentary approval and could be discussed in both Houses. The statement could set out the objectives of the prison service, specify the number of places that the director general is expected to supply and the resources that will be made available to him each year, and explain the Government's intentions about accommodation for remand prisoners and possibly their plans for privatisation under their new powers in the Criminal Justice Bill. It could also explain just how responsibilities would be divided. We could, to take a simple example, learn whether it would fall to the director general or the Home Secretary to appoint the next governor of Wormwood Scrubs. I know that it would be a little unusual to involve Parliament on a regular basis in that way, but we are, after all, concerned with the custody of individuals deprived of their liberty, not with issuing driving licences or building offices. This is a question on which we await with particular interest the pronouncements in the White Paper.
On another aspect of the report, it was disappointing to read that Lord Justice Woolf thought that the activities of the prison service were still not adequately co-ordinated with other sections of the criminal justice system, but here again there is some doubt about the particular course that he favours, notwithstanding all the evidence that he received in support. Although he accepts that this is not the only way, he would like to see some kind of council chaired

745
by a judge and with senior representation from the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the prisor service, the police, the probation service and the Crown Prosecution Service, with intermittent contributions from the Department of Health. I find that the concept of how such a body would function has been left a trifle nebulous. Although it is said that it would have no executive authority and no collective voice, if it was to achieve anything at all with the support of its local committees there could be some risk of responsibilities being blurred. I am left in some uncertainty how it would fit in with Ministers' responsibilities. However, having said all that, there certainly is a problem here and there always has been. I was well aware that the efforts made in my time at the Home Office to solve it were not successful, but it is a problem going well beyond the future of the prison service itself. I hope that we shall find something about this question too when the White Paper comes out.
The Government certainly deserve commendation for having announced straightaway various steps that they have already taken, including the decision to accelerate the ending of slopping out and improvements in education and censorship. I see that prisons even made a modest entry into the Citizen's Charter yesterday. I have read today that there are at last some prospects of closing down a number of establishments, although the list that I saw did not include some of the candidates for closure which I had in mind all those years ago.
There is the Government's ambitious programme of new prison building. In passing I must say that I wish Ministers would stop implying that no new prisons at all were built before they took office. When one thinks of Long Lartin, Coldingley, Everthorpe and some others, one realises that that is simply not so. But certainly there has been a great acceleration in the programme. One of the few gains from the crises which have hit the prisons and caught the public eye is that expenditure on prisons can now be incurred without upsetting public opinion.
Those who were responsible in the post-war years were perfectly well aware of the horrors of slopping out, the unsuitability of much of the prison stock and what had been achieved elsewhere. But let us think back. What hope was there, when resources were so limited. of a Home Secretary being able to persuade his colleagues that substantial sums should be spent on making life better for convicted criminals rather than or new roads, houses, schools and so on? By and large those colleagues, like the public, had not seen for themselves what conditions were like in prison; nor, I fear, had many of those who took the decisions to send people to prison. I know that a good deal has been done to improve judicial awareness but I could not help noting that Lord Justice Woolf commented that the information about prison conditions and about what happens to those who are sentenced which is available to those who pass sentences is still, as he put it, "modest".
But it is fair to claim that the accumulation of distressing events and the information which has come to light about prison conditions have served to arouse the public conscience. There is a recognition that even
746
those who have committed offences which are grave enough to warrant imprisonment are human beings, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, entitled to some degree of dignity and not to be subjected to treatment which is likely to make them more embittered when they return to the community. I also believe that the reports by the Chief Inspector have done so much to enlighten public opinion that great credit must go to the Home Office for making that appointment and in particular for putting the present occupant in that post.
I had better stop there. If I were to go on I should say something about the future prison medical service, which is not covered in depth in the report but which I hope will find a place in the White Paper. As president of MENCAP, perhaps I may just call attention to what the report says about the need to give clearer and more specific attention to mentally handicapped prisoners.
In concluding, I can only repeat a point which has already been made; namely, that underlying the whole problem is the need somehow to send fewer people to prison. The overall effect on the prison population of the Criminal Justice Bill is still obscure. Notwithstanding recent falls in that population, I believe it is thought that it is again likely to increase. There will always also be demands—for example, from the police—that more accused persons rather than fewer should be kept in custody to await trial.
The Government have been devoting much thought to alternatives to custody. But the fact remains, as has been pointed out, that we send more people to prison, tried and untried, than do our European friends. I hope very much that the White Paper will point the way to yet further steps to help to meet the problems of the prisons by ensuring that fewer people go to prison.
Like everyone else, I was horrified to read the Home Secretary's forecast that the implementation of the Woolf recommendations would take 20 to 25 years. However, I have sufficient faith in Her Majesty's Government to expect that when the White Paper appears it will herald much faster progress over a wide part of the area that we have discussed today.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I too wish to pay tribute to the impressive report and comprehensive list of recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim. I also look forward to the Government's White Paper which I now understand is promised for the autumn. I hope that at least those recommendations which are fiscally neutral will be pursued without delay.
Having listened to previous speakers, I have become conscious that my qualifications for speaking on the subject may appear somewhat tenuous. I have spent most of my life in a different branch of the criminal justice system. However, I am, and have been for a long time, a member of the Howard League. I am currently on its sub-committee which is considering the Woolf Report. My brief has been to consider the recommendations on management.

747
In considering the management aspects of the prison service, I have come to a conclusion opposite to that of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I believe that the prison service should have agency status. That is one recommendation that the Woolf Report did not make.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. However, I did not say that I was against the prison commission having agency status.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood his point. The Woolf Report states that there are arguments for and against agency status and that the recommendations about the relationship between the service and Ministers are perfectly feasible with or without agency status. However, that runs against the logic of many of the criteria that the report has laid down for improving the prison service.
The report mentions,
"the dissension, division and distrust which exist between all levels of the Prison Service",
and says that improved management is the essential change that the prison department requires.
The report states that,
"there is a profound desire for more visible leadership".
That perhaps is a cri de Coeur from the prison officers. It states that there should be a "structured standoff" between the director general and Ministers so that,
"the Prison Service should be more clearly seen as an operational organisation which can be expected to work under the clear leadership of the Director General".
Lord Justice Woolf believes that the necessary distance between the Home Secretary and the Director General of Prisons can be achieved by the Home Secretary delegating more powers. That, he says, would produce a director general who was more visible to the prison service. However, I am not clear in what way that will be achieved. I do not believe that visibility and clear leadership are attainable within that great but rather amorphous Ministry, the Home Office. Therefore a distinct division between the prison department and the Home Office is needed.
The report states that,
"the Director General should expect to answer for his stewardship to Ministers and to explain the work of the Service in public through the media".
That degree of self-confidence and self-exposure do not sit comfortably with the career experience and expectations of a traditional civil servant but might perhaps with the partial autonomy of a chief executive of an agency.
Agency status would not prevent the prison department working to,
"policies, priorities and resources established by Ministers".
It would still be accountable to Ministers and through them to Parliament. But a small structural separateness from the Home Office would underline the responsibility of the director general and provide the visible head of the prison service that is so urgently needed.
The Woolf Report states:
"In many establishments there is a deep distrust of headquarters".
It quotes the 1989 review of prisons, which states:
748
"those whose careers are tied wholly to the Prison Service perceive generalist civil servants at headquarters as lacking commitment to the service, because their … primary loyalty is thought to be to their career and to the Home Office at large".
The view that prison officers have of civil servants was exacerbated by the events at Strangeways last year when there appeared to be more concern for briefing Ministers than for what was happening at the prison in those first crucial hours.
In my view, agency status would not reduce the accountability of the prison service. In fact, it would define responsibility more clearly and publicly with, as the Woolf Report says,
"an operational head who is and is seen to be in day to day charge of the Service—who appears to lead and to answer for the Service".
This role cannot be carried out by a civil servant, however effective, if buried within the Home Office. Therefore I urge the Government to consider recommending in their forthcoming White Paper the establishment of the prison department as an agency.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, my namesake. I wish to touch on a group within the prison population that has not yet been mentioned. In recent years a great deal of government and parliamentary time has rightly been devoted to preventing people ever getting into prison. That strategy is known as "diversion". Imprisonment is coming to be seen as the punishment of last resort. That has been the underlying motif of the previous two Criminal Justice Bills. The first concentrated on keeping young people aged 16 to 18 out of custody; the second attempted to minimise the imprisonment of adults. A similar approach is rightly adopted towards suspects awaiting trial. Bail should be given wherever possible and maximum use should be made of bail hostels, in particular for people without a fixed abode. The Woolf Report gives general approval and reinforcement to those trends.
I wish to refer briefly to a category not yet mentioned in the debate nor in the report; namely, asylum seekers whose applications have not yet been decided. By asylum seekers I mean people from other countries who seek political asylum in Britain. In order to be accepted they must show that they have experienced persecution or that they have a genuine fear of persecution on political, religious or ethnic grounds. If accepted they have full refugee status and may settle in this country and be joined by their immediate dependants. In cases where there is some doubt, exceptional leave to remain is often granted.
However, in recent years the practice has grown of detaining some asylum seekers and demanding bail money from others with an inability to pay, leading to imprisonment. I question the legality and wisdom of those practices and most strongly deny their appropriateness. Detention centres such as Haslar and Harmondsworth have been used to hold asylum seekers. So have prisons such as Gloucester, Bristol, Winchester, Maidstone, Pentonville and probably others. In some cases Parliamentary Questions have

749
led to the immediate release of those detained. On 26th April this year 120 asylum seekers were in custody, 32 of whom had been held for longer than five months.
I shall try to explain why imprisoning such people is inappropriate and unacceptable. First, they have committed no crimes here. They have not been charged; they are not even suspected of offences in this country. On the contrary, they seek refuge here and are anxious to conform with our requirements and to present their best behaviour.
Secondly, they arrive here after long and arduous journeys. Often they have suffered physical and verbal abuse together with the loss of family, friends and possessions. In a substantial proportion of cases they have had harrowing experiences of torture, maltreatment and imprisonment in the worst conditions. Such experiences have been carefully recorded in London by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
Therefore, asylum seekers are likely to be in a traumatised condition for some months after their arrival in Britain. Many of them have limited command of English and need the help of skilled and sympathetic interpreters. In my view, prisons are the worst possible places both for the well being of asylum seekers and for the proper assessment of their cases. On the contrary, they need time and access to solicitors and other advisers in order to prepare their cases for admission to this country. If anyone questions that analysis, I recommend that they read the letter printed in the Lancet on 6th July 1991 which was signed by six doctors and psychiatrists.
Will Her Majesty's Government undertake to use their utmost efforts to divert asylum seekers from the prison and detention system? It is not a sufficient answer to say that those people will disappear if they are not securely held. In this country we are fortunate in being well endowed with specialist refugee organisations, ethnic community groups, churches and voluntary bodies which are willing and able to take responsibility for individual asylum seekers.
If the Government are not fully satisfied with such guarantees, they can impose a requirement of reporting to a police station, as formerly happened with certain classes of aliens. I am sure that prison staff have no wish to hold asylum seekers. I urge Her Majesty's Government to find other and better ways of dealing with that category of people.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join with previous speakers in paying tribute to the two judges responsible for the report which we are discussing this evening. It is rather regrettable that such an important subject must be dealt with in an Unstarred Question. There is much to discuss and I do not consider that we can do it justice. I believe that many noble Lords, although raising very important points, have felt rather restricted as to how wide to cast their interests.
My contribution is of a more parochial nature. I was E. Member of Parliament in Leeds, and Leeds prison at Armley was in my constituency. I knew it very well from the occasions when I visited it—as a visitor, not as an inmate. I was always surprised at the
750
uphill battle which the staff had to fight. The prison was old and dilapidated. At that time some of the conditions were horrendous. I hope that they have now improved. I have not visited the prison for some time. On occasions I visited the prison when young school children were being held on remand in conditions in which no one would wish them to be held. Nevertheless, I believe that progress has been made.
The other prison with which I have had a relationship is Strangeways in the city of Manchester where I come from. That is the subject of part of the Woolf Report. One matter comes across clearly. Everything which needs to be said about what happened at Strangeways is in the report. It may be that we shall debate those matters in more depth when the White Paper is published. However, there is no point in going over what happened. It was horrendous and could have been prevented.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, made a very profound point when she said that the people dealing with the situation should be those close to it and not civil servants. The outrage at Strangeways could have been contained over a much shorter period and taken under control by the people on site if they had been listened to.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene, purely out of curiosity. Surely the problem was that any bold step at the beginning to deal with the rioters could have involved a loss of life. Could any governor or civil servant undertake that without the authority of the Minister?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that is a matter for conjecture. I visited Strangeways prison with my wife only a few months before the outbreak. Substantial improvements were taking place before the riot occurred. They had the full support of the officers. The education block was being improved; the hospital was being renovated. But it was not sufficient to contain the situation that took place.
When the outbreak happened the situation was quickly taken over by remote control from London. Someone who had little knowledge of what was taking place on the ground, was brought in. There is no question but that the senior staff, including the then governor—though he was somewhat muzzled and at first told not to say anything—could quickly have contained the situation and brought it under control.
My noble friend, who so eloquently opened the debate and who, by asking the Question, has given us the opportunity to discuss this matter, spoke of the time span required for implementing the improvements recommended in the Woolf Report. However, I remind the House that there was £60 million worth of damage done in Strangeways. It is no good my noble friend and others in the debate thinking that we can say to this or any other government, "Give us a blank cheque and we will put the matter right".
Prison reform is not a popular theme with people who have bad housing or poor schools or who are waiting for operations. There is a long way to go to convince people outside that a rapid improvement of the prison system is a high priority when finance and

751
public spending are strictly curtailed. I do not know what the Citizen's Charter says about this. Improvement will not happen as quickly as some of us would like. However, I have made my point that—God forbid—should a situation similar to that which occurred in Strangeways develop elsewhere, I hope that it will be dealt with expeditiously; that it will be left to the people on site. It may be that there is loss of life. Loss of life occurred in Strangeways anyway. I do not know whether that could have been prevented. One could not know unless one was on site.
The point must be made that in my experience from mixing with prison officers both at Armley and recently at Strangeways, the senior officers and governors of prison establishments can better assess a situation than any civil servant, however able, based in London, who tries to control matters from 300 miles away. I have not visited Strangeways since the improvements started. But I understand that they are on target and will be completed by 1993.
In conclusion I should like to pay a tribute. I am president of the Greater Manchester Selcare Trust, which position I took over on the death of our friend and colleague Lord Rhodes. We have been running a visitors' centre at Strangeways on a charitable basis. It has been extremely successful. We are pleased to record our appreciation that the Home Office is to build a new, permanent visitors' centre, which will enable us to carry on our present work.
One can be critical in one sphere over what happened at Strangeways, which may have been avoidable. The Home Office must carry a large share of the blame. However, it is only right to have regard to the efforts being made by the Home Office, as at Strangeways, and to express some gratitude for those efforts.
I hope that a lesson has been learnt. It is not my intention to overplay the argument of the prison officers. But there were repeated warnings of some establishments being at bursting point. I know that from staff who have had to cope with the situation. Strangeways is the biggest prison in Europe. It was always vastly overcrowded. The scene was set for what took place because of certain circumstances. Whatever happens in future, in my opinion, whether the Home Office is under the control of the present Government, a Labour government or any other government, it ignores at its peril the advice of the officers on site dealing with the situation. As I said, if the advice had been listened to earlier, almost £60 million of damage could possibly have been prevented. That money could have gone a long way towards improving some of the terrible establishments which still exist.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I too would like to
express my thanks to the noble Earl for having this important report discussed before we rise for two-and-a-half months, or perhaps even longer if the Government call an election in the autumn. I shall direct my remarks to a mere three pages in the report, pages 333 to 335. Although short, it is an important section which addresses the management of HIV and
752
AIDS in prisons. It is a problem which is inherently extremely difficult. But that does not mean that it cannot be very much eased by sensible and humane management. Some of us have been concerned for a long time that the handling of it leaves a good deal to be desired. I am glad to say that there are signs that there is a better climate and better policies to which I shall refer shortly. However, there is a long way to go.
Perhaps I may begin with the figures so far as they are known. According to the latest available government figures, the number of reported HIV cases in the prison population was 56 on 25th January. I have not been able to get later figures than that. It is most unlikely that that gives a true picture. A recent report called Prisons: HIV & AIDS by Paul Turnbull and others for the AIDS charity AVERT, based on 452 ex-offenders within three months of release, found that 27 per cent. of the prisoners with a history of drug injecting went on injecting in prison. Nearly three-quarters of those shared syringes with other prisoners. One in 10 reported having sex while in prison with an average of three partners. The majority of men engaged in penetrative anal sex without a condom. One in five women reported having lesbian sex; one in 10 of drug injectors were HIV positive. The female injectors had the highest rate at 15.5 per cent. Three in 100 (3.4 per cent.) of heterosexual women and 1.6 per cent. of heterosexual men were HIV positive.
This research has been queried on the grounds of the smallness of the sample and the fact that the interviews took place outside prison. That was due to the limited funds available and the difficulty in gaining consent for conducting such a survey with actual prisoners. However, if it is only half correct it still gives an alarming picture. It is evident that drug injection with shared and often unsterilised syringes takes place on a considerable scale. It is also evident that sex in various forms takes place and seldom with any protection.
Thus the two main means for the transmission of HIV are being practised in gaol. We can only surmise at present on what scale, but we cannot doubt that it is significant. That accords with the high prevalence of HIV in European prisons and it also accords with what one would intuitively expect with prisoners in the main belonging to the sexually active age group. Most of those in the survey who were sexually active in prison were sexually active in the community, where most of them were involved in penetrative sex, sometimes using condoms, which is not an option available to them in prison. When one adds in an excessive number of drug abusers with custodial sentences one has an explosive mix. That is the picture as far as we can glimpse it from the basis of inadequate knowledge.
I now turn to the report at paragraphs 12.354 to 12.373. Some of them make chilling reading. The practice of placing any inmate who takes a voluntary test under a so-called viral infectivity restriction is criticised. It involves seclusion in the prison hospital, a special wing or unit. It breaches normal medical confidentiality and makes it much less likely that

753
prisoners will come forward for testing when faced by the possibility of such a regime. Paragraph 12.359 of the report states:
"The Inquiry visited a small, dingy and airless basement unit at Wandsworth Prison which contained a number of inmates who either had HIV, or who were awaiting the results of HI V tests. Apart from an hour's exercise, visits to the Library and some classes, they were confined to this small area. They had a television and a small amount of weight lifting equipment. The only available work was a small amount of mail-bag sewing".
In the following paragraph 12.360 the report goes on:
"It is hardly any wonder that, given the prospect of such conditions, prisoners who may be concerned about the possibility of having the AIDS virus, may be reluctant to express that concern to the prison authorities. We could not imagine conditions more likely to deter a prisoner from doing all in his power to avoid revealing that he was or might be HIV positive than those we saw at Wandsworth. The conditions were a travesty of justice".
Those are the words of the report. None of that remotely meets the prison service's own stated policy which is:
"To provide as normal a prison life for identified HIV infected prisoners who are well".
However, as I indicated earlier, that is not the whole story. There are some gleams of light. Saughton prison in Edinburgh and Bristol prison are both praised. In the latter a network of trained prison officer counsellors has been established. The report wants increased efforts to train prison staff and examples of good -practice to be extended. Only today I learnt that the Terrence Higgins Trust which is the leading charity concerned with the HIV/AIDS field has established an excellent working relationship with the new prison at Belmarsh where health clinics are held twice weekly. A joint Terrence Higgins Trust/Home Office leaflet has been produced which I understand will be given to every person entering the penal system.
My first question to the noble Earl is: will the Government take steps to see that these examples of good practice are far more widely applied throughout the prison service? The results speak for themselves. As the report states in paragraph 12.368:
"We were impressed too that, when the VIR restriction was withdrawn at Bristol, 24 out of the approximately 500 prisoners at Bristol, were prepared voluntarily to disclose that they wire HIV positive. This compared with Wandsworth, where only 12 of approximately 1,700 prisoners had identified themselves as HIV positive".
Paragraph 12.372 of the report makes the recommendation to,
"subject the present policies in respect of VIR and confidentiality to critical examination with a view to setting them a side".
I understand that Dr. Rosemary Wool, the director of the prison medical service, has accepted the need to:
"undertake a further review of VIR".
Do the Government accept the urgency of this and will they ensure that the review leads to action and that it is not just a way of decently burying the question? Another recommendation is to encourage prisoners to take tests and identify themselves. That presumably requires many more prisons to adopt the Bristol model in this respect. Will the Government encourage that?
The third recommendation is to draw up a programme of treatment and opportunities for HIV positive prisoners. Prison does at least provide the setting for a much more pro-active approach to a
754
literally captive audience. That opportunity should not be missed. The role of outside AIDS counselling agencies is crucial here. The fifth recommendation is that there should be close co-operation between prisons and such agencies; in other words, a much wider open door to the voluntary sector which also provides bridges back into the community on release.
Finally, I want to mention a recent meeting at which Judge Stephen Tumim, the co-author of the report, addressed the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. At that meeting an additional idea of importance was advanced. I said at the beginning that we simply do not know enough yet about HIV infection in prisons. We do not know and the Government do not know either. That is partly because the Home Office has not to date recognised the necessity for research, thus depriving itself of a vital tool. Judge Tumim advanced the view that the time had come for a full-scale, large sample, academic research project into sex and drugs in prisons by, for example, the criminology department of a university, working inside prisons with the full co-operation of the authorities. My question to the noble Earl is a simple one. Do the Government accept the need for such a project?
If it is carried out, it will take time and we cannot simply stand still in the meanwhile as infection occurs and spreads out beyond the prison walls. There are useful and I should have thought relatively non-controversial steps to be taken. For example, a move towards a more positive use of bleach could be made: heavily diluted to avoid the possibility of poisoning or suicide, it would much reduce the danger of shared and unsterile needles. It is no use pretending that such equipment does not exist because it is not permitted; it does and that must be recognised in the interests of public health. Will the Government take that small step forward in the interests of public health?
I cannot sit down without mentioning condoms, a subject which is always raised in any discussion on HIV in prisons. Different countries have different policies. It may surprise noble Lords to know that Spain, which we always used to regard as the most Catholic country in Europe, issues them to prisoners. That is linked to the right of conjugal access, I think once a month, which of course must do a great deal to lessen the head of repressed sexual steam in prison. These arrangements are known here as "private family visits" and are touched on in paragraph 14.248 of the report:
"Overseas experience has shown that private family visits are no longer an unthinkable or eccentric exception. They can form a small but, for some prisoners, important part of the arrangements which ensure that they maintain links with the family to whom they may eventually return. If such visits were available, prisoners might be less likely to behave in a dangerous and destructive way while in prison".
I do not know how the Government will respond to that but I very much hope that, in the whole area that I have covered, they will keep an open mind, will initiate and act on research, will give every encouragement they can to the tender shoots of good practice which are beginning to emerge and will bring in the voluntary sector on an ever widening basis. I

755
believe, as I said earlier, that there are signs of a new climate, a new awareness of the challenges and opportunities offered by prisons in relation to the terrible problem of HIV infection. What is required is the political will to push all this forward. Only the Government can provide that. It certainly should not take 25 years. If that is reduced to an equivalent number of months, we may be getting somewhere.
10.3 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken this evening—I think nearly every one—I very much hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will tell us that there is some misunderstanding about the statement from the Home Secretary that it is likely to take 20 to 25 years to implement the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf. If that were to be true it would suggest relative indifference to the seriousness of the problem, an attitude which has certainly been refuted by all those who have spoken in the debate and, of course, by the most impressive report of Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim. Perhaps we have got it wrong and the Government mean to take effective action sooner.
With such a large number of recommendations, there have to be priorities. It is easy to see that the Government will put some recommendations ahead of others. Indeed, we have been told that they have already made a start, rightly or wrongly, by putting the abolition of slopping out, certainly a most revolting practice, at the top of the list. Whether that is the best way to spend the available resources I do not know. However, it shows that, in one area at any rate, the Government are prepared to take action and not to wait for 20 to 25 years.
It is a question of what the priorities ought to be. Many noble Lords have referred to the great cost of implementing Woolf. Of course, some of the recommendations will involve a very considerable amount of money. But other recommendations, although they may involve a considerable injection of funds in the first place, will save a great deal of money in the long term. When dealing with the improvement of the penal system, I have often felt that it is one of the few social issues where, in many ways, to do the right thing is cheaper than to continue doing the wrong thing, which is what we are doing at present. That point needs to be stressed.
I want to talk about just two issues. One of them has already been discussed and I shall therefore refer to it only briefly; but I do not think that the other has been mentioned. In both cases the result of an injection of money at this stage would, before very long, lead to very considerable savings.
The first issue is the one which was dealt with so fully and admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I refer to the position of remand prisoners. Some years ago I undertook a small study of women in prison. I was horrified to find—and amazed at the absurdity of it—that over half of the women held on remand never in fact received a custodial sentence. When one thinks about the disruption, the cost and the consequential problems
756
which arise when a person is put in prison, especially if that person is a mother with children, the urgent argument for finding other ways of dealing with such remand prisoners is surely so strong that it needs no further emphasis.
I understand that it costs over £300 a week to keep a woman in prison on remand. But that is only the beginning. If the woman has children, the social services have to be mobilised to look after them. Moreover, if the children have to be taken into care, the costs are tremendous. Further, there may well be, as is so often the case, consequential family break-ups because the woman has been separated from her husband and children.
Why do we have to keep such people in prison? I know that some of them are dangerous. However, so far as concerns women, a very small number of them are dangerous. Indeed, numerically, that group hardly affects the argument. They may be a great nuisance; but they are not dangerous. So why do they have to be kept in prison? We are told that they have to be there so that they will be available for the making of reports which have to be presented to the courts. But there are surely other ways by which the authorities can achieve contact in order to compile the reports without keeping such people in prison.
If the numbers were large, the probation service could keep in close contact with these people. Such women—or men for that matter—could be placed in bail or other hostels; or, indeed, in many cases, they could be allowed to remain in their own homes with the condition that they report regularly to a probation officer or to the police. That would be infinitely cheaper than keeping them in prison, and much fairer. They are unconvicted people; or, if convicted, they are unsentenced people. It should be seen as an outrage that we are keeping people who are still innocent until proven guilty in such conditions as exist at present in prison, with total, or near total, restriction on their liberty.
Surely improvement in this area must be a top priority. If only we could get a considerable number of people out of prison, it would be the easiest and quickest way to solve the problem of overcrowding and it would also cut costs. Bail hostels and other kinds of hostel are much cheaper than prison. If we can build prisons, we can surely build additional hostels and bail hostels. It cannot be very difficult to do so. There are many other things that governments have found it possible to do quickly because they recognise their urgency and importance. If there were the same recognition of importance and urgency in this area, it would happen, not in 20 years but in 20 months. A great deal could be done about the remand problem even in 20 months.
The other issue which I wish to talk about and which I believe has not been referred to tonight, though it was referred to in the Woolf Report, is the training of prisoners and the finding of work for them when they leave prison. The one commodity that prisoners have in abundance is time. It is the greatest pity not to use that time as constructively as possible. I have said it in your Lordships' House before, and I shall undoubtedly say it again, that the modern

757
economy is such that people without trained skills or competencies find it difficult to obtain and hold work —certainly worthwhile work—if they have no criminal record; if, in addition to having no skills and competencies, they have a record, they might almost settle for a life of crime, regarding the period they spend inside prison as the price they pay for the relatively agreeable time they have when at liberty. That is an expensive and socially and humanly unacceptable way of dealing with the problem.
The urgency of providing training and following it through —the point I wish to emphasise—so that jobs can be obtained is of the greatest importance. We are told that training takes place in prisons. It varies greatly from prison to prison. Some of it, as training, is undoubtedly good, but it must be stressed that training is useless unless it will lead to a job. That is why the Woolf Report is undoubtedly right when it says that training should be carried out in collaboration with employers. That is an important point; but it has implications for the way sentences are carried out if we are to accept it as the way training should be done. Training that does not lead to a job breeds cynicism. If an employer is involved with the training programme, goes into the prison and discusses the skills in which he is interested and which give the man or woman coming out a reasonable chance of obtaining a job, that transforms the whole idea and purpose of training. It is possible to do that only if the prisoner is in a prison near his home. It is not much good gaining the interest of an employer somewhere up in the North West if, when the sentence is over and the training is completed, the man moves back to the South East.
The Woolf Report touches upon that matter. It says that for other reasons it is important to keep prisoners near home. In addition to the importance of keeping them near to home so that they can maintain their family links, I want to stress the importance of keeping them near home so that they can be put in touch—that is what it is in many cases—with the local labour market, given an opportunity to enter the local labour market through training, and then with any luck can obtain a job at the end.
Not long ago, I attended a meeting connected with this kind of topic. Into the room came a young women who delivered a message. It was in the offices of an ordinary commercial company. When the young women had gone out, it was said, "She is from Holloway. She comes here as part of the practical side of her training. She returns to Holloway in the evening". That is what we want. That company ceases to think of her as an offender; she is Mariette, whom it now knows. It finds that she is competent and reasonable and, whatever the offence was, it is likely to he irrelevant to the work she may be doing; so the bridge; is already built and the link established. That has to be accepted as a matter of central importance.
The training must be linked to, and worked out with, employers. The placing of the prisoner must have regard to the local labour market. However, if we could pull this off and increase by even 20 per cent. the number of ex-offenders who obtain jobs and therefore cut down on recidivism, we should pay for the training
758
over and over again. Recidivism is one of the major reasons why prisons are as full as they are, so many people return again and again. That is not the main reason for advocating training, but, against those who say that Woolf will take a long time because people do not wish to spend money on prisoners, these are areas where the argument can be reversed. We could say, "We spend money in order to cut down both the cost of crime and crime itself". That is what this is all about.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Longford for having initiated and introduced the debate. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, as I was unable to hear his speech, and also to the right reverend Prelate as I caught only the tail end of what he said. From the reports that I have heard of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and not exactly the trailer, but the opposite, of the speech of the right reverend Prelate, it seems that I agree with almost everything that was said.
At the outset I make a plea to the noble Earl who will reply. The great difficulty we all have tonight is that no one knows what will be the attitude of the Government. To that extent, the noble Earl could argue that the debate is premature. We should wait for the White Paper. I ask him not to shelter too much behind the coming White Paper. After all, those of us who ask him questions and who are on the other side of the table in this debate are entitled to ask for clarification of the remarks of his right honourable friend the Home Secretary last week. I believe that those of us who are interested in the subject are entitled to clarification from the Government as to precisely what they have in mind. Are we to take it that matters will proceed at the pace which Mr. Baker seemed last week to indicate? Was this an oversight, or perhaps the right honourable gentleman was misunderstood? Whatever fig leaf the Minister needs in order to conceal his withdrawal from the apparently stark position that the Home Secretary took up last week I should be perfectly happy to provide.
Whatever one thinks of the individual proposals of Lord Justice Woolf's report, I believe that everyone agrees that it is the most far-reaching blueprint for prison reform this century. It carries a clear message that riots would be less likely in a prison system which had decent conditions for prisoners, full and useful regimes, a positive role for prison staff and a respect for prisoners' rights. That seems to me to be the text of the Woolf Report. Like most texts, it can be expressed in very few words.
If we genuinely wish to avoid future riots, we must accept and learn from Lord Justice Woolf's conclusion that last year's prison riots were symptoms of a long-standing failure to provide justice, humanity and utility in our prisons. We therefore welcomed the immediate steps which were announced by the Home Secretary when the report was published in February. They included the end of slopping out by 1994, the abolition of censorship of most prisoners' mail, access

759
to telephones for prisoners in all penal establishments, more frequent visits and increased home leave in open prisons.
Those are valuable improvements but they cover only a tiny fraction of the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf. They are not perhaps the most important recommendations that were made in the report. I hope that those who follow these matters will agree that the lesson of the past two decades in penal policy is surely that piecemeal reform is not enough. Unless the forthcoming White Paper adopts at least the thrust of the Woolf proposals for a root and branch change of our prison system, we will have missed the best opportunity for years to turn it into a riot-free system which can equip prisoners to lead law abiding lives on their release.
Tonight I wish to discuss three of the issues which were raised very firmly by Lord Justice Woolf. First of all I wish to say a few words about reducing the prison population. Strangeways was seriously overcrowded at the time of the riot. There is no doubt that overcrowding increases tension in prisons, aggravates the problems of security and control and makes it more difficult to provide an active regime for prisoners. This seems to me to reinforce the case for measures to reduce or eliminate the unnecessary use of prison sentences and custodial remands. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about remand are frankly unanswerable.
That course is desirable not just to reduce overcrowding but because unnecessary prison sentences are an ineffective way of dealing with crime. As Lord Justice Woolf stated:
"even if the overcrowding problems were to be solved, it would still be important to ensure, as far as possible, that only those for whom there is no alternative are in prison".
Hence the need which Lord Justice Woolf identified to develop bail hostels and bail information schemes as rapidly as possible; to establish bail units in all prisons holding remand prisoners; to increase the number of hostels for offenders with drug and alcohol problems; and to extend duty psychiatrist schemes to all courts to divert mentally disturbed offenders from prison.
In this context, I must say that the proposal for a national criminal justice consultative council seemed to me to be useful. I do not share the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in this respect. A consultative forum representing judges, magistrates, the police, the prison service and the probation service would help the different agencies and services to realise their interdependence and assist the development of better management and proper planning.
If we are to improve our criminal justice system, it is vital that it is looked at as a whole and that consultation should take place between its constituent parts both at national and local level. I do not think that that would prejudice judicial independence; rather it would enhance knowledge and might even serve to reduce judicial isolation.
Secondly, I wish to say a few words about standards as I believe they are fundamental to what Lord Justice Woolf seeks to tell us. One of the most significant steps which could be taken to improve staff
760
morale is to provide decent prison conditions and active prison regimes. That would make officers' jobs more fulfilling and it would make prisoners' time in custody more constructive. I wish to refer to those people, mainly in the Prison Officers' Association, who have to look after prisoners in prison. I sometimes think that we treat their duties and efforts a little too lightly. On my visits to prisons I have often felt that being a prison officer is only marginally better than being a prisoner attached to a prison, particularly if the prison officer works in a difficult prison. Prison officers have a dedication and skill which could perhaps be better tapped. As the House will know, Lord Justice Woolf made some specific proposals in that regard.
Of central importance to the process of humanising our prisons and making them more effective, efficient and better is the proposal for a code of accredited standards which all prisons would be required to comply with over time. For a code of standards to be effective, it must consist of requirements which are specific, objective and measurable. There is no point in dealing with generalities. For example, prisoners should be allowed a shower and a change of clothes every day. There should be measurable minimum amounts of space per prisoner in cells. Every prisoner should have access to proper sanitation and prisoners should be out of their cells for at least 12 hours a day or should have the opportunity of a full day's work or education. These are specific matters which go fundamentally towards the establishment of a code of standards which, if it were to be applied to existing prisons (although I accept that it could not bring prisons up to the required standards immediately) would provide an argument for a planned programme of improvements, working towards an agreed set of standards over a specified period of years. Even if the Government wish to reserve their position on the White Paper, they could perhaps lift the veil a little tonight and tell us how they approach that issue.
Thirdly, justice in prisons is an issue which should appeal to the Government because it does not seem as if it would cost a great deal of money. Lord Justice Woolf emphasised the need to ensure, as he put it—my noble friend Lord Longford referred to this in opening —that justice does not stop at the prison door. In particular, he argued that prisoners must be given reasons for decisions which materially and adversely affect them and for revised complaints and disciplinary procedures. It is axiomatic that effective and credible complaints procedures can reduce tensions in prison, help to ensure the proper treatment of prisoners and reduce the vulnerability of staff to unfounded allegations. Again, I should have thought it was unarguable, almost axiomatic, that prisoners are less likely to turn to, or gain support for, illegitimate methods of drawing attention to their grievances if the procedures for investigating complaints are expeditious, thorough and manifestly fair, and are accepted as such.
The new procedures introduced in September last year have undoubtedly improved the system for dealing with prisoners' complaints. However, there is one major defect in the new system which has been

761
pointed out already tonight—that is, that it lacks an effective independent element. It is a streamlining of procedures which still involves the prison service investigating complaints against itself. That is why there is strong support for a complaints adjudicator to be established in addition to reforming the internal complaints procedures.
In conclusion, anything less than full implementation, at least of the thrust of the Woolf proposals for root and branch reform of the prison system, would mean squandering the best opportunity for prison reform that we have had this century. I am bound to say that I was distinctly concerned when I read the remarks of the Home Secretary on Thursday last week. To say that the whole of the Woolf programme is a programme for 20 or 25 years, and if the prison service is to have any chance of securing an increased share of public expenditure over that timescale it will have to demonstrate that it is doing the best it can with what it already has, is bound to raise suspicions that what the Home Secretary is after is a set of proposals which end up by being fiscally neutral. The truth of the matter is that while the prison service must make the best use of its present resources—nobody would argue against that, and many of the Woolf proposals are designed to ensure that it does specifically that—to suggest that the Woolf Report can be implemented without increased expenditure in the short term and to envisage its fulfilment as something we shall not see for 25 years is a hopelessly inadequate response to Lord Justice Woolf's message.
Improving conditions for prisoners and staff to the lever envisaged by the Woolf Report must involve spending some money. However, this expenditure should be offset by policies to reduce the use of imprisonment for non-violent offenders. We must also remember that the costs of prison riots, which such policies would help to prevent, are enormous put by the side of the costs of the reforms which are contained in Lord Justice Woolf s report. So are the costs, both financial and in human distress, of the high re-offending rates which our current penal system produces.
This is not a party issue. If ever there was a non-party issue this should be one. I hope that the Minister can at least take us some way into his thinking and government thinking on these issues. They are important. The fact that so many of your Lordships have taken part in the debate on an Unstirred Question so late at night, and indeed so late in the Session, is an indication of that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as one would expect, this has been a most interesting debate on all aspects of the prison system and prison reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, we are all anxious, even at this late hour, to ensure that the prison system is as good as it can be and that it should be improved as much as it can be. The noble Lord was right to say that, in a perfect world with a perfect prison system, you would have fewer riots which would in itself save money. None of us would disagree with that argument.
762
The House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for providing an opportunity to consider what should be done in response to the report produced by Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Stephen Tumim. As a result of the noble Earl's Question, we have ranged over a whole panorama of issues, some of which were covered by the Woolf Report and some of which were not. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he hoped that I would not shelter behind the fact that the White Paper has not yet been published. But the Question asks Her Majesty's Government when they intend to implement the main recommendations of the report of Lord Justice Woolf and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim.
That is a fairly limited Question, but every facet of prison issues has been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked the Government to lift the veil just a little. He knows perfectly well that it would be difficult for me to lift the veil on subjects which are to be covered in a White Paper that has not yet been produced. Of course, I want to be as helpful as possible, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and other noble Lords will realise, I am in some small difficulty as the Government have not published their response to Woolf. Obviously, I cannot answer as fully as possible some of the points that have been made, but the fact that your Lordships have given your views on what should be in the White Paper is of immense benefit to the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, wanted the prison service to be an agency. I do not propose to answer that point tonight, but I shall take note of their views and desires.
The debate has shown the importance attached by all sides of the House to the extent and magnitude of the Woolf Report itself and of the implications of the programme of change that it proposes, because they are substantial. It is encouraging that so many of your Lordships and so many organisations have been able to say that they welcome the report and support what it seeks to do.
The report was prompted by large-scale and serious disturbances. I do not think that any of us condones for one moment that behaviour. It was pertinent that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, reminded us of the fact that, as a result of the disturbances, some £60 million must be spent. He is right too to say that people cannot necessarily expect £60 million suddenly and automatically to appear when there are other equally deserving claimants.
The Government have undertaken to do a great deal but, given riots and damage of that nature, one cannot automatically expect the situation to be put right overnight. One problem, to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred, is police cells. If it had not been for the riots at Strangeways and the restrictions which the Prison Officers' Association had put on prisoners going into prison, there would be few police cells occupied by prisoners. But if one has to discharge 1,600 people who were in a certain prison and find other places for them, inevitably other places themselves become overcrowded. In Manchester some 150 places in "G", "H" and "I" wings are due to come

763
on stream on 19th August. That date has slipped a little, but at least there will be some more places available there.
It is basic that society depends for its reasonable conduct on the adherence to a system of law and order. Imprisonment, disagreeable though it is, has its place and has to have its place. That being so, the problems of security and control have to be balanced with the principles of justice and humanity. It is not easy.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford was quite right when he said that it is important to ensure that those who are in prison have access to family and religious help. It is not an easy task to get the balance right, but we have set about preparing a comprehensive and integrated programme of work. Many of the proposals have staffing and resource implications. If they are implemented, they will have profound effects on other aspects of prison life and the criminal justice system. What we do, therefore, must be the result of careful analysis and careful preparation. But wherever it has been possible to go further or faster in developing the existing policies in line with the spirit of Woolf, the Government have done so.
Your Lordships will be aware of the various steps that we announced in February to improve family ties. In April, we extended the scheme which provides financial assistance for visits to prisoners; in May, the routine reading of mail was abolished in all prisons except dispersal prisons; in June, the arrangements for longer and more frequent visits for adult convicted prisoners were instituted; and the programme for installing cardphones in all prisons will be completed next year.
The right reverend Prelate said that there was no internal sanitation at Chelmsford Prison and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the disagreeable method of slopping out. It is a horrible process and we all agree on that. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has insisted that the degrading and offensive process of slopping out should be brought to an end even faster than the Woolf Report recommended. It will now cease by the end of 1994, which is over a year earlier than the report recommended.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said how difficult he found it when he was a very distinguished Permanent Secretary in the Home Office to have slopping out removed. The historical fact is that it is and has been difficult. It is expensive and highly disruptive. However bad it may be, those are physical facts with which we must all contend. It should not be considered as idleness or unwillingness on the part of the Government—whether this Government or any other—that it has not been done before. I was glad that the noble Lord, with his great experience, emphasised that difficulty.
In order to help to achieve the end of slopping out, there will be about 3,300 installations of simple sanitation systems this year and in the next two years about 10,000 places will be given access to sanitation in the course of major refurbishment schemes or new
764
construction. But that is not the only work that has been done to improve conditions. For example, there is the substantial investment in kitchen improvements. No less than £56.5 million, which is a huge sum by any standards, has been earmarked for kitchen improvements over the next three years.
Other changes which are less obvious in nature are taking place. The development of new training for staff to try to reduce the risk of suicide among prisoners - to which reference has been made - is also being undertaken. A review of the way in which prisoners who have serious viral infection are managed is being undertaken. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to the problem of AIDS. It is indeed a difficult and an unpleasant position. We have already announced a review of the system of viral infectivity restrictions. That will be completed by the end of the year. Other aspects of the Woolf proposals on that subject will be covered by the White Paper. In the meantime, we continue to be committed to doing all that we can to prevent the transmission of infection within prison, to reduce the risk of prisoners infecting others when they go back into the community and to provide care and support for prisoners whom we know to be infected.
I believe that most people who have considered the problem of needles, syringes and so forth at any depth accept that anything in the nature of a needle-syringe exchange scheme for prisoners who are clandestinely injecting drugs while in custody is not a realistic option.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I did not propose that. I made a much more modest proposal on the use of diluted bleach which could go some way to help deal with the problem.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is perfectly true. Diluted bleach is a possibility. However, such cleaning agents can be dangerous when they are in the wrong hands. A new leaflet for prisoners which has been prepared by the Terrence Higgins Trust and which we shall distribute shortly advises the use of soapy water and not of bleach.
Other changes include the development of sex offender programmes. Other work in hand which is very much in the spirit of the Woolf proposals includes the preparations for the implementation of the Criminal Justice Bill and the better jobs initiative for the staff, to name but two programmes.
Planning and organising changes which will affect the entire prison system without at the same time disrupting it is a considerable exercise. The 12 main recommendations and the 204 detailed proposals need to be considered together so that one improvement does not militate against another.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham referred to overcrowding. Across the prison estate as a whole there is an excess of about 2,400 prisoners over places, but the population is about 5,000 down on the peak levels which were reached some four years ago. Some capacity has been temporarily lost because of refurbishment work or industrial action. The Strangeways inmates also had to be relocated.

765
I have referred to the fact that the Prison Officers' Association branches decided that an establishment should not accept prisoners above its uncrowded capacity. It is quite wrong that they should use such action for that purpose. The Woolf Report made it quite clear that that was a misuse of trade union power.
The prison building programme is about to deliver additional capacity in the form of new local prisons such as Bullingdon, Moorland, Blakenhurst, Holme Home, Woodhill, High Down and a remand prison at Wolds, all of which are due to open in the next 12 months, and major refurbishing schemes are nearing completion at a number of other prisons such as Bedford. Those measures, taken together, should transform the conditions for remand prisoners and others.
The purpose of the Government's White Paper, the prospect of which my right honourable friend the Leader of the House announced to your Lordships on 25th February, is to provide a framework in which the Woolf Report can be seen as a whole and in which the Government can respond to its recommendations in charting the course for the prison service to the end of this decade and beyond.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will announce the Government's response to the recommendations of Woolf in the forthcoming White Paper. That is a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, was anxious.
The noble Lord also asked about the report of Judge Tumim dealing with deaths, and mentally disturbed prisoners. That will also be referred to in the White Paper. Your Lordships will not expect me to anticipate the contents of the White Paper in advance but I can assure the House that it will respond to all the key recommendations of the Woolf Report in a proper and constructive manner. It will include those matters that touch on the different status of remand prisoners to which my noble friend Lord Windlesham and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred.
The reorganisation of the prison service headquarters in September 1990 created a new directorate of inmate programmes. That directorate is concentrating in particular on regimes in remand and local prisons. More will be said about that in the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, was also anxious about suicide prevention. It is a serious problem. We welcome the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector on Suicide and Self-Harm. Many of his proposals overlap with those in the Woolf Report. We have been carrying out a thorough review of suicide prevention policy and a review is also being carried out by the all suicide prevention management groups. We agree with the Chief Inspector that the prevention of suicide and self harm must rest on good general standards of care supplemented by specific measures such as screening, design and the Samaritans. They must also have the support of good staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to those people who are detained while waiting for asylum. They arc also treated as unconvicted prisoners.
766
However, it was not an issue in the Woolf Report and there was no separate proposal in respect of their treatment.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also referred to escapees. I agree that when a prisoner escapes from legal custody it is always a matter of concern. Any escape is treated seriously and investigated promptly. The majority of escapes have been from category C prisons. A review of physical security in those prisons was carried out in 1988 and the recommendations that followed are being introduced across the category C estate. The prison service is always searching for new and improved physical security systems. Research is currently proceeding into a new type of high-security fencing for category C prisons.
The date for the publication of the White Paper has not yet been set. It will be published as soon as it is ready. Publication will be only a prelude to a great deal of further work and discussion. The purpose of the White Paper will be to set out a planned programme for the further development and implementation of change and for working out its consequences.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Richard, criticised my right honourable friend for referring to 25 years. Obviously, the change cannot be made overnight. However, to try to say, as did the noble Earl, that if the mention of 25 years is a fact it means that the Government have rejected the Woolf Report is an injustice which is uncharacteristic. Of course, the Government have not rejected Woolf. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said that he hoped that there would not be tardiness in implementing the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that if the report were not implemented in full the Government would be squandering the chance of prison reform. I disagree with the noble Lord's suggestion. I know that he wants to know the answers straightaway but he really must wait. He knows perfectly well that I should be wrong to give answers on government policy when it is to be the subject of a White Paper. Neither he nor the noble Earl, Lord Longford, should suggest that because my right honourable friend used that figure, it means that the Government have a cavalier attitude or an attitude of not wishing to get on with the job. That is simply not so.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am solicitous for the noble Earl's welfare. If my mathematics is correct and if the Home Secretary's estimate is right, he will be 87 and I shall be 84 when the Woolf Report is finally implemented. If at that time we are facing each other across the Dispatch Box croaking at each other and celebrating the implementation of the report, that will be a rather sad sight. Is the 20 to 25 years a considered estimate by the Home Secretary of how long this will take? I ask the noble Earl no more than that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point very effectively. My right honourable friend said that the White Paper will chart the course. In the short term we should be able to achieve much within the substantial expenditure on staff, buildings and

767
other items already planned. However, the whole programme is a programme of 20 to 25 years. That is what he said.
The Woolf Report suggests many alterations and improvements. They cannot all be carried out immediately, as we should like them to be. As to how quickly and when the improvements will made, the noble Lord must await the publication of the White Paper.
The Woolf Report recognises that it sets out a long-term programme. Any programme must proceed at a pace which the country can afford. If one starts off on a long journey, it is as well to tell people where they are going, why they are going there and the route which it is proposed that they should take. They cannot expect to find themselves at the end of the journey as soon as they have set off. It takes time. It needs understanding, determination and perseverance.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in a speech last week his vision of the sort of prison service which we need for the 21st century. It must be clear what we should aim to be doing. The Government's response to Woolf will shape the prison service for a long time to come.
We must have secure prisons which command the confidence of the public. That is so obvious that it seems hardly necessary to say it—but it needs to be said. We must have stable and safe prisons; and up to a point that has to be achieved on the basis of a more constructive and sensitive relationship between the staff and the inmates. That in itself will be a considerable undertaking with the increase in the proportion of difficult and dangerous prisoners who will be among our long-term prison population.
However, prisons are for people who have committed crimes against society—sometimes terrible crimes. Some are there because, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, they are accused of committing crimes. It is a difficult problem. Society has to see that crime is punished and must deter people from wanting to do it again. Prisons must reflect that. They must offer the possibility of rehabilitation. As the right reverend Prelate said, they must be places where people are treated with humanity and understanding. He said that they must be treated as fellow Christians. When people abuse that privilege, as they did the other day, that makes life difficult for other people. It is a curious and contradictory mixture with which we perpetually have to battle.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to Selcare. That is very much in tune with the thinking in
768
the Woolf Report on the need for the prison service to work with those involved in maintaining family ties and helping prisoners to resettle in the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wanted to know what the position is regarding the embryo scheme for a network of charity shops which intend to sell crafts and other products made by prisoners in prison workshops. The prison service is in touch with the Koestler Trust over the practical details and the ideas for a charity shop scheme for selling products made by prisoners.
There is also the considerable organisational task of producing a wider range of constructive activities, especially in our overcrowded local prisons. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State rightly put strong and immediate emphasis on that when the Woolf report was published. The Government fully accept that constructive activities and training opportunities must be developed, and work and training must be properly planned. It would be most useful where it leads to qualifications recognised by outside employers, and the development of national vocational qualifications is important. Sentence planning, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred, will also have a valuable part to play.
There is always the risk that there will be unexpected obstacles. That is especially true when dealing with a large and complex organisation like the prison service. It is an organisation which is subject to considerable pressures from within and which is always having to cope with changes in the criminal justice system. That is part of the facts of life of the prison service. When the Woolf Report was published, my right honourable friend the Leader of the House commended it to your Lordships. That is the spirit in which we have been studying it in close detail. I hope that your Lordships will agree that when the White Paper is published, the work of the report and the effort which the Government and many others have subsequently put into it, will be seen to have charted a clear and better course for the prisoners well into the next century, and for those who, regrettably, find themselves within the prison system.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the observations that have been made. I only re-emphasise the point about which most noble Lords feel anxiety. Because the figure of 25 years was used, some noble Lords believe that that means the Government have no enthusiasm for the report. That is not so and I ask your Lordships to be patient. When your Lordships see the Government's response I am sure that you will be satisfied.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill
Deer Bill
Land Drainage Bill
Statute Law Revision (Isle of Man) Bill
Statutory Water Companies Bill
Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill
Water Industry Bill

Water Resources Bill
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Ports Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
Returned from the Commons with the Lords amendment to words restored to the Bill agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before eleven o'clock.