Lords Sitting of 24 July 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Cheshire
Geoffrey Leonard Cheshire, Esquire, VC, OM, DSO, DFC, having been created Baron Cheshire, of Woodhall in the County of Lincolnshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Ryder of Warsaw and the Lord Moore of Wolvercote.

School and College Buildings
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to spend more money on school and other educational buildings.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government already make significant resources available for education buildings. Support for recurrent spending by local education authorities, including building repairs and maintenance, totals £17.5 billion this year. Annual capital guidelines for county schools and further education colleges total £538 million, an increase of 11 per cent. on last year, and grant for voluntary aided schools has gone up 21 per cent. to £132 million.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those details. But is he aware that a recent report by responsible people indicates that to upgrade our schools to the standard of our contemporaries in Europe requires expenditure of a further £4 billion? Is he further aware that the city of Manchester submitted proposals for £33 million and received only £4.7 million; Leeds submitted proposals for £60 million and received only £16.7 million; London asked for £1 billion and received only £60 million? If the authorities do not receive more money than is presently allocated they will find it impossible to comply with the aims and objectives of the education of our children in this country as set out on page 41 of The Citizen's Charter which was announced recently.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, realistic estimates based on the 1986 survey of school buildings put the cost of remedying deficiencies at £2 billion at 1990 prices. LEAs spent over £2 billion on school buildings between 1986–87 and 1989–90, much of which remedied those deficiencies. School buildings are far from uniformly bad. More needs to be done, but the speed with which we can move also has to take account of the needs of the national economy.
In 1990–91 Leeds received £2.562 million, representing 16 per cent. of its bid for ACGs. The authority therefore received a substantial increase in the level of
772
the ACG this year and an increase in the percentage of its bid, which is exactly on the 35 per cent. national average. Its allocation for further education in 1991–92 is more than four times greater than in 1990–91.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that according to government figures published on Monday of this week, city technology colleges—which are schools—will receive £185 more per pupil than local authority schools? The majority of that sum relates to school buildings. In view of the need of so many local authorities to improve school buildings, what possible justification can there be for such a wide differentiation between the two payments?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, spending on repairs for maintenance by LEAs has risen from £28 per primary and secondary pupil in 1979–80 to £64 in 1988–89, which is the latest outturn year. In real terms that is an increase of 20 per cent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister please answer the question that I asked?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is a matter for administration.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister agree that since we have lost large education authorities such as the one in London, all our buildings are deteriorating? Advancing countries have a proud record of ensuring that their education is known throughout the world. Unfortunately we work the other way. Teachers struggle in very unhygienic and difficult buildings.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a little pessimistic. The last HMI report shows that in some cases there is still much work to be done. However, it also states that action by government and local authorities over recent years has led to accommodation, equipment and materials being in a healthier state than for some time.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend find it a little odd that so much interest is shown by Members on the other side of the Chamber? The Opposition have made pledges for extra spending on various matters—whenever they believe they will come into power—but they have made none whatsoever for school buildings.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I answer for the Government, not for the Opposition.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister has given some figures of increases in spending. However, is he aware that the report last year of HM Chief Inspector of Schools found that in two-thirds of secondary schools inspected the accommodation was unsatisfactory and the specialist accommodation quite ill suited to current educational needs? I assume that he agrees that a figure of £2 billion needs to be spent to bring school buildings up to the standards of the survey for 1986. But those requirements relate to the school premises regulations of 1981. Implementation of those standards has been postponed for another five years

773
until 1996. Does the Minister believe that that is a satisfactory state of affairs, in particular when the national curriculum will need quite different accommodation and equipment?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government realise the problem raised by the noble Baroness. They have given the local education authorities more time to comply with the requirements of the 1981 school premises regulations. While the review is in progress it is reasonable that the transition period for compliance with some elements of the regulations is to be extended. The noble Baroness quoted from the HMI report, as I did. We presumably chose different quotations.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on due consideration of a recent report on the conditions of school grounds and accommodation in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Teachers Union publicly declared that many of the schools in the Province fall far below the standards required for modern teaching needs? Buildings are inefficient and inadequate with regard to lighting, heating and plumbing. In many cases school grounds and accommodation are a safety hazard for pupils and staff. Does the Minister agree that in England and Wales, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have separate education authorities, there is an urgent need to undertake a thorough review of accommodation standards and of the separate capital funding arrangements in those areas?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is for LEAs and school and college governors to ensure that buildings are in an acceptable state of repair and safe. I cannot give the noble Lord answers which apply to Northern Ireland but I shall write to him. It is also for LEAs to determine their own expenditure priorities on services and between schools and colleges.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise that it is no use giving the LEAs an extra five years in which to do something if they do not have the money to do it? They would be willing to take action now if the funds were supplied.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Baroness says.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister indicated that the Government are satisfied with the percentage increase. Is he aware that according to the national average the six largest local education authorities have received at least 15 per cent. less than their bids? Does he agree that due to such a large discrepancy someone has got it wrong? I point out that my figures come from an independent source and not from a government source.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are satisfied with the increases that have been granted and those that are proposed. I am surprised that the Opposition are not satisfied too.

EC President's Views: Accountability
2.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to verify that observations by the President of the European Commission on the policies and actions of Her Majesty's Government and United Kingdom Ministers have been concurred in by a majority of Commissioners, as required by Article 163 of the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the accountability of the President of the Commission as a whole is an internal matter for the Commission.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I agree straightaway that it is desirable that the President of the Commission or any Commissioner should advance public argument in support of his own proposals. However, does the Minister agree that it is undesirable and improper that a paid international civil servant—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is undesirable and improper that a paid international civil servant should presume to criticise individual countries and their Ministers, thus participating in the domestic politics of the member state concerned? Does he agree that such important utterances implicate other Commissioners who may disagree with the President of the Commission?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord was interrupted but I believe that I understood the thrust of his question. I am aware of the remarks to which the noble Lord referred. M. Delors has always been extremely careful not to name names. As we do not recognise the attitude complained of as being ours, it would be foolish to remonstrate. Article 163 refers to Article 157 which states:
"In the performance of these duties they"—
they are the Commissioners—
"shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or from any other body".
The same article also states that each member state undertakes:
"not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks".
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, will my noble friend make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that Commissioners are not civil servants? They are one of the institutions of the Community, with their own rights and duties under the treaty. Furthermore, does he agree that one of the great virtues shown by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is that he always says what he thinks? That has the inestimable advantage of enabling the rest of us to judge whether what he thinks, and not merely what he says, is right or wrong. Would it not be desirable to extend the same courtesy to M. Jacques Delors?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I must leave the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to make what he might of those remarks, and with his great experience I am sure that he will. I agree that the noble Lord has many virtues.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the President of the Commission can behave just as he likes? No matter how deleterious or offensive he is to this nation, the Government are not prepared to do anything but simply kowtow to the President of the Commission. Is the Commission so powerful that it can dictate to our country?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Commission certainly cannot dictate to our country, nor does it seek to do so. When the Commission acts it must do so by a majority of its members. Its acts comprise proposing legislation to the Council of Ministers and taking decisions on its own authority under powers specifically delegated to it by the Council. In respect of the former we retain control. In respect of the latter we have chosen to delegate under carefully drawn conditions. The situation is no more and no less than that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have tried to follow this period of Question Time but there have been certain interruptions. Can the noble Lord confirm that the figure who walked past the Opposition Front Bench was not in fact M. Delors?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I was so heavily concentrating on the question being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I did not notice. The figure was closer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, than he was to me.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that the behaviour of M. Jacques Delors is often quite inexplicable, certainly in terms of British democracy? He seeks, or appears to seek, to interfere in the internal affairs of member states. Is it not the fault of our politicians and former leaders that we have allowed ourselves to be governed in part by a small, unelected junta sitting in a foreign capital?
Lard Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord misunderstands the problem. When we join an international organisation which has previously made historic progress, we must accommodate different stylistic changes. When M. Delors was questioned about the matter by the British press he said that he sometimes talked frankly in order to ensure that he was understood. He said that frankness was closer to friendship than hypocrisy, as I am sure we all agree.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that inasmuch as it has been established that members of the Commission are not civil servants, perhaps M. Delors talks frankly in order to establish that he is neither civil nor a servant?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, do we not need a new collective noun? Just as we talk of a gaggle of geese, should we not talk of a babble of bureaucrats in Brussels?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe that we have the collective noun; it is the Commission.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister convey to his noble friend Lord Cock field my deepest appreciation of his expressions of my sincerity in these matters? Will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that, being as frank as I am on these occasions, I shall not hesitate to protect the future Labour Government from any such infringements in the same way as I have defended them?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I know that all noble Lords appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, speaks with utter sincerity and feels most strongly about these matters.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Palace of Westminster: Traffic Management
3 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that present traffic flow arrangements in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster are consistent with the optimum safety of pedestrians crossing Bridge Street at its junction with Parliament Square, and of motorists emerging from Chancellor's Gate.
Earl Howe: My Lords, traffic management in the area is the responsibility of the local highway authority, which is Westminster City Council. I understand that at the Bridge Street junction there have been only three accidents involving pedestrians in the past three years. There have been none involving motorists emerging from Chancellor's Gate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that informative reply. Is he aware that pedestrians crossing Bridge Street at the junction with Parliament Square are allocated a mere 12.5 seconds to cross in every minute-and-a-half; that is, eight-and-one-third minutes in every hour? In practice the position is even worse. Pedestrians, many of whom are elderly, infirm or foreign tourists unused to traffic driving on the left, often have less than 10 seconds to cross because of the volume of traffic which continues to emerge from Parliament Square in the direction of Westminster Bridge long after the pedestrian lights have turned green. Will the noble Earl and his department try to persuade the appropriate authority to rephase the traffic lights to give pedestrians an even greater chance of survival?
Is the noble Earl aware also that motorists emerging from Chancellor's Gate towards Parliament Square must negotiate an extremely sharp and dangerous right hand turn because of the presence of a traffic island in the middle of the road?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am trying to help your Lordships. Traffic emerging from Chancellor's Gate must negotiate an extremely sharp right hand turn

777
because of the presence of a traffic island in the middle of the road. Will the noble Earl try to persuade the appropriate authority to move the traffic island two or three yards further north for the sake of road safety?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the pedestrian crossing at Bridge Street is a matter for Westminster City Council. I understand that there are no present plans to improve the crossing. The first imperative for any local authority is safety. That is not an unsafe crossing. As I have indicated, it has a good safety record.
As regards rephasing the lights in Parliament Square, one must remember that effective traffic management in Parliament Square and the approach roads depends critically on split second timing in the way that traffic signals are programmed. The effectiveness of the traffic signals has worked well during the past few months since they were installed. The traffic island outside Chancellor's Gate is carefully placed as a marker to vehicles wishing to turn into Chancellor's Gate from the south. To move it could hamper that function.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to the appropriate local authority that some of us noticed a distinct improvement in safety since the introduction of traffic lights at the junction?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. That is a view with which I agree.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree that there has been an improvement, particularly as regards the traffic stopping at the traffic lights at the pedestrian crossing? Is he aware that I am glad to hear that the matter is under the control of the local authority? I have memories of Lord Winterton stamping with fury on the pavement because he was not allowed to cross the road at any moment he chose. It was his contention that access to this building was within the power of the building and that the local authority had nothing to do with it. I am glad to hear that that is not the case. However, we should make it clear that we have some rights in this building to control access to it for our own purposes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We have the power to make representations and I should be happy to encourage noble Lords, through the department, to make such representations if they have any particular views about access to the Palace of Westminster.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I use that crossing several times each week and although I am over 80 I have no difficulty in crossing the road in good time?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very interested to hear that. In fact, the traffic signals include a pedestrian phase which allows a minimum of 15 and not 12.5 seconds. That meets departmental standards.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that safety might be enhanced if Members
778
of the House of Lords were allowed the same police provision out into the street as is allowed to Members of another place?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe we all agree that the police in our House are particularly helpful. However, the prime duty of the police is security. The difficulty with the suggestion that they should act also as traffic constables is that that could detract from their security role. I know that both Black Rod and the Chief Superintendent are aware of Peers' worries on the subject. They accept that there are occasions when staff could offer assistance to Peers turning right out of the car park. That matter is being taken up with the staff this week.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is there not a case for a pedestrian underpass at each of the five roads where they come into Parliament Square, especially in view of the fact that Parliament Square is an enormous tourist attraction?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that would be a very expensive option, particularly bearing in mind that pedestrian facilities have been enhanced with the recent installation of the new traffic lights.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that safety would be further improved if the parking of commercial and other vehicles immediately outside your Lordships' car park was prevented? Such parking causes one to be unsighted as regards vehicles approaching from Parliament Square when one wishes to join the traffic.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I accept that that can pose a problem. However, parking on the main carriageway outside this House is more of a rarity now in view of security considerations. The police move on cars if they stop outside the barriers. A further point is that if in due course Millbank, Abingdon Street, and St. Margaret's Street become red routes then the enforcement effort will be more concentrated.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, speaking as one involved in one of the three accidents, would it not help if the people who caused accidents were charged in court and punished? In the case in question a young man smashed up six vehicles and was not charged at all.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am glad to know that the noble Baroness is fully recovered from her injuries. For obvious reasons I cannot comment on what happened to the young man who caused them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Earl for the exemplary, civil and excellent way in which he has responded to these questions.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, as somebody who has had an accident on the edge of the car park, perhaps I may say that there has been a tremendous improvement since the introduction of the traffic lights because there is now sufficient time to cross to

779
Parliament Square. However, it would help greatly if a channel could be made for vehicles wishing to get into the line of traffic.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's comments and I shall pass them on to the department.

New Rented Housing: Figures
3.18 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Flow many new homes to let were completed in the first half of 1991 in the public and private sectors respectively.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, figures for June 1991 are not yet available. However, in the first five months of 1991 some 3,800 local authority and 5,900 housing association dwellings for letting were completed in England. There is no detailed information about private enterprise building for letting, but the extension of the business expansion scheme of tax relief for investment in rented housing has resulted in some £700 million being raised since 1988, which should provide about 12,000 additional homes to rent.
Lord Jay: My Lords, do not those rather pathetic figures of houses being built go far to explain why homeless totals are getting worse? Do they not show also that the Government's policy of producing adequate houses to rent through the private sector is an almost total failure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay. It is implicit from what he said that he believes that only local authorities can be providers. Deregulation is going a long way towards encouraging the provision of more rented accommodation. We have a number of measures, which I could catalogue if there were time, which will encourage the provision of more rented accommodation. That will provide more homes for people.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister inform me whether there is any prospect of some of the surplus accommodation which has been occupied by service personnel being made available to homeless people? Has any thought been given to that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. I have returned to that a number of times recently to say that a debate is ensuing between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence. However, the Ministry of Defence is now actively considering the possibility of making provision for the young soldiers and sailors who will be made redundant as a result of the Options for Change announcement.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many houses from public housing stock will be sold to the occupants during the period when she says that 12,000 new homes will be available to rent?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is confusing two issues. These are not new homes for rent. The business expansion scheme is bringing some old housing into stock for rent. The 12,000 homes will consist of restored, renovated old properties which will then be made available for rent.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, before asking my noble friend a question, on behalf of the House perhaps I may wish her a happy birthday. Can the Minister say why noble Lords opposite opposed deregulation of the rented sector?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those kind comments. I find I am having to make an adjustment to having very public birthdays.
What my noble friend says is true, and it is an important point. Noble Lords opposite opposed deregulation. It is our view that allowing landlords to obtain a fair rent for their property will go a long way to making rented accommodation available for those who need it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a dearth of accommodation to rent for young people living in rural areas? Can she say what the Government are doing to encourage local authorities to give planning permission concerning small plots of land in order that people may build houses which could provide cheaply-rented accommodation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Countess makes an important point: such planning permissions could free homes both for sale and for rent. However, perhaps I may mention that there is a leaflet available which will go a long way to encourage people who have a spare room in their homes to rent off part of the property. The leaflet is demystifying and it will help people through the mechanisms for doing that. Therefore a great deal is being done, including the introduction of an exceptions policy which the Government have put in place. That allows land which otherwise would not be used for housing to be made available for the building of low cost housing in rural areas.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures announced are disappointing? They are possibly the smallest figures on record. Bearing in mind that the survey by the Department of the Environment shows that 1 million new houses will be needed by the turn of the century, is the Minister aware that should the Government bring forward any plans to inflate the present situation and put a proper house-building programme into operation, they will receive the fullest support from this side of the House?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not saying that the proposals will meet all the housing provision required. However, the measures that the Government are taking will make more rented accommodation available than would be available under the party opposite.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have entered the 31st minute. At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Ullswater will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on industrial relations that is being made in another place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it in order to ask who was the person who walked through the House while the Question of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington was being asked? Was he a Member of the House; a member of the staff; or was he somebody from the street?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I am assured that he was a Member of this noble House.
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Cattewater Reclamation Bill
London Docklands Railway Bill
London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
London Underground Bill
Midland Metro Bill

Midland Metro (No. 2) Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is a further carry-over Motion. These are eight Private Bills which originated in another place and have not yet completed their passage through this House.
Moved, That the promoters of each Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on Thursday 17th October next and that all fees due thereon up to that date have been paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session the agents for the Bill deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every
782
stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session;
That in the case of any Bill against which there is any petition outstanding—

(i) any such petition which has been presented (if not withdrawn) stand referred to any Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a Select Committee on the Bill during the present Session stand referred to any Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(iii) no petitioners be heard before any Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated for the deposit of petitions in the present Session or deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 109(b);

(iv) Private Business Standing Order 110 have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.14 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
There is only one item on the report to which I need to draw your Lordships' special attention; that is the first item regarding the wearing of robes by Bishops. Your Lordships will recall that there was a slight difficulty a few weeks ago when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester was advised that he could not vote because he was not correctly robed. The committee has given consideration to that difficulty with the benefit of advice from the Bishops themselves. The conclusion is that whenever possible robes should be worn in the Lobby, but that in exceptional circumstances Bishops may wear other dress.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:
ORDERED TO REPORT:—
WEARING OF ROBES BY BISHOPS
1. The Committee has considered the wearing of robes by bishops, with the benefit of advice from the bishops themselves. It reaffirms the requirement that the traditional robes of rochet and chimere should be worn in the Chamber. As for the division lobbies, the Committee supports the principle that the rules of dress and conduct in the lobbies should be as far as possible the same as in the Chamber. However, it is acknowledged that it would be unfair to insist on robes in the lobbies at all times, since under certain circumstances a requirement to robe might

783
deprive bishops of the opportunity to vote. The Committee concludes that whenever possible robes should be worn in the lobby, but that in exceptional circumstances bishops can wear other dress. When bishops are outside the Chamber, but within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, their dress should be a matter for individual discretion.
VOTING ON THE WOOLSACK AND IN THE CHAIR
2. Standing Order 15 makes clear that when the House is:; fitting (except as a committee of the whole House) and the Lord Chancellor is present, he should be on the Woolsack. A consequence of this is that when a division takes place, the Lord Chancellor should vote from the Woolsack. The Lord Chancellor is always robed when on the Woolsack. Standing Order 59 similarly requires that if the Chairman of Committees is present while the House is in committee, he should vote in the Chair. The Committee believes that it would be unreasonable to deprive these officers of the right to vote by an absolute requirement that they vote on the Woolsack or in the Chair. The Committee therefore recommends that, in exceptional circumstances, they should be entitled to vote by passing through the lobbies.
CHANGES TO THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3.The Committee recommends certain changes to the Minutes of Proceedings, to make the Minutes a more comprehensive procedural record, and more helpful to the reader. First, division lists should be printed at the back of the Minutes. Second, the long titles of bills should be printed at first reading. Finally, a new heading should be introduced for motions put down on the Order Paper under "No Day Named", highlighting motions concerning select committee reports. These should be tabled on publication of the report, and give the date of tabling in brackets after the motion.
JOINT MEETINGS WITH COMMONS COMMITTEES
4. The Committee recommends that instead of giving Lords committees the power to meet concurrently with Commons committees ad hoc, standing orders should be amended to allow all select committees to meet in this way. It recommends the following amendment to standing orders:
"64A Any Select Committee of the House shall have leave to confer and meet concurrently with any Committee or Sub-Committee of the Commons appointed to consider a similar matter, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and may communicate to any such Committee or Sub-Committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest. Any Select Committee of the House shall also have leave to give this power to confer and meet concurrently to any Sub-Committee appointed by it."
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, perhaps I may express the gratitude of the Bishops' Bench for what has been decided. That is a great convenience to US.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Custody (Time Limits) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Breeding of Dogs Bill
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—( Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Read a third time, and passed.

Armed Forces Bill
3.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 16 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of the death penalty
.—(1) In each of the 1955 Acts—

(a) in subsection (3) of section 24 (misconduct in action), subsection (2) of section 25 (assisting the enemy), and subsection (3) of section 26 (obstructing operations etc), paragraph (a) and the words "(b) in any other case," shall be deleted;

(b) in subsection (I) of section 31 (mutiny) the word "death" shall be deleted and the word "imprisonment" inserted; and

(c) in section 32 (failure to suppress mutiny) sub-paragraph (i) and the words "(ii) in any other case," shall be deleted.

(2) In the 1957 Act—

(a) in subsection (3) of section 2 (misconduct in action), subsection (2) of section 3 (assisting the enemy), and subsection (3) of section 4 (obstructing operations etc), paragraph (a) and the words "(b) in any other case," shall be deleted;

(b) in subsection (1) of section 9 (offences of mutiny) the word "death" shall be deleted and the word "imprisonment" inserted; and

(c) in section 10 (failure to suppress mutiny), the word "death" shall be deleted and the word imprisonment" inserted in its place, and the words "and in any other case, to imprisonment or any less punishment so authorised" shall be deleted.").

The noble Lord said: Those who followed these matters both in another place and at Second Reading —but especially those who have read the report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill—will be well aware of the issue that I intend to raise. For the benefit of the Committee and those who are in possession of the report, paragraphs 34 and 35, headed "Racial Harassment" are the matters being dealt with by the amendment.
The Minister will recall that at Second Reading I readily acknowledged the first words of paragraph 34, which state,
"In general we would commend the Armed Forces for the determination with which the problem of bullying has been tackled".
From my experience and from correspondence that I have received, that conclusion is reinforced. However, there is a body of evidence which clearly indicates that we need to do a little more.
The Earl of Arran: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I wonder whether he is referring to the correct amendment. My understanding is that we are debating Amendment No. 1, which concerns the death penalty.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have just died the death in the light of what has been said. The Minister is right. I picked up the amendments before today without the annotation on them. I apologise to the Committee for that error.
The issue of the death penalty is one to which I drew the attention of noble Lords at Second Reading. The Minister will recognise that this matter is dealt with in paragraph 21 of the report. In that paragraph the subject is not only given an airing but attention is also drawn to the fact that the Select Committee recommended to the House that the death penalty for certain offences which now exist in military law should be abolished. On a Division the matter was resolved in another place so the situation has not changed. In other words, for certain offences the death penalty stands in time of war.
There are a great many countries which are members of NATO, and others, which shared our stand on this matter for many years but which have subsequently changed their attitudes to the question. For example, the French—with whose forces many of the British forces fought in the recent war in the Gulf —have recently taken steps to abolish the death penalty in time of war for offences such as treason and so on. In recent years, Denmark, Norway, Australia and New Zealand have all revoked the death penalty for what I would call "military offences".
I want the Committee to acknowledge and the Minister to appreciate that I am not putting forward a one-off attitude as regards those in Britain who share my views; it is part of an international trend. I know that the Minister follows these matters closely and that he will accept that statement. The main argument which is sometimes put forward as to why we should not adopt the amendment is that there is a deterrent present as the law and regulations now stand. However, as we have seen in many instances, the argument that a deterrent has been sufficiently strong to deter a likely killer, murderer or transgressor, does not have the weight that it did in the past.
The death penalty being applied in wartime, by the very nature of the circumstances, clearly indicates that there is a great deal of political weight as opposed to judicial weight when such circumstances arise. The burden of the amendment is to give the Minister the opportunity to defend the position in 1991. A great many of the allies with whom we work have recognised, as we have done, that in 1991 matters have changed considerably over the years. Without any detriment to their civil code and the comparison between civilians and the armed forces, they have seen no objection and have taken positive steps to change their policy.
I remind the noble Earl that it is less than 30 years since the death penalty was abolished in civilian life. I am pleading on behalf of those who may very well
786
transgress in wartime when they are in the forces. They should not have the death penalty visited on them. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew: This is not a party matter. I have no doubt that most, if not all of my noble friends, agree with me, but I am expressing my own opinion. I do not find this an easy question to answer. At Second Reading we all agreed on the principle of bringing military law into line with civil law. I recall that the noble Earl objected. In civil law the death penalty can still be imposed for treason. If we pass the amendment we shall be separating military law from civil law. However, for those who believe that in both cases the death penalty should not be imposed, there is no logical difficulty here.
There are reasonable grounds for maintaining the death penalty in military law. Apparently, that is the view of the armed forces themselves. That is an argument of the greatest importance which we should always bear in mind. The penalty is hedged about with innumerable conditions nowadays. The death penalty can only be imposed in the most extraordinary circumstances. Mere cowardice and a refusal to obey orders is no longer punishable by death. But times have changed since A.E. Housman wrote about a victim of a firing squad:
"He could not look on death, which being known, Men led him to it Blindfold and alone".
Nowadays a capital offence has to be committed with intent to assist the enemy so that A.E. Housman's victim would be let off. It would also let out a dispatch rider I remember who refused to take a message during a battle. The fact is that times have changed a great deal. For today's armed services the death penalty appears to be an anomaly and an anachronism. As I have said, the death penalty is hedged about with so many qualifications that it can be imposed only in circumstances that are so extraordinary that they will never arise.
In practice, how likely are we to be presented in our voluntary and professional armed forces with a mutiny of a kind in which we would deem it appropriate to punish by shooting or hanging the culprits? That is inconceivable today. Perhaps in the past such a scenario carried some weight, but it has no credibility at all today. It can only have credibility in the future if our society changed for the worse and beyond recognition. My view is that we are here to legislate for today. We do not need to legislate for a hypothetical, disastrous future. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment although I am sure that it is put forward in all sincerity and with good intentions. In considering the matter the Committee should recall the peculiar and difficult situation which faces members of the armed forces in war. The tension, strain and the danger are all very serious factors indeed. It has always been thought necessary that in order to make sure that the discipline of the services is preserved under stress and in difficult and

787
dangerous circumstances there should be, if necessary, the death penalty for mutiny or failure to comply with proper orders.
To abolish that sentence now would seem to be very unwise. To abolish it is a matter for very careful consideration. We are dealing with what has been the law for a very long time. The death penalty has always been accepted by the armed forces as being a necessary part of the law. If we withdraw that penalty from this area it would seem to many people that we were beginning to treat a failure to carry out orders or disobedience in the face of the enemy as less serious than: they have been treated before. Despite the good intentions which have been expressed and the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, that it is not a penalty which will need to be invoked very often, as the ultimate deterrent it is absolutely vital that it should remain. I commend to the Committee, and in particular to the mover and seconder of the amendment, the words of the prayer of Sir Robert Hutchinson:
"From inability to let well alone From too much zeal for the new and Contempt for what is old … Good Lord deliver us".
3.30 p.m.
Lord Milverton: I feel that I am ready to accept this amendment. I have to ask myself whether it is right that a soldier, sailor or airman who commits one of these offences should face the death penalty. I can only make a decision on this matter according to how I know I would feel. I have a connection with the armed services through my brother and I know that those men and women have courage; but they also have fear, do they not? They may appear to be men and women full of courage and with no fear, but underneath they will tell you that they do have fear, even though they have taken up a profession where they know the dangers and what they will meet in the terribleness of war. We have come to the time when I do not know that it is right for us to say to a serviceman or woman that, although the chance is remote, there is the possibility they will face the death penalty. We do not know what is going on in the mind of anyone who has committed one of these offences, or the reasons or fears that made them do it. They are still men and women who have a great love for their country but they have been unable to face up to an ultimate situation.
I thank God that I have not had to face war as a serviceman. It so happened that when any of the wars broke out I was not the right age. I know dashed well that however much support I may have, in the circumstances of war I would be as frightened as hell and may well do something that would result in the death penalty. I think the penalty is wrong. Surely anyone who finds himself in that position would be dismissed from the service; and all that that involves would surely, in a sense, be as much a sentence of death. I do not think the death penalty is right. Perhaps offending servicemen and women need better help than to be told they have to face the death sentence.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I respect the sincerely held belief of the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Mayhew, and others in this Chamber that the death penalty under service law should be abolished, which is what Amendment No. 1 seeks to do. This is a matter of the utmost seriousness—that the state currently gives service courts the power to pass the death sentence on one of its citizens.
Perhaps I can discuss the matter of servicemen and women as citizens. When they join the armed forces of this country men and women do not cease to be citizens with the rights and privileges of citizenship but they subject themselves also to a body of law which is designed to provide for the effectiveness of the services as a fighting force through its disciplinary system. In this way, those who serve in the armed forces are set apart from civilians.
We have heard much about the need for service law and civil law to be in line with each other. I accept that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, that should be the case. That is why much of the present Bill, like its predecessors, is concerned with bringing service law closer into line with civil law. Nevertheless, there are, of course, many instances where it is not possible or sensible for service law to be identical to civil law. Service law has to be framed to respond to the circumstances of service life in this country, in communities overseas and during armed operations against an enemy. If it does not, it will not be respected or upheld. We think it is right, therefore, that we have sought the views of the services on the matter. They are firmly of the view that the death penalty should be retained for the five service offences for which it remains a sentencing option.
We should consider this subject against the fundamental principle that the first duty of government is to defend the state and its people. In the final analysis it is the armed forces that carry out this task on our behalf. We must therefore examine with the utmost care any proposal which could be viewed as putting those forces at greater risk than they may already face in operations against our enemies.
The obvious reason for retaining the death penalty is that it is a deterrent. I cannot prove this to the Committee any more than those of a contrary view can prove that it is not. Some will argue that the number of murders in this country did not rise dramatically following the abolition of the death penalty for murder; hence the death penalty was not a deterrent for murder. Yet would one have necessarily expected a dramatic rise? In well over 70 per cent. of murders the victim and the murderer are known to each other. Some 62 per cent. of all female victims are related to or are the lover of their murderer. Many of those victims die as a result of sudden uncontrolled anger by their killers. In those circumstances, we contend, the existence of the death penalty is unlikely to be a deterrent.
I accept that equally in this country we have abolished the death penalty for heinous crimes such as planting bombs calculated to cause a substantial number of deaths and physical damage. But we are talking about abolishing the death penalty for crimes of which only those subject to service law can be

789
accused: crimes of treachery with far reaching implications which service personnel having access to information and equipment are in a unique position to perpetrate; crimes committed with the deliberate intent to assist the enemy in achieving his objectives; and crimes potentially of such seriousness as to threaten the viability of the armed forces and thus, ultimately, the existence of the state. We are talking about calculated actions in time of operations against an enemy, effectively in time of war, and I believe that there is a distinction.
I want to be clear that I do not see the death penalty as retribution as a significant factor in this matter. One of our duties is to protect the lives of servicemen and women who are already facing death at the hands of the enemy in whatever ways seem appropriate. It casts no slur on the professionalism and dedication of those forces that we seek to retain the death penalty. Servicemen or women who may be betrayed by the deliberate treachery of a colleague may well question why, in those circumstances, the colleague faces no more than a period (albeit a long one) in prison but in safety while they remain in danger at the front. Our servicemen and women are prepared, and in extremis may be expected, to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Should they not have the reassurance that if a fellow serviceman deliberately betrays them, putting them at even greater risk, that he should, if convicted, face the possibility of paying the ultimate penalty? That point was made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Finally, I must make it absolutely clear that the death penalty for service offences is not a mandatory sentence as it still is for the civil offence of treason. The offences which attract the death penalty under service law potentially have such far reaching implications for the continued existence of the state that they can be viewed as akin to treason. Even more, they carry with them the prospect of mass destruction of human life largely, perhaps, among those who are already risking their lives in the course of duty. Until such time as Parliament agrees any change to the law relating to treason it would surely be premature to remove the death penalty for the five service offences to which it applies.
It is with those very serious considerations that I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister and to all those who have contributed to the debate. Their contributions have been helpful. Members of the Committee have referred to the five categories of crime that are currently capable of attracting the death penalty. No one has actually spelt out the five categories. I shall tell the Committee what they are: misconduct in action, assisting the enemy, obstructing operations, mutiny and failure to suppress a mutiny.
The reasons why the death penalty is no longer appropriate in 1991 for those offences in wartime are the same as those which were accepted by the House and the country for abolishing it in civilian life. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that people who were convicted 20 years ago on irrefutable evidence
790
are now walking free because in latter years it has been proved that the conviction was suspect or faulty. Who is to say that every penalty of death in war for alleged crimes is correct? Mistakes happen. People like myself were repelled by the prospect that an innocent person might be found guilty of a murder in civilian life and then be hanged. The same thing could happen in wartime. Juries in wartime are no less fallible than juries in peacetime. That is one of the arguments.
I respect what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. In effect he said that the death penalty has served the nation well in the past, is appropriate now and should continue to be available. The countries that I have mentioned which shared those views in the past have changed their minds in the light of considerations of humanity and changes in civil liberties. We are saying that those in the forces who are alleged to have committed these crimes ought not to be put to death because of them.
I remind the Minister that in December 1989 the United Nations General Assembly voted to adopt a second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for abolition of the death penalty for all offences. The United Nations voted for the adoption of the optional protocol in the United Nations General Assembly.
I respect what the Minister said. I certainly respect what the armed forces have said. I believe that the Minister, the Government and the armed forces are wrong to maintain that attitude in 1991. However, I see no useful purpose in testing the will of the Committee on this issue. It was well aired and debated in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Industrial Relations
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's proposals for further reform of the law on industrial relations which are published in a Green Paper today.
"These proposals are designed to consolidate and build on the improvement in this country's industrial relations over the past 12 years. Their purpose is to ensure that we have an effective and up-to-date framework of law in order to maintain that progress through the 1990s. Each of the proposals contained in the Green Paper is carefully

791
designed to meet a clear deficiency in our present arrangements. They are designed to increase the rights of individual members of the public, of individual trade union members and of the community at large.
"The first group of proposals in the Green Paper concerns strikes and other forms of industrial action. It is worth recalling, Mr. Speaker, that before 1980 the law gave trade unions a virtually unlimited licence to organise strikes and industrial action, no matter how remote they were from the original dispute. There was no requirement for strike ballots and the law allowed the disruptive effects of industrial action to be spread far and wide by flying pickets.
"As a direct result of this Government's legislation, the law now protects jobs and businesses against secondary action and secondary picketing and, for the first time in our history, strike ballots have become a generally accepted feature of British industrial relations. Few now seriously question the role our legislation has played in reducing the number of strikes to its current level—
the lowest for more than 60 years. We now propose to strengthen the law in the following ways.
"First, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in his Statement on Monday, we propose to provide a new right for members of the public in relation to unlawful industrial action which affects a public service. At present, the employer has the right to bring proceedings against a trade union which organises an unlawful strike. Members of the public, who are usually the specific target of industrial action, have no such right. If the employer does nothing, the citizen is defenceless.
"We need to look no further than the recent strike of refuse collectors and other council employees in Liverpool for evidence of the need for citizens to be able to take action for themselves to protect the services on which they depend. We therefore propose to establish a new right for members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting a public service, if the employer concerned fails to use the remedies available to him. This proposal has been widely welcomed. It will enhance the protection of the public and it will be a further deterrent to unlawful industrial action.
"Secondly, we propose to make it a legal requirement that unions should give at least seven days' notice of a strike. A period of strike notice is a well established feature of the law in other countries. This requirement will help to protect the general public from the hardship caused by lightning strikes in public services. It will also allow employers to take steps to safeguard jobs and business.
"I turn now to the rights of union members. The House will recall that in 1979 union members had no statutory right to elect their leaders. Nor did they have any statutory right to vote in a secret ballot before a strike. They had no protection against fines and expulsion from their union if they
792
refused to strike. In short, the law allowed union leaders to exercise what the Attorney-General of the day described as "lawful intimidation" against their own members. Now, as a result of our legislation, every union member has the right to elect his leaders by secret ballot and to vote in secret before he is called out on strike.
"But experience has shown that the existing law does not always provide fully effective protection against fraud and malpractice in trade union ballots. For example, the Transport and General Workers Union elections for its national executive in 1990, and before that the General Secretary election in 1984, both had to be re-run because of allegations of widespread vote-rigging in the first ballot. Accordingly, the Green Paper proposes a number of changes in the law to strengthen the democratic rights of union members by giving them the opportunity to inspect their union's membership register to detect bogus and duplicate names and by requiring records to be kept of the number of ballot papers issued and returned in each locality. In addition, we propose to extend the requirements for fully postal voting and independent scrutiny, which have applied to union elections since 1988, so that they also cover strike ballots and ballots on union mergers.
"I propose a number of further changes in the law to strengthen the rights of union members. The first concerns an employee's freedom to join the union of his choice. As a result of the Employment Act 1990 no one can lawfully be refused employment because he is, or is not, a trade union member. But it is still the case that the operation of the TUC's so-called "Bridlington principles" can deny individual workers the opportunity to belong to the union which they believe will most effectively represent their interests.
"Indeed, the Bridlington principles can effectively deny an employee any choice at all in the union he joins. In some cases, they prevent him from belonging to any union except the union he wants to leave. If a union member disagrees with the policies of his union, he may find that his only choice is between remaining in that union or ceasing to be a member of any union affiliated to the TUC.
"It is no surprise, therefore, that the Bridlington principles have come under increasing strain and that they are now regarded as unworkable even by the leaders of major TUC unions. For example, the General Secretary-elect of the TGWU, Mr. Bill Morris, said recently that the Bridlington principles are "ripe for review" and that,
"today when we are about choice and opportunity for the individual there is no choice or opportunity within them".
The recent turmoil in the construction union is clear evidence of the truth of those remarks.
"We therefore propose that where more than one union represents employees in a particular occupation or industry, individual employees should be free to choose which union they join

793
without the constraint of any arrangement between trade unions which is designed to deny them that freedom of choice.
"The second proposal for strengthening the rights of union members concerns the practice of making automatic deductions from employees' pay on behalf of their union. It is a clear anomaly in the law that deductions—which may include special strike levies as well as union subscriptions—can be made from the pay of a union member without his consent.
"If these so-called check-off arrangements have been agreed between his employer and his trade union, there is nothing an individual employee can do to escape from them, short of resigning from his union. There is evidence that, in some cases, these arrangements operate without even the knowledge of the employees concerned. In the construction industry, for example, some employees have found that through the check-off they were paying subscriptions to a union that they had never joined.
"Accordingly, we propose to make it unlawful for any deduction to be made from an employee's pay on behalf of a trade union without his individual, written consent. We do not propose to make the practice of the so-called check-off unlawful as it is in France, but we do propose that in future it should have to operate with the consent of each employee.
"The third proposal concerns the ability of members to ensure that the finances of their unions are managed—and are seen to be managed properly. The Lightman Report on the conduct of the NUM's finances during and after the miners' strike of 1984–85 revealed serious irregularities. The findings of that report indicated a clear need to strengthen the law to protect the rights of union members. The Green Paper contains a number of proposals to increase the accountability of union leaders to their members for the conduct of their union's financial affairs and to strengthen the powers of the independent certification officer.
"The final proposal in the Green Paper concerns the legal status of collective agreements. The law in this country is virtually unique in creating a presumption that collective agreements are not legally binding on both parties. In most other industrialised countries it is normal practice for collective agreements to have the status of contracts which impose obligations equally on both parties. In those countries employers and trade unions alike find that this brings greater clarity and precision to collective bargaining and greater stability to industrial relations.
"Furthermore, the effect of the UK's tradition of non-binding collective agreements is, in practice, to create an imbalance of obligations. On the one hand, trade unions are free to ignore agreements that they have signed and to organise and threaten strikes even while agreements are in force. Employers, on the other hand, are legally obliged to observe the terms of a collective agreement where these are imported into the individual contracts of
794
their employees. The result is that the terms of collective agreements are legally enforceable by employees against their employers but not by employers against trade unions.
"Now that there is a much wider acceptance of the role of the law in industrial relations, the Government believe that the time has come to consider a change which would give positive encouragement to the development of legally enforceable agreements which would be binding on both parties. The proposal in the Green Paper is to reverse the present statutory presumption so that a collective agreement would be legally binding unless it contained a specific provision to the contrary.
"Employers and trade unions would, of course, remain free to decide whether or not to make collective agreements legally binding. But changing the law in this way would mean that negotiators would have to consider in each case whether there were advantages in giving all or part of a collective agreement the status of an enforceable contract, and it would make it easier for them to conclude legally binding agreements if they wished to do so.
"We have now reached a decisive stage in the history of industrial relations in this country. As a result of the legislation which this Government have introduced since 1980 our industrial relations have achieved a stability and a maturity which seemed unattainable in the 1970s. It is now generally accepted that the law has a legitimate and necessary role to play in protecting the individual and the community as a whole against the abuse of industrial power.
"These proposals will benefit individual members of the public by giving them protection against lightning strikes and a new legal right to stop unlawful strikes in the public services.
"These proposals will benefit union members by giving them the right to join the union of their choice, the right to protect the funds of their union from mismanagement and the right to decide for themselves whether union dues and strike levies should be automatically deducted from their pay.
"These proposals will benefit the country as a whole by making it even more attractive to overseas investors by providing further safeguards against irresponsible industrial action and encouraging legally enforceable agreements which are common practice in almost every other major industrialised country.
"The choice before this House and the country is now clear. On the one hand, we could undo much of the legislation of the last 12 years and in some respects go further than ever before in increasing the power of trade unions and making strikes easier, longer, more frequent and more damaging. That is the policy of the party opposite and its trade union supporters. On the other hand, we can carry forward the process of reform and build on the achievements of the last 12 years. That is what the proposals in the Green Paper are designed to achieve and that is why I believe that they deserve the support of this House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and also for his courtesy in allowing me to have an advance copy of it. However, I am sure that it will come as no surprise to him that I cannot welcome the Statement; nor do I think that it will find much of a welcome outside of this House among the electorate generally. If the Government think that there is electoral mileage in playing the union card again, they may find that they have been gravely mistaken.
Many people, including those in management, now think that we have had enough labour law. Seven pieces of legislation affecting unions and restricting union rights have emanated from this Government since 1979. Moreover, we now have a so-called Citizen's Charter. But the citizen envisaged by the Government is primarily a consumer. He or she is apparently not an employee because, if we look to the charter for employees' rights relative to an employer, we shall be gravely disappointed.
The employee, no matter how poor or vulnerable, is not seen as needing protection from a powerful and exploitative employer. Indeed, the rights of employees in employment have been substantially eroded by this Government, thus making it much more difficult to take cases to industrial tribunals. They have also removed the right of appeal from dismissed strikers and eroded the powers of wages councils to set minimum conditions, and so on. Of course in the case of GCHQ, even the right to belong to a trade union is refused.
As I have said, previous legislation has already severely restricted trade union rights. It has done so in a way that has brought condemnation of the united Kingdom from the Committee of Experts at the International Labour Office. That committee identified nine different ways in which UK legislation was in breach, as it saw it, of ILO conventions to which Britain is a signatory. We now have this further set of propositions. They are irrelevant to our training and employment requirements where the need is for job creation. These propositions will not support or assist job creation, no matter what the Government may pretend.
I believe that it has always been the Government's intention to utilise the law to keep down labour costs; hence their attitude to wages councils, exemplified in a Question I put to the House last week when the Minister said that wages councils had outlived their usefulness. Britain is a low pay country. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place said that Britain had one of the lowest labour costs in the European Community: one half of the costs in Germany; one third of the costs in France or Italy; only Greece, Portugal and Spain were cheaper. Despite that, we still have rising unemployment, and now further anti-union legislation. What does it amount to?
Check-off validation is likely to cause more administrative work for employers as well as unions. Employers with stable industrial relations, and there
796
are many of them, are hardly likely to welcome it. When I was a union official it was customary to ask individual employees to signify upon a piece of paper that they wanted their trade union contributions deducted from their pay.
There is then an attempt to undermine the policy of the TUC in relation to the Bridlington regulations which, incidentally, have been supported by the courts and lauded by employers. They have assisted in resolving inter-union conflicts and have established a clear and unambiguous set of rules which everyone understands. Again, I do not believe that foreign investors, especially the Japanese, who tend to want to negotiate single union agreements, will be happy with that proposal. No one involved in industrial relations on the management side welcomes fragmentation of union membership. There is nothing wrong in requiring that someone who wishes to become a union member should join the union that negotiates the wages and conditions at the establishment in which the individual is employed. That is the criterion which guided disputes tribunals operating at the TUC under the Bridlington regulations.
There is next the proposition about declaring to members senior officials' salaries and the general disclosure of accounts. Most unions already do that under existing legislation. Most union officials are not well paid by the standards of industry or commerce. Even general secretaries consider themselves fortunate to receive salaries of even one tenth of what is now paid to senior executives of newly privatised undertakings. The general secretary (the chief executive) of the largest trade union in Great Britain receives the princely salary of £45,000 a year.
There are further provisions about disputes. One would have thought that the Government had already made it difficult enough for unions to organise disputes without importing more restrictions. It is already necessary to tell individual members, in a prescribed form on the ballot paper, that their vote for a dispute automatically breaches their contracts of employment. I cannot imagine why that should be so. In many European countries, the contract is merely suspended during an official dispute. It is now no longer possible to act under the union's rules against individual members who break those rules. So-called secondary action (sympathy action) is already illegal. The closed shop has been outlawed. It must have been difficult for the Government to think up further restraints, but they have clearly done their best, or their worst, however one cares to look at it.
So the notion has been thought up that a member of the public will in future be able to sue if inconvenienced by an official dispute; but suppose the dispute has arisen because of employer provocation. Suppose that men walk off a site because there has been an accident and there is an unsafe environment. What then? Is a dispute always and invariably the fault of the workforce and its unions, however provoked? Obviously the Government's answer is in the affirmative.
As for union ballots, the Minister referred to ballots in the TGWU. I remind the House that the

797
rerun was at the instance of the union's leadership. It does not seem to me that further legislation in that area is necessary or justified.
The Government's opposition to unions, and indeed to any form of collective, has an ideological basis; but this time they have gone over the top. Unions now have a positive rather than a negative image. Recent polls have shown support for the notion that unions should be free to organise; people should be free to join; and unions should be recognised and encouraged to bargain collectively on behalf of their members. This time, the Government have gone too far. The union card will not win the next election for them.
If the Government present a Bill based on the propositions put to the House, we on our side will do everything we can to ameliorate it. As to our party's policy, we believe that there should be a fair, legal framework—not one heavily weighted in favour of employers against employees, but one designed to give both individual rights in employment and collective rights, without which there is often no ability to enforce individual rights. So we cannot possibly welcome the Statement.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I join in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. Unlike the Labour Party, we supported much of the Government's earlier legislation affecting trade unions. However, when speaking on behalf of my noble friends on the Third Reading of what is now the Employment Act 1988, I expressed the view that there should be the minimum of law in industrial relations, and that where the law applied it should strike a fair balance between the interests of employers and those of individuals.
The Government nevertheless introduced another Employment Bill in 1989 which in our view further tilted the balance in favour of employers. At that time I said that we looked forward to the day when the Government would think less in terms of continuing restrictive legislation and more of the need positively to encourage greater co-operation between management and employees.
Now we have the prospect of yet another instalment of trade union legislation. Already organisations, such as the Institute of Personnel Management, whose members would have to put it into practice, have expressed misgivings about what the Government have in mind. The institute's director general is reported to have said that he is fearful that the Green Paper is a political thing rather than being driven by real need. Similarly, on a particular idea canvassed in the Green Paper that employees should have the right to belong to a union of their choice, provided that the union organises in the grade or industry concerned, the CBI has said that companies would want to look carefully at the proposal to ensure that it would not cause them problems.
I do not wish to strike an inflexible attitude, but I must ask the Minister a question: have the Government thought through the effect that that proposal will have on valuable inward investment for our manufacturing industry? For example, as the
798
noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, a number of Japanese firms have insisted that such investment should be conditional upon their securing single union agreements supported by the Bridlington rules.
That is not all. From a recent NOP poll we learn that two out of every three members of the public are opposed to further legislation in this area. Only 18 per cent. would support it. To the extent that the Government may be prompted by considerations of possible electoral advantage in once more playing what the noble Baroness called the "union card", I suggest that they would be wise to take careful account of the findings of that poll.
On these Benches we share the widespread concern that has already been expressed about what the Government have in mind. However, this is not the moment to comment extensively on the details of their proposals, which we shall clearly need to study carefully before reaching considered conclusions.
I am particularly interested in the suggestion that collective agreements should be made legally enforceable contracts unless employers and unions expressly and jointly decide against that. This proposal was canvassed by the Government in their Green Paper on trade union immunity 10 years ago. At that time they concluded that much more education was needed before negotiators could be sufficiently convinced of the desirability of such arrangements and that they could become workable. Now that the idea has been revived, I shall be interested to learn what employers and trade unions have to say about it.
For the rest, I shall content myself with asking the noble Viscount what I hope is no more than a rhetorical question. Will the Government undertake to give the most earnest consideration to the responses of employers and trade unions to the Green Paper before deciding what, if any, further legislation they should introduce in the field of industrial relations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said that these proposals were not welcome. I appreciate that she could not give them a welcome. She also stated that they would not be welcome outside. However, I believe that the protection of union members' rights in the Green Paper and the Statement will be widely held to be useful. The noble Baroness said that they were irrelevant. She then addressed a number of remarks to areas completely outside the proposals in the Green Paper and the Statement.
However, she suggested that the check-off arrangements already exist. The proposals suggest putting into law what is already common practice. I see no harm in that. They may create additional work for employers, to ensure that they are not making any unlawful deductions, but it is quite wrong for employers to make deductions from employees' pay without their consent. That is particularly the case where a proportion of the money that they collect on behalf of the union has been earmarked, perhaps for a strike fund.
The noble Baroness also defended the Bridlington principles, but I do not believe that the defence is supported by other union leaders. For example, shop

799
workers are now exercised about which union supports Sunday trading. One union may, another may not. This should be an opportunity for shop workers at least to be members of a union which supports their ideas and considerations.
As for the ILO, the Government believe that there is nothing in the proposals which would contravene any IL0 convention ratified by the United Kingdom. In the event of any such complaint to the ILO, I am confident that it would be successfully rebutted.
Union members are interested in how their subscriptions are applied. They are also interested in how the elections of the executive committee and the general secretary are carried out. They wish to know, because they elect the officers, whether they are getting value for money. That is why we believe that revelation of how the money is being spent and the salaries of the executives should be made available to members in the form of a financial statement.
These proposals are to protect members' rights and the rights of the public. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness said that this was a step too far. I believe that that has been her terminology for a while on proposals put forward by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, did not exactly welcome the proposals, but he spoke quite positively about a number of them. He suggested that employers would have misgivings about some of the proposals and questioned whether we had thought them through. I believe that inward investment will be encouraged by our proposals because they have no effect on recognition agreements that employers might have with unions. They do not touch the recognition agreements.
The National Opinion Poll was taken without a glimpse of the proposals in the Green Paper. Thus, it is hard to see whether the opinion of the population has been tested in any way. I believe that people would welcome the proposals which would strengthen the rights of union members.
However, the noble Lord gave a welcome to, or said he was interested in, legally enforceable agreements. He rightly said that the whole area has matured over the past 10 years. Through a consultative document it is now time to look at whether legally enforceable agreements should be incorporated into collective agreements. This is a consultative document; we shall consult. That is the purpose of the publication of the Green Paper and we shall consider carefully the responses to it.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend warmly for reading this long, complicated and enormously interesting Statement to your Lordships and for doing so with such force and clarity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said, it is the most recent in a long series of legislative projects dealing with trade union law for which the Government have been responsible. Whatever view the noble Baroness or any of your Lordships may take of the series of amendments to the law, the fact remains that the incidence of strikes is lower than it has been for a great many years. It is also much lower
800
than in many other countries. That seems to suggest that the Government's contribution to legislation on the subject has been helpful to the production of that industrial peace which is extremely important to the working of our economy.
There are only two points on which I should be grateful if my noble friend would expand. First, it seems to me that one of the features of the Statement is the additional strengthened authority which it gives individual members of trade unions vis à vis their union. It was undoubtedly the case some years ago, and I found it to be the case when I was in industry, that the individual member of a strong trade union used to find himself with little authority or independence. Legislation has now moved that a certain distance. As I understand my noble friend's Statement, this legislation will move it a little further. That surely must be a sensible measure from all points of view.
Finally there is the matter, to which my noble friend referred in the earlier part of the Statement, of the position of the public in the case of a strike in a public service. It has always seemed to me very unfair that a strike in a public service can cause enormous harm and injury to individual members of the public without necessarily causing more than trifling inconvenience to the management of that service. The earnings, salaries and positions of the management remain utterly unaffected. It is the public who have suffered. Therefore I was particularly glad to hear my noble friend say that, in the case of a strike in a public service, members of the public who have suffered injury as a result of that strike will have the right to take proceedings against the union undertaking the strike. That seems to me simple justice. Perhaps the only criticism that could be made of that measure is that it is so obviously right and fair that it is a little surprising that it has not featured in some earlier legislation.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Lord talks about people who work in a public service. I understand what he is saying and why and I am aware of the inconvenience that may be caused to the British public—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I apologise for intervening but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will frame his remarks in terms of a question to my noble friend Lord Ullswater. He is out of order in cross-examining my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I naturally regret that ruling, as there are few things that I enjoy more than a gentle bout with my noble friend—if I may so call him—Lord Mellish. But, apparently, that pleasure is to be denied me on this occasion. No doubt there will be future occasions when we can engage in bouts.
However, I shall return to the point I was making and that I was about to sit down on. It seems to me absolutely right that members of the public who suffer—as they can—serious loss, inconvenience and damage as a result of a strike in a public service should

801
have the right (if so advised) to take action against the union concerned and against its members in connection with the damage they have suffered. I believe that is a very important improvement in our law. I should be grateful if my noble friend could expand a little on what he has said on that subject.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, before the Minister expands on that subject, may I make another point?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe I should reply to the questions put to me by my noble friend. My noble friend goes right to the heart of the matter with his observations. We have now a sense of industrial peace which is absolutely vital to our competitiveness in world markets. We should not overlook that fact or treat it too lightly. It is an absolutely vital fact.
The purpose of the proposals I have referred to is to strengthen the individual rights of members of unions. We have introduced the ability for trade union members to inspect their union's membership register to ensure that the correct names are on it and that it does not include the names of people who are not members of the union. Those names may have been included just to fill up the register. Our proposals give a union member a right to accept in writing that money should be deducted from his pay to pay his subscription. Those measures constitute a protection of the individual rights of union members.
As regards unlawful industrial action, we believe it is quite right that those members of the public who are caused great discomfort on many occasions by such actions should have the right to take proceedings if the employer or a member of a union does not take action himself. What the public really want is for the strike to stop and for the service to be reinstated. The proposals in the Green Paper will enable this to happen.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as I am addressing my remarks to the Minister, I gather that I am now in order. How do the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, relate to the argument about public services? For example, if the employer of a bus driver will not give the latter an increase in salary, what is the bus driver supposed to do in that situation or in the case of any kind of industrial dispute? Is he supposed to say, "I am in a public service and I must never withdraw my labour because of the inconvenience that that would cause to the public"? The bus driver is in an impossible position. In my opinion the Government have made the position even worse. It has been suggested that it is because of government legislation that so few strikes occur nowadays. I have to reply to that point as I cannot take it sitting down. It is not true that government legislation has resulted in fewer strikes. Increased unemployment has resulted in fewer strikes.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the noble Lord has time to read the proposals, he will see that as regards the public services it is only when unlawful industrial action occurs that the measures we are discussing apply. We are not talking about the situation he described.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the rather romantic view of the Bridlington agreement is not shared by everyone who has had experience of it? In many people's minds it is the ultimate in restrictive trade practices as it enables old, large, outdated trade unions to protect their membership against the ravages of small, progressive unions.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is exactly so.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, are the Government seriously proposing that every worker should have the right to join any trade union even where the union chosen regards itself as not capable of effectively representing that worker at his or her workplace? Why are the Government undermining the Bridlington agreement, which, contrary to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is regarded in general by employers and incoming investors as an admirable form of domestic dispute resolution? Are the Government truly bent on improving industrial relations or are they bent on making mischief? Why are the Government conferring a statutory right to join any trade union while conferring no statutory rights of recognition—and therefore no statutory rights of effective representation—on any trade union? Is this yet another example of a want of even-handedness?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the freedom of choice to join a union is an important concept when one or more trade unions can genuinely claim to be able to represent an employee's interests. I indicated the difficulty that shopworkers might have over the support or otherwise that their union might give to Sunday trading. A union is not obliged to accept members where it does not represent employees of a similar skill or occupation. Unions do not have to accept applicants who have been unsatisfactory members of another union. Unions are not forced into accepting members. The remedy against a refusal is by way of a complaint to an industrial tribunal to obtain a declaration and compensation.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, as someone who a long time ago played a prominent, and sometimes personally rather uncomfortably prominent, part in campaigning for and implementing a framework of law for industrial relations in this country, I believe the proposals will bring a general further improvement to the situation. I particularly welcome the proposal that collective agreements should normally be binding on both parties.
I hope my noble friend will take into account two points. First, does he accept that in the area covered by the Bridlington agreement there is a point of genuine difficulty —and continuing potential difficulty —in British industrial relations? While I believe that the days of the Bridlington agreement are properly over and done with, I doubt whether it would be wise to leave a complete vacuum in the area of multi-union problems. That matter will need a lot of careful thought.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, referred to employees' rights. While I do not

803
agree with many of the comments the noble Baroness made, 1 believe that we need to look carefully at employees' rights. Many people agreed that the Industrial Relations Act 1971—despite the furore that many of its measures caused—contained some important provisions regarding the rights of employees. Those provisions have never been put back on the statute book since that Act was repealed by the incoming Labour government. I believe that a Conservative government would be well advised to look carefully at some of those employees' rights and to consider their reintroduction.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for welcoming our proposals, which he called further improvements. He also mentioned that we should consider carefully the legally binding agreements, and that is what the consultation paper does.
This is a consultative document and we need to consult carefully. However, the Bridlington principles do not affect any recognition agreements which a company might have with a particular union. The proposals relate more to the freedom of the individual to join the union which he believes would put forward his own principles. Modern union members do not necessarily look to their unions for collective agreements; they look to them for advice in many other fields, including pensions.
Lord Scanlon: My Lords, without having had the opportunity to study the Statement it is very difficult to go into much detail. However, I should like to comment on three main points. The first is the misnomer of giving the unions back to the members. That has to be analysed. It is a presumption to suppose that they have ever left the members. It is an even greater presumption for any government to believe that they own the property to give back.
I would argue most strongly that anything which needs to be remedied should be remedied within the trade union movement and not by legislation. One can argue that there is a degree of hypocrisy—I hesitate to use the word, but will—in talking of giving the unions back to the members. What is really meant is crippling the trade union movement so that it is no longer capable of fulfilling its major function. One kills it, first, by surrounding it by a legalistic minefield and, secondly, by pursuing policies of unemployment which make it even more difficult for unions to operate.
I also question the matter of the Bridlington agreement. Do we really know what the Bridlington agreement meant? Here I disagree with many of the remarks that have been made about it. One of the ideals which has been held up for Britain to emulate is the structure of the German trade union movement. It has been pointed out that it takes 17 unions to build a ship in Britain and 12 unions to build a motor car in Britain while both of those commodities are produced in Germany by one union only. We are now to bring in legislation which will permit any individual to join any union of his choice. That will permit someone to go into an engineering workshop and say that he
804
wants to join the union for the suppression of solo violinists and he will have the right to do so. It is inconceivable.
I repeat that the time for detailed examination of the document will come when the matter again comes before this House. Be assured that there will be opposition to the proposals.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, has perhaps overlooked the fact that members pay their subscriptions to the unions. Why should they not have the opportunity to see how their money is being spent and whether it is being spent correctly? The unions have had many opportunities to put their house in order in the past but they have not done so; or perhaps the noble Lord thought that the situation which existed in 1979 was the correct position. We think not.
Regarding the Bridlington principles, I believe that the noble Lord misunderstands what the Government are trying to do. The Government are suggesting that union members should be able to choose from unions which represent their skills; that would not include the union for the suppression of solo violinists if an applicant is a boilermaker. That is not what we are doing. It would be the unions which represent his skills.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask these question interrogatively. First, in any questions which arise under the Government proposals, if they go to court to what extent will legal aid be available to the parties? Secondly, as regards the remedies available to a member of the public in respect of unlawful strikes in the public sector, I understood my noble friend to mention injunctions but I did not hear him say anything about compensation or damages. Was that intentional or am I mistaken in my understanding?
Regarding the validity of collective agreements, those which are now in existence were formulated under the presumption that they were not intended to have legal consequences. What is intended as a matter of transition? New agreements will have legal consequences by presumption. What will happen to the old ones? Will the presumption be imported retrospectively? What will be the position?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble and learned friend asked me three questions. The first concerned legal aid. I am advised that legal aid is not available in tribunals. In other respects the provision for legal aid would be as normal for civil law cases. For unlawful unofficial industrial action the remedy available to members of the public would be to obtain an injunction for the unlawful act to stop. That is what he is interested in. At present there is no intention that damages would be awarded in that case. The view of members of the public is that the action should stop.
Turning to legally binding agreements, whereas the presumption is that they would be legally binding, in order to overcome that there would have to be a provision which would make them not legally binding. The proposals would apply to new agreements and not to existing agreements.

Armed Forces Bill
4.37 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clauses 17 and 23 agreed to.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of law relating to sexual acts which are not civil offences
.—(1) After section 70 of each of the 1955 Acts and after section 42 of the 1957 Act there shall be inserted the following section, appropriately numbered—
"Sexual acts which are not civil offences.
. An act which is not an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (including one which is not an offence under that Act by virtue of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967) is not an offence under any provision of this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5, which is consequential. The amendment is put forward to give the Government an opportunity to act on a recommendation of the Select Committee of another place on the Armed Forces Bill. Paragraph 41 of the Committee's report reads:
"We understand why homosexual activity is considered unacceptable in the Armed Forces, but we see no reason why Service personnel should be liable to prosecution under Service law for homosexual activity which would be legal in civilian law. We recommend that homosexual activity of a kind which is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under Service law. We look to the Government to propose an appropriate amendment to the law before the end of the next session of Parliament".
Because the Bill had already reached a late stage before the report of the Select Committee was published, this recommendation was not fully debated in the other place. The amendment affords the Committee an opportunity to give its views on the Select Committee's recommendation.
For service law to come into line with civil law in this area seems entirely just and logical. I emphasise that the amendment on the Marshalled List does not require the services to recruit or retain those of homosexual orientation; it merely ensures that those men and women do not have to suffer the possible additional indignity of a court martial when they are discharged from the service because of the discovery of homosexual activity. An average of 10 men a year are at present discharged from the services on such grounds.
In this matter the United Kingdom is very much the odd man out. In no other country in Europe are all homosexual acts illegal for serving members of the armed forces. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and even Switzerland—that strict, Calvinist and traditionally rather prudish country—allow homosexuals to be members of their armed forces. The reasonable restriction in all these countries, as with heterosexual behaviour, is that sexual acts should not take place while personnel are on duty, and that superior rank should not be used to coerce more junior personnel into sexual acts against their will or better judgment.
It has been said—in fact, by the noble Earl, Lord
806
Arran, himself on 5th July at Second Reading—that to decriminalise homosexual behaviour in the forces would give homosexuals an advantage over heterosexuals. This aspect, with respect, is a piece of "Arran" nonsense. Heterosexuals may be disciplined if indulging in sex while on duty. We had an example recently in the Gulf when a Wren and a rating were each fined £750 for doing what they ought not to have been doing. They were not bundled ignominiously out of the forces. But the discovery of homosexual activity is bound to lead to discharge as well as possible court martial as the law stands at present. That is what my amendment seeks to change.
The amendment gives us an opportunity to discuss the whole question of the intolerance shown towards homosexuality in the armed services. There is no evidence to suggest that those of gay or lesbian orientation are any less good at their jobs, whether they are cooks, medical orderlies or high ranking officers. Several case histories of the unpleasant experiences of service personnel suspected of homosexual tendencies were given to the Select Committee of another place. Those men and women were subjected to undignified searches of their personal belongings and correspondence, and cross-questioned about their personal and intimate lives. They were then discharged, in some cases, I gather, with loss of pension rights even when not court martialled.
If my amendment were accepted it would not solve the problem: it. would only ameliorate it somewhat. The following words of the Select Committee, from which I have already quoted one paragraph, would still apply. Paragraph 40 says:
"That the present policy causes very real distress and the loss to the Services of some men and women of undoubted competence and good character is beyond dispute".
The problem is sufficiently serious to warrant an inquiry in each service to find out, for example, if there is any truth in suggestions that have been made that the presence of homosexuals is disruptive or whether, for example, they pose a threat to national security. The inquiry could also be extended to find out the degree of harassment to which those of homosexual orientation are subjected.
Public attitudes to homosexuality are much less judgmental than they used to be. Only today I heard on the news, and I have read also in the newspapers, that it has been announced that homosexuality will no longer be a bar to promotion in the Civil Service. That surely is recognition that it is the forced concealment of homosexual tendencies that renders an official or, I would suggest, a serviceman or woman liable to blackmail. It is not the homosexuality per se.Is it not time for the armed forces also to come into line with modern and logical thinking? I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: The noble Lord's amendment carries out one of the two recommendations of the Select Committee. The amendment would carry out the recommendation that homosexuality of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under service law. I shall try to show reasons why I feel that the amendment should be supported.

807
The other recommendation of the Select Committee was:
"We are not persuaded that the time has yet come to require the Armed Forces to accept homosexuals or homosexual activity."
I also support that recommendation.
A large number of the examples and arguments used by the noble Lord conflict with the second recommendation of the Select Committee. His amendment refers only to the first recommendation with which no conflict arises. It is perfectly possible to hold that the army, the navy and the air force are not suitable places for known homosexuals or homosexual activities and at the same time to believe that the law is not a suitable instrument for trying to maintain their heterosexuality. There is no possible conflict in logic between those two positions. I feel that both positions are right.
There is nothing in the law that cannot be done much better by humane administrative action. Inevitably, the present service law tends to stigmatise homosexuality, tends to discriminate against homosexuals, and increases the stress many of them must feel in a determinedly heterosexual environment. On the other hand, should we oppose the sensitive use of administrative measures to discharge, or not to recruit, servicemen who are known to be homosexual, whether or not they are practising homosexuals? I confess that it is not easy to decide. I have no doubt that many servicemen at this moment are homosexual and a re serving with distinction in the armed forces, and that more would join or stay in the services if they were allowed to and if there was no discrimination against them.
I agree with the noble Lord that there are many armed forces which differ from the British armed forces in this respect. I agree too that in civilian life tolerance has grown immensely and profitably over the years. However, I still agree with the second recommendation of the Select Committee. I know from personal experience that the conditions of service life, especially on active service, have no equivalent in civilian life. The herding together, the total lack of privacy, the primacy of personal relations, the corroding effect of favouritism and the unavoidable intimacy have no equivalent in civilian life and strengthen the conclusion to which the Select Committee came.
Perhaps a single known homosexual would be happy and welcome in such company as I have described. But what about a pair or a group of homosexuals of perhaps different ranks? If I were a commanding officer I am fairly sure that I would be against it. This seems to be the majority view of the services at this time. It is easy for us in civilian life to hold strong liberal convictions about homosexuality, but I do not think that we should impose them on the services.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We on these Benches support the amendment. We appreciate its raison d'être and understand the basis on which it has been put forward. I should like to invite the Minister to be helpful to the House.
808
As with the earlier amendment that I moved in respect of the death penalty, in many countries feelings on this issue have moved substantially away from positions that have been held hitherto. One of the reasons the Government resisted the amendment on capital punishment was that, in the context of the British experience, they could not see any reason for change. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, in many countries there has been a change in attitude, which has been reflected in civil life. Opinion in the civil field has been translated into action in military life and the armed forces. We have here a comparable situation.
I deeply respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who has had considerable experience in another place and has given constant attention and exercised great diligence in matters relating to the armed forces. He is well versed in these matters. I do not quibble with anything that he said. The situation is difficult. We understand that, especially in wartime, the armed forces face a difficult and unique situation.
Can the Minister tell the House what inquiries have been made by his department to ascertain the reasons why other countries have had a change of heart on this issue? During the Second Reading debate on this Bill he told both the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and me:
"We shall of course consider carefully the Select Committee's recommendation that homosexual activity which is no longer an offence under civil law should not constitute an offence under service law". [Official Report, 5/7/91; col. 1199.]
Can he tell us precisely what the Government have in mind? What have they done since making that statement? When will they ultimately report to the House or respond in some other way? I do not make light of the difficulties that the Minister and his colleagues face in coming to a decision. Having told us that they will consider carefully what the Select Committee has recommended, we should like to know when they intend to respond positively to its recommendations. That is crucial.
The Minister was asked one or two questions by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I should be grateful if he would tell the House whether there is any evidence that heterosexuals found engaged in sexual activity would face imprisonment. If there is no evidence that they would face imprisonment—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, gave us an illustration of a heterosexual act which gave rise to censure but not imprisonment—can the Minister tell us the reason for the difference in treatment?
When the Minister tells us—as I hope he will—that that difference in approach is not an historical accident or mere prejudice but that it is based on current and active research, not least into the experience in other countries, will he contrast the experience in other countries and tell us the differences between them and this country? In this particular matter I hesitate to believe that there are special British circumstances which are different from German, French, Japanese or American circumstances. Would he relate our experience to that of other countries with which we need to have relationships

809
and agreements and at least in time of war need to trust implicitly? It would be helpful if the Minister could answer that point.
From the tone and tenor of the debate the Minister will have detected that nothing is said acrimoniously or in malice. It is a genuine attempt to move the Government and perhaps the country a little further along the road of tolerance and understanding, not least towards the civil dignities of individuals who often find themselves serving the country in time of war. I certainly hope that the Minister can be helpful to the Committee.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am amazed that this issue should be tabled as an amendment. During my life I was in the Army for 30 years. That included two years in the King's African Rifles and two years working with the Russian Army. I now hear the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Mayhew, seriously suggest that this sort of activity can be permitted within the services.
Lord Mayhew: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I tried to make the distinction. I wholly agreed with him that the second recommendation of the Select Committee was right; namely, that homosexuality should not be permitted in the armed services. It is the criminalisation of homosexuality which is wrong and which this amendment is against.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I am not talking about ethics but about discipline. How on earth in a battalion, a ship or an RAF station—to take examples—can discipline be maintained if homosexuality or promiscuous lives between the two sexes (say, a WAAF and an airman) is allowed? Immediately there is favouritism and the whole structure of discipline is destroyed. This is a disgraceful amendment and I urge the Committee not to accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Duke sits down, perhaps I may ask him to reflect that if he believes that that is what would happen in the British forces, why is it that the forces of so many other countries have moved along these lines with no apparent disagreements internally or externally.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am amazed to hear that the other nations—about 10 other nations were quoted —allow this situation. I feel that there should be some qualification to what they allow—whether or not it is considered a criminal offence. If we allow anything of this sort to start it will wreck a battalion. I feel that it is not permissible to encourage it in any way. I hope that everybody will oppose this amendment.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, I too think it would be convenient for the Committee to consider Amendment No. 2 with Amendment No. 5 to Schedule 3 at the same time. Together they are very far-reaching. They would
810
severely curtail the ability of the forces to deal with the implications of sexual relationships between members of the armed forces and we must oppose it.
Perhaps I could say a few words first about the effect of Amendment No. 2 on homosexual activity. We do not oppose the clause because of any blind adherence to the status quo. It was my father who three times introduced legislation into your Lordships' House to give effect to the central recommendation of the Wolfenden Report, which culminated in the Sexual Offences Act 1967. I am therefore particularly conscious of the strong feelings that these matters can arouse. However, I hope that I can explain the genuine difficulties that would be caused if this clause were to be included in the Bill. Some of the arguments have been repeated many times in your Lordships' House. They were acknowledged in the Wolfenden Report with the result that the 1967 Act specifically made clear that its provisions did not prevent a prosecution under service law for acts which were no longer an offence under civil law.
We need to examine why all homosexual activity remains the basis for a criminal offence under service law. First, I repeat that it is not, and never has been, an offence under service law to be a homosexual. Rather, a homosexual act can be the basis for a charge, usually of disgraceful conduct or conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Some will use the argument that if two servicemen over 21 are willingly committing a homosexual act in private, then there is little point in it being the basis for an offence, because by its nature no one else is involved in it or aware of it. Nevertheless, what do you say to a serviceman whose consent may not have been truly voluntary but who was influenced by the fact that the other man was his superior? We have to be able to protect that individual and reassure him and his family that everything is done to prevent that from occurring. We have also to deal with the effect on discipline and morale that can arise when it becomes known that a member of a unit is a homosexual.
It is a longstanding policy that homosexual activity is regarded as unacceptable in the armed forces. The reasons reflect first and foremost the need to maintain discipline and morale. For example, the services often operate in small, mutually dependent and tight-knit units of young personnel, overwhelmingly single sex. For reasons of effectiveness and efficiency there must be absolute trust between the members of that unit. Clearly, close bonds develop in such situations but the formation of a sexually motivated relationship can be very destructive of the discipline and motivation of that unit where even a suspicion of favouritism, for example, could adversely affect its ability to operate to full effectiveness.
Some Members of the Committee will have experienced at first hand life on board one of Her Majesty's ships. Although conditions have been considerably improved in more recent times, there can be no doubt that privacy is not part of such life. It is impossible to have a sexual relationship in those circumstances (and that includes heterosexual relationships) without there being the potential for some adverse effect on other members of the company.

811
I hope that the Committee will accept that our policies in this area are motivated at all times by the need to maintain discipline and morale for the greater good of the force as a whole. The Select Committee in another place accepted the reasons why homosexual activity is not acceptable in the armed forces and did not believe that the armed forces should be required to accept homosexuals. They did, however, recommend that homosexual activity of a kind which is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under service law.
We shall carefully consider the recommendation of the Select Committee in the context that we must continue to protect members of the forces from undue pressures and not create the impression that homosexuality is acceptable in service life. This is a difficult and complex area and our conclusions will be announced to the Chamber in due course.
The amendments we are now considering go considerably wider than was recommended by the Select Committee and so I should like to say a little about heterosexual relationships. In a strict hierarchical society where men and women are working and living very closely together we have a duty to protect personnel from agreeing to behaviour in which they would otherwise choose not to indulge. In such societies there can he doubt that consent to sexual behaviour is willingly and freely given, particularly between different ranks.
We believe it is right, therefore, that certain acts of heterosexual behaviour—for example, with particularly young and perhaps impressionable female personnel—should continue to be subject to prosecution under the Service Discipline Acts even though they are not civil offences. We do not believe that parents would readily encourage their sons and daughters to join the armed forces if they thought that there was scope for sexual pressures to be put on them.
We therefore believe that the amendment before the Committee is, at the least, premature with regard to homosexual activity. I hope that in the light of what I have said today, and my undertaking that the recommendation of the Select Committee of another place will be given thorough and serious consideration within the Ministry of Defence, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I may inform the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the NATO countries which do not allow homosexuals in the armed forces are Greece, Italy, Portugal, Turkey and the USA. The noble Lord asked how other countries have changed their laws. There will be a review within the Ministry of Defence and experience of other countries will be taken into account. I do not expect that that will be very soon and I cannot hold out any prospect of legislation in the next Session. I expect that I shall be able to report our conclusions by the next debate on the Service Discipline Acts continuation order next summer, if not before.
With those restricted and very correct reasons for not accepting homosexuality within the armed forces, in particular based on morale and discipline affecting units, I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Mayhew: The noble Earl quoted a number of problems connected with homosexuality about which it is plain that the firmest of action is needed, and which may indeed result in a discharge. However, he has not explained why that problem cannot be handled by administrative methods and why it has to be criminalised.
The Earl of Arran: With regard to an administrative discharge, I make clear that it is not and never has been an offence under service law to be a homosexual or to commit a homosexual act per se. The homosexual act can be the basis for a charge usually of disgraceful conduct or conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. The vast majority of personnel who are required to leave the armed forces on the ground of homosexual behaviour are administratively discharged rather than prosecuted. At the moment prosecutions under service law may arise mainly where a serviceman has taken advantage of his rank in relation to a more junior colleague. That may involve an act which remains an offence under the civil/criminal law.
Lord Rea: The noble Earl has expanded somewhat on his remarks that he gave at Second Reading and I thank him. I still do not believe that he has answered the central question: why the homosexual act—which admittedly cannot be tolerated within the armed forces—has to be a criminal act. I seem to have given the impression to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, that through the amendment I suggest that homosexuality should be freely allowed in the services. That is not the case. The amendment is fully compatible with the view that homosexuality has no place in service life. The amendment simply seeks to decriminalise it.
The noble Earl referred to episodes where rank was used to coerce. That could certainly be retained as an offence subject to internal disciplinary procedure and, if necessary, as a reason for discharge from the armed forces. In some countries where homosexuality is not an offence in the armed forces if rank is used to coerce that is specifically referred to as an illegal activity which leads to automatic dismissal from the service.
At this stage it would be wrong for me to press the Committee to a Division. I have not mustered my forces sufficiently to win in the Lobbies. However, it has been a useful debate. We shall study the words of the noble Earl with care. At this point it is right that I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Ill-treatment on racial grounds
.—(1) n section 43A (disorderly conduct) of the Army Act 1955, after "who" there shall be inserted "on racial grounds or"
(2) In section 65 (Ill-treatment of officers or men of inferior rank) of the Army Act 1955—

(a) in subsection (a), after "ill-treats" insert "on racial or any other ground";

(b) in subsection (b), after "ill-treats" insert "on racial or any other ground".").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. As the Minister and those who follow such matters understand, the amendment deals with paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Select Committee report relating to racial harassment and racial discrimination.
I do not wish the Minister to tell the Committee that he is happy with the position in regard to racial harassment or discrimination. Of course not. However, the country is entitled to expect the Minister to satisfy the Committee that having established the extent to which such harassment operates the Government will take action to eliminate it.
Paragraph 34 states:
"We recommend that MoD consider how best to identify incidents of racial harassment in the Armed Forces and keep records accordingly".
We understand the reticence of Ministers in this Chamber and in another place who consider that to do so will be divisive. It was thought that even if one were able to collect statistics they might not he true or valid. All that could well be argued.
The Commission for Racial Equality is a watchdog appointed by Parliament. It gave evidence to the Select Committee in another place and I have read that. The commission submitted a memorandum to the House of Commons Employment Committee and expressed the view that there was a substantial under-representation of ethnic minorities in the armed forces. It suggested that they should adopt a comprehensive monitoring system. The Minister and his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had many a joust across the Floor of the Chamber with me when I raised the absence of black faces in the Guards regiments. It took a long time for the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to acknowledge what we had been told by others; that there was clear evidence that a blackball system was operating. That not only kept black men out of the Guards regiments but ensured that those who might squeeze in were given poor treatment. That was confirmed only when a Member of the Committee who had been a member of a Guards regiment was honest and frank enough to say in this Chamber, "All that has been said is true. I was there and I know and can say that it happens". His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has also made trenchant comments about the issue.
We are not putting forward scare stories; nor are they stories of horrendous proportions. However, we must acknowledge that British society is multiracial and multicultural. We wish to see many young men and women who are members of ethnic communities serving not only in the armed forces but also in the police force, the prison service and elsewhere. We wish to ensure that their rights and those of their communities to be better represented are treated with respect. My intention in tabling the amendment is to invite the Minister to tell the Committee what action the Government are taking.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division because that is the nature of our exchanges this afternoon. However, I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to respond more fully than might otherwise have been the case. Today we have a little
814
time and I should like him to assure me, other Members of the Committee and people outside the Chamber that the Minister takes these issues seriously.
Perhaps I may point to the issue of housing. For many years people who managed local authority housing departments fiercely rejected any charge that there was any discrimination against coloured people obtaining proper housing. However, those of us who were active at grass roots level knew that was happening. It was acknowledged only when councils of all colours—and I mean no pun—and persuasions recognised that one needs to have the facts.
We ask the Minister to give the facts. We hope that the facts are not too horrendous. If they are, are the Government prepared to take resolute action to stamp out bullying, racial harassment or discrimination which should have no part to play in British society in 1991? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: We on these Benches support the amendment and wish to be associated with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I wish to deal in particular with the question of ethnic monitoring in the forces. I raised the issue in debates on the Armed Forces Act 1986 and was assured that the Government were considering ethnic monitoring. During the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl said:
"I hear very strongly what both noble Lords"—
that is the noble Lord, Lord Graham and myself—
"have said on this point".—[Official Report, 5/7/91; col. 1198]
That is a considerable advance on "considering".
The previous amendment dealt with the criminalisation of homosexuality in the forces and the noble Earl gave a timetable for his reply. He told the Committee that he would give its Members an answer to the amendment by the time we deal with the Service Discipline Acts next year. That is a long way ahead but it is an advance.
We now require a timetable for ethnic monitoring which is an easier issue for the Minister to decide. I was surprised to read in the Defence White Paper that the MoD is already using ethnic monitoring. It is remiss of me not to have brought the White Paper with me, but I am sure that the noble Earl knows to what I refer. Perhaps it is an internal system of ethnic monitoring about which we are not allowed to know. I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and ask the Minister to reply to my particular question.
Baroness Flather: I too wish to say a few words in support of the introduction of ethnic monitoring in the armed forces. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has spoken about under-representation. I am not sure that the problem will be addressed by ethnic monitoring because a record of ethnic origin is already kept at the point of entry. The only way in which under-representation will be addressed will be by presenting a welcoming face which at present the armed forces do not show to ethnic minorities. I hope that in due course the problem will be addressed in many ways to show that ethnic minorities are welcome within the armed forces.

815
Ethnic monitoring is designed to see what happens to reoruits who manage to join the armed forces. I believe that the argument has already been won on so many fronts and it appears out of place not to have the system within the armed forces. My noble friend Lord Whitelaw introduced ethnic monitoring within the Civil Service and it now occurs within the police force and all public utilities. Why not therefore within the armed forces? Without proper records it cannot be possible to see how the minority groups fare within the services. The information that we have gives no cause for complacency whatever.
The argument that the system may prove divisive is odd, in particular when monitoring on the basis of religious affiliation has been introduced and accepted in the Ulster Defence Regiment. If it is divisive I believe that nothing could be more divisive in introducing the system into that regiment. However, if there were no such system we could not know how the two religious groups fare within the Ulster Defence Regiment. Therefore, the same argument applies to minorities within the armed services. Record keeping and the monitoring of those records can be neither divisive nor give one group an advantage over another. In fact it is for the avoidance of that that the system needs to be introduced.
There will be nothing more divisive than a perception in the minds of minority groups that they are not being treated fairly or, indeed, that the majority is receiving some sort of preferential treatment. Therefore, I urge my noble friend to look again at this point and to think about the speedy introduction of ethnic monitoring within the armed forces.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I may add a small caveat to what the noble Baroness said. She mentioned that the army must show a good face if we are to cure under-representation. I welcome those thoughts. Previously this afternoon we have discussed how soldiers can be treated on a par with other citizens. There are times when there must be differences. However, this is one area where the way in which ordinary citizens are treated should be extended fully to soldiers. Ethnic monitoring is part of that.
Strangely, people have forgotten that in the two world wars many Indians and Africans died. It is difficult to find out how many died in the Second World War. However, probably between 25,000 and 250,000 Indians died in that war. We must remember that the Imperial army rather than the British national army had ethnic monitoring. We must incorporate those traditions and say that ethnic minorities are welcome in the army because in the past they have proved to be very good soldiers.
The Earl of Arran: I think it will be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. The purpose of the amendments before the Committee is to single out or highlight racial grounds as the motivation for an offence of disorderly conduct or ill-treatment of officers or men of inferior rank. I am sure this is well intentioned, but I have to tell Members of the Committee that the amendments are entirely
816
unnecessary and, because they apply only to the Army Act, would make the army subject to different provisions from the other two services.
Perhaps it would help if I put Amendment No. 3 in context. At present, for all three services, it is an offence for any person subject to military law, without reasonable excuse, to fight with any other person, whether subject to service law or not, or to use threatening, abusive, insulting, or provocative words or behaviour likely to cause a disturbance.
The Committee will therefore appreciate that it matters not what is the motivation for the offence. This is behaviour which will not be tolerated without reasonable excuse. Prejudice on any grounds is not, and never will be, a reasonable excuse. Disorderly conduct will not be tolerated and rightly will be dealt with under the law.
Disorderly conduct and ill-treatment on racial grounds is thus already an offence. To single it out in this way, apart from being unnecessary, could imply that conduct based on racial grounds is somehow more serious than conduct based on grounds of sex or religion. That cannot be the case.
I must also stress that if the grounds or motivation for the offence were specifically included in the charge, it behoves the prosecution to prove that the offence was so motivated. That could cause unnecessary difficulties in securing a conviction and the offence would go unproved and unpunished. It will not have escaped the notice of Members of the Committee that civil law does not provide for offences which are committed on racial grounds to be so charged and I do not think it would be right for service law to be out of step with civil law in this respect.
Amendment No. 4 which relates to the reporting of statistics of disorderly behaviour and ill-treatment on racial grounds as regards the army is, of course, dependent on Amendment No. 3 being accepted by the Committee. While I have argued that Amendment No. 3 should not be approved, I would, nevertheless, like to say something about statistics which I hope will help the noble Lord. As he and others will be aware, the Select Committee in another place specifically recommended that the Ministry of Defence consider how best to identify incidents of racial harassment in the armed forces and to keep records accordingly, as was pointed out. It was accepted that compiling such statistics would be subject to difficulties but we shall be giving careful thought to how we might record offences on the basis of the recommendation.
I must stress that my objection to these amendments in no way reflects a lack of concern on our part about the treatment of ethnic minority service personnel. I have already outlined at an earlier stage the efforts which we are making to encourage recruitment from the ethnic minorities. Considerable funds are being spent on this work and I hope it will be productive.
Perhaps I may expand on that. Serious remarks on the situation as regards ethnic minorities have been made by several Members of the Committee which merit an answer. On ethnic minorities in the armed forces, the services are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations. No discrimination is

817
tolerated. Any complaint of racial discrimination or harassment by a member of the armed forces will be fully investigated under the redress of grievance procedures. If substantiated not only will action be taken against those involved but appropriate redress will be granted to the complainant.
Nevertheless, no one should doubt our sincere anxiety to see a greater representation of ethnic ' minorities within the armed forces.
As regards steps to encourage applications from ethnic minorities, Members of the Committee will be aware that we engaged a firm of consultants to advise us on how we might achieve that. In the light of that report, my right honourable friend the Minister of State announced early last year a whole range of measures designed to encourage successful applications from ethnic minorities. It will take time for the impact of those measures to be reflected in our recruitment figures but our efforts in that area will continue.
In particular we have enhanced training courses at the Army School of Recruiting to include a specific lecture on ethnic minority recruitment. We are funding a course at the North East London College which will aim to encourage ethnic minority candidates to the army. We have a joint initiative with the DTI to try to identify potential recruits and train them to entrance standards. We are planning a booklet aimed at the Afro-Caribbean community later this year and we have appointed ethnic minority senior NCOs to our recruiting offices.
As Members of the Committee will know, the Select Committee in another place recommended that we reconsider our objections to ethnic monitoring. Despite our reservations, a review of the policy is under way. In particular we are looking at the experiences of other employers, including some police forces.
I can give no undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, at this stage as to the conclusions of the review. However, I hope that we shall be in a position to announce our decisions well before the end of this year.
The Select Committee recommended also that we consider how best to identify incidents of racial harassment in the armed forces and keep records accordingly. It was accepted that the compilation of such statistics is subject to difficulties. However, we shall give careful thought to that recommendation.
In conclusion, the ethnic monitoring of service personnel is a matter in which I have taken a personal interest. I have attended meetings with members of the Advisory Council on Race Relations and the Commission for Racial Equality and have seen the CRE submission to the Select Committee of another place which examined the Bill. Therefore, I am well aware of the force behind some of the arguments deployed this afternoon. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not pretend to have any expertise as regards the armed services but I have expertise as regards the police and prison services.
818
First, I welcome many of the remarks made by the noble Earl. However, I find it rather difficult to accept his argument that were an amendment of this sort to be passed, it would mean that the treatment of the armed forces would be different from that of anybody else. That is not true.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will remember that an amendment was passed in this Chamber to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which explicitly made it a disciplinary offence for any police officer to behave in a racially discriminatory fashion. Therefore, for the police it is already an offence for an officer to behave in that disagreeable fashion. That is the first point.
Secondly, it is hard to understand why the armed forces have found it so difficult to introduce an ethnic monitoring scheme of their own, given that it is possible to table a Question in this House on any day of the week and be told precisely how many members of ethnic minorities are members of the Metropolitan Police, and the West Yorkshire and the West Midlands forces and so on. Why is it so difficult in regard to the armed forces? That is a matter of continuing puzzlement.
Thirdly, the noble Earl will be the first to recognise that some of us who have had the good fortune to attend Trooping the Colour ceremonies in successive years find it significant that there is not a single black face on the parade ground. That is disturbing. The matter has been raised with some of the senior officers of the guards' division. Many of us look for substantial progress in that specific area.
Finally, given that the Ministry of Defence is apparently looking at the problem I should like to make a suggestion. The Metropolitan Police, the prison service and some other police forces have held seminars where they encourage various members of ethnic minorities to come together to discuss problems they have experienced. That has been valuable with regard to both the prison and police services. If the issue is to be addressed by the Ministry of Defence, I hope that it will consider that experience.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that although the past may be the past, I hope that he will take encouragement from the fact that we are now moving ahead and looking seriously at the question. I think I am right in saying—I hope the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that it took some time before ethnic monitoring was taken on board in some police forces. However, it is taking place. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as I have said, strongly and firmly, that we are taking a good, hard look at the situation and hope to make a decision on ethnic monitoring before the end of the year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Speaking from this Box, this is not the first time that I have heard a Minister say that my amendments are not necessary. However, having heard the Minister's explanation of what is in train and understanding his deep interest in these matters, when he says that the amendments are

819
not necessary I am satisfied that that statement is well founded. We accept that the Minister will come back to the Chamber—we hope as soon as possible but we are flexible and tolerant in our understanding—to tell us how he and his colleagues have been able to put flesh on the bones of the Select Committee report.
The Minister is aware that throughout the Chamber—opposite, behind and on all sides—Members take a keen interest in the broad generality of this topic. We shall be listening and watching closely. We hope that the Minister returns with something positive to ensure that the armed forces are as effective in carrying out these specific duties as many other swathes of public service have become in recent years. It is substantially in the light of the Minister's reply that the Committee can be satisfied. I am satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clauses 24 to 27 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
Then Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th July):
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Under existing procedures we have an opportunity every live years to consider service discipline matters in detail. Armed forces Bills do not generally give rise to controversy and rarely do they contain major innovations. But they are nonetheless important for that. It is a vital duty for this House to give proper consideration on a regular basis to the system of service discipline and the procedures for discharging it. It is a system on which the effectiveness of our armed forces depends and we are justifiably proud of them.
The current Bill is notable perhaps for making quite significant changes to areas of service law which do not usually receive much attention. Part II of the Bill contains changes to the law relating to custodial sentences for young offenders and Part III to the protection of children at risk in service families overseas. The Bill also provides for a statutory right to apply for compensation in respect of miscarriages of justice as exists in civil law and for the introduction of powers to award compensation for personal injury.
I am glad that proposals in these areas and the other changes we are making have been generally well received by your Lordships. Together, they make improvements to the Service Discipline Acts, many of which bring service law more closely into line with civilian law.
By the careful scrutiny given to discipline matters generally during the passage of the Bill through this House, I believe the Acts can continue to command the respect and confidence of the servicemen, servicewomen and civilians to whom they apply. Even though we only consider an armed forces Bill every five years, the system of discipline in the armed forces is kept pretty well continuously under review. The
820
Select Committee of another place has carried out a very careful study of this Bill and discipline-related matters. They have made a number of important recommendations for the future. These will be studied carefully and in due course, as is the practice, each will be the subject of a considered government response.
We owe a great debt to our servicemen and women. We have seen all too recently in the Gulf conflict the professional and effective way in which they conduct themselves. It is our responsibility to ensure that the system of discipline, on which the efficiency and effectiveness of the work of the armed forces so much depends, strikes a sensible balance between the rights of servicemen and women as citizens and the extra constraints which must necessarily be imposed. I am confident that the Armed Forces Bill now before your Lordships will serve to ensure that the Service Discipline Acts continue to meet the needs of the services and command their confidence.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Graham, Lord Mayhew and Lord Rea, and many others who have made important contributions during the passage of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Arran).
Read a third time, and passed.

British Railways Board (Finance) Bill
5.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to be able to present to your Lordships a short and straightforward Bill which contains only three clauses. It does two things: it raises the statutory limit on the British Railways Board's outstanding indebtedness, and it sets a new ceiling on the public service obligation grant which can be paid to the Board by the Secretary of State.
The Bill illustrates the Government's anxiety to ensure that British Rail has the resources it needs to provide an attractive and efficient railway system, and to maintain its current record levels of investment. This investment is financed in a number of different ways. Partly it is funded from internal receipts. These come from passengers and freight customers and from the sale of property and other assets. We also fund much of BR's investment in the supported passenger sectors through PSO grant. But the rest has to be funded through borrowing.
Each year, we set BR an external financing limit, or EFL, for the following year. That limit is the total of BR's grant and borrowing requirements, and represents the total call which the board is making on the overall total of public expenditure which my right honourable friend the Chancellor is able to make available. It is announced each year by him in his Autumn Statement.
In his last Autumn Statement, my right honourable friend announced that BR's EFL for 1991–92 would be £1,122 million. This was already the highest EFL

821
which BR had been given for a number of years. It was over 50 per cent. higher in real terms than the EFLs set for the two previous years, even after taking account of the increases made in those EFLs part way through each year. That reflected the needs of BR's growing investment programme.
By the spring of this year, however, it was becoming clear that the downturn in the economy was having a serious effect on BR's revenues, and the board came to us with a request for an increase in its EFL. After considering BR's financial requirements in some detail, we reached the conclusion which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced on 19th June—an increase of £400 million to £1,522 million. At the same time, he announced that he would not be requiring BR to meet its £316 million overshoot on last year's EFL from this year's provision, as would normally be required. This announcement therefore represented an increase of over £700 million in the resources available to British Rail—a very generous figure, given all the competing pressures on public expenditure. The revised EFL of £1,522 million is 50 per cent. higher than the out-turn for 1990–91. And it is double the out-turn for 1989–90 even after allowing for inflation.
We are now taking the necessary steps to ensure that BR can take full advantage of the revised figure which we have announced. We have already sought provision in the Summer Supplementary Estimates for additional PSO grant of £185 million, taking the total for the year to £743 million. We also have provision for about £23 million of level crossings' grant. So we will be paying BR at least £766 million in grants in this financial year. It may be more than that.
Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the borrowing side of the equation. Ever since the British Railways Board was established by the Transport Act 1962, its borrowing powers have been subject to a statutory limit. It is important to understand what this limit is. It is not a limit on the board's borrowings in any one year. The statutory limit is a limit on the aggregate amount of the board's outstanding debts at any point in time. Each year BR takes out new loans from the National Loans Fund to fund part of its investment programme. Each year it also makes repayments on loans which have been taken out in previous years. It is the net effect of all these transactions which determines the board's aggregate outstanding indebtedness at any point in time.
It is common practice for the statutory borrowing limits of nationalised industries to be set in two stages, with an initial limit prescribed in the Act of Parliament concerned and a second, higher limit which can be introduced by order subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. The two limits in the BR legislation have been revised a number of times. The current limits were set in 1982 when the initial limit was set at £1,100 million and the higher limit at £1,300 million.
As a result of the board's increased investment programme, the existing limits are no longer adequate, and the time has come to raise them. On the basis of the revised EFL which we have now agreed, it is clear
822
that BR will need to borrow more than the existing limit of £1,100 million allows before Parliament returns from the Summer Recess. They may even need to borrow more than the maximum of £1,300 million to which we could raise the limit under existing legislation. We have therefore decided that it would be prudent to introduce new primary legislation to set completely new limits. The new limit which the Bill sets immediately is £3 billion, and there is a power to raise it to a higher limit of £5 billion by affirmative resolution of the House of Commons in the normal way.
We are also taking the opportunity, in Clause 2 of the Bill, to revise the existing statutory ceiling on PSO grant payments to British Rail. This is a different type of ceiling from the statutory borrowing limit. It is a cumulative ceiling on the total amount of PSO grant aid paid to BR since a given date. The payments in each individual year are added to the total of the payments made in previous years, and it is inevitable that the ceiling will sooner or later be exceeded and need to be replaced.
The grant ceiling was first introduced, along with the PSO grant, in 1974. In 1978, the ceiling set in 1974 was abandoned, and a new ceiling set for payments after the end of 1978. We are following that precedent. Under Clause 2 the existing ceiling will cease to apply to payments for periods ending before 1st April 1992, and a new ceiling will apply to payments for periods after 1st April 1992.
Like the statutory borrowing limit, the legislation imposing a statutory grant ceiling has always provided for a two-stage ceiling, with an initial ceiling and a higher ceiling which can be introduced subsequently by affirmative resolution. We have once again followed precedent in that respect. Clause 2 of the Bill introduces a ceiling of £3 billion for grant payments after 31st March 1992, with a higher ceiling of £5 billion which can be introduced by affirmative order.
The current limits for borrowing and grant have had a long life. The last primary legislation was in 1982. The borrowing limit in particular at £1,100 billion is now small by comparison with British Rail's annual turnover of well over £3 billion. And it is very small by comparison with the scale of BR's investment programme over the next few years. So legislation to increase the current borrowing limit was inevitable. We have taken the opportunity at the same time to set a new grant ceiling.
This is a modest, sensible and prudent measure which gives full effect to the EFL increase announced recently, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
5.47 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for his explanation of the Bill. I propose to follow the advice of the Secretary of State in another place who said at Second Reading:
"The Bill is primarily a technical measure, but the debate on its Second Reading gives the House an opportunity to

823
spend a relatively unusual amount of time debating the railways in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/91; col. 1100.]
We do not have a relatively unusual amount of time in this House, but that is how I intend to approach the matter. Perhaps I may say at the outset that it is a Bill for which, from the first, the Opposition promised its support in order to facilitate its enactment as rapidly as possible, not taking account of the time involved with my speech.
Speed is of the essence because the completion of British Railways' current capital investment programme would be in dire straits if the moneys provided for in the Bill were not forthcoming. The Minister did not say that in express terms but he implied it. Since 1979 a succession of Transport Secretaries, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries—most of whom have disappeared like snowflakes in summer—have presided over a national transport system which is disgraceful. The order of the day, which is recognised by the present Secretary of State, but not necessarily by his predecessors in terms of the railway system, has been too much congestion, shabbiness, lack of safety and unreliable services accompanied by poor pay and low morale as far as the staff are concerned.
That represents a serious impediment to our being able to take advantage of the industrial potential that will be opened up by the single market in 1992 and beyond. If anyone should believe that I have been unduly harsh in my condemnation of what has occurred, perhaps I may pray in support an assortment of views given by Members of the Government party in another place. I am not permitted to quote, but I hope that I will fairly summarise them. They utterly condemn the Government's railway policy.
"My impression", said one, "until a few weeks ago was I hat the Government had no transport policy other than the quest for profitability regardless of all other considerations". Another said, "Up to the present they have had a half-hearted approach to the railways". Again, "I detect change but it is nervous and hesitant about going further; that is to say, about providing the enormous resources that are needed in terms of investment capital". That was said during the course of the debate on this Bill in another place. So the words that I have used are modest compared with the indictment that has fallen from the lips of some of the Government's own supporters.
It is no accident that our transport system, and the railways in particular, should have fallen into this state of decline. I believe it flows directly from attitudes which have been displayed by government over the past 12 years—I do not want to be churlish about. the present Secretary of State—at least until the past few weeks. I believe it stems from the former Prime Minister's prejudice against railways. Again, those are not my words but those of a Conservative Member in another place. We are now paying the price for that ideological bias.
What happened, particularly after the Serpell Report of 1983, was that the Government concluded that an efficient and effective railway system could be operated by providing less money. They neglected to
824
observe that in no other major industrial nation do enterprising and innovative railway services, both freight and passenger, manage to run without far greater government support than has been provided here, particularly when it comes to research and development and the provision of new rolling stock and equipment and the ordering and provision of new lines.
France is an example where, whatever may be the colour of the government, they have successfully developed the TGV (train de grande vitesse). They are investing over £21 billion in more than doubling the size of that network over the next 20 years. France and other member states of the European Community are not engaging in the modernisation of old Victorian networks; they are building brand new lines. I know from my own discussions back in the time when I was a member of the Commission—but it is even more true today —that such governments are astonished that against the backcloth of the challenge presented by the Channel Tunnel the Government's policies in this country have been so limited, particularly in the provision of new lines.
The fact is that our railway system has been deprived to a far greater extent than any other major systems in the European Community. Again, that is not simply my view, it is the view of the Select Committee on Transport in another place, as well as the view of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The result of these policies of neglect has been poorer service and higher fares than those in the systems of our major competitors. For every pound that we spend on subsidising our railway system the West Germans spend £5 and the French £4.70. If we adjust for the size of the railway system—the figures are only fractionally less startling—the Germans spend £4.10 and the French £4.30. So there is no escaping the conclusion, which clearly this Secretary of State has reached, that British support has been paltry.
The effect is that it involves a seriously prejudicial impact on our industry. If we are to perform well in the Community we have to be able to transport our goods and our people to the best possible effect and by means which are least likely to damage the environment. Over the years British Rail has not been permitted to play the role that it could play in mitigating the huge congestion costs for which our country pays so dearly. Indeed, there is no level playing field (to use that ghastly phrase) between the railways and road haulage when it comes to land use —the use of the infrastructure over which they run.
There is no equality of treatment between road and rail when they have to compete for scarce funds. No proper balance sheet is kept which acknowledges the huge costs that are imposed on the nation in terms of accidents and congestion on the roads when 5,000 people are killed and 250,000 injured each year; that is roughly the population of an entire London borough being maimed or killed each year. Then there is the cost of enforcement and pollution and the lack of convenience. All those matters are not included in the balance sheets.
We worry about suggestions that are made in terms of declining standards of safety that always follow

825
every railway accident—King's Cross, Clapham, Purley, Bellgrove and, just a few days ago, Glasgow. We need to be concerned about these matters and to be satisfied that steps are taken to mitigate the incidence of tragedies such as these. We need to be satisfied that they are not associated with any lack of resources. However, we need to put these issues into their proper context because the numbers killed and injured in rail tragedies do not begin to compare with the slaughter on the roads.
The Government normally produce statistics like a conjuror produces a rabbit out of a hat, but today is something of an exception and I commend the Minister for that. The trouble is that the rabbit bears little resemblance to the experiences of the travelling public day in and day out. The House will have heard the Minister often enough seek to draw comparisons with previous governments, going right back to the earlier days of the 1970s. What is clear beyond any peradventure of doubt is that over the past 12 years or more this Government have enjoyed the uncovenanted benefits of North Sea oil revenues which have been denied to all their predecessors, Conservative and Labour alike—a fact which is singularly omitted in all the boastful claims that are made.
The truth is that the Government stand indicted out of their own mouths—out of the Citizen's Charter, which is not so much a Magna Charta as a Minima Charta. The charter provides the clearest indictment of the Government's failures when it refers to all the inadequacies of the railway services that it is going to cure. But the Government have been presiding over this situation for the past 12 years. I welcome the change of heart, though I am not sure that there is much meat in the document. However, that will give rise to debates on future occasions when we shall discuss this wonderful no-cost programme.
Lack of cleanliness and reliability are one thing, but fares that are far too high—a factor that is not even mentioned in the Citizen's Charter—is another. I suggest that the report should be laid not so much at the door of bad management, though undoubtedly that does occur, but at the deliberate policies of Ministers over the years. Therefore, why should not the Government be fair and consistent and allow travellers to attack the organ grinders rather than the monkeys?
Why in the Citizen's Charter, in terms of the remedies and compensations that are to be offered, is nothing said about the needs of disabled citizens travelling on British Rail? What about the needs of women travellers? Those are very specific and need to be addressed. What about an independent safety inspectorate? Those are three of the more important points that are totally omitted from that remarkable document.
It would be absurd to believe that the Government did not have adequate warning of what was to befall our railways. In the early 1980s the then chairman of British Rail, Sir Peter Parker, was warning that real dangers lay ahead if the rolling stock was to become more antiquated and if investment programmes were not substantially enhanced. For the first two years of
826
the Conservative Government the programme was rolled back, not advanced. That need is even more important today. There can be no more glaring example than the needs of British Rail in relation to intermodal freight, a point which has been given added emphasis by the development of a Channel Tunnel. This and so many other important developments in a railway system comprising some 11,000 miles simply cannot be financed out of, or substantially out of, British Rail's revenue.
Nor is any answer to be provided by reducing that network continuously, although that might be a way of making its current account much more profitable. As was said in the Second Reading debate in another place by a Conservative Member, the smaller the network, the more profitable it can become in economic terms—but the real question is whether that would be in our national interest.
Spending priorities are important. British Rail claims that it needs far more than the Government have been prepared to provide. In recent weeks the Government have done very much more than they had done over the previous period. The Secretary of State had indicated a clear commitment to the enhancement of rail transport. All that is to be welcomed. But we need to know the consequences in practical terms of enacting the Bill. What will be the priorities to be deployed by British Rail in consultation with the Government? Will the Heathrow express link be helped? What about the Manchester airport link? What about the Ashford international station? Will more progress be made in terms of creating greater compatibility of gauge for track and wagons with those on the Continent? That is important if trains are to travel across Britain to distant parts of the Continent without loads having to be transferred. What will those priorities be?
Our very strong belief is that our railway system must be given much more support to enable it to catch up with the neglect of the past as well as to face the challenges of the future so as to play a much more significant role in our economic and transport policies. A network of rail services must be retained and enhanced in a way that corresponds to our national requirements and helps our national prosperity. To achieve that, long-term planning, rather than the "ad hocery" in which even now the Government engage, is vital. That is the antithesis of what has been practised —certainly until the present Secretary of State entered the scene—following Serpell, whose majority report was, in effect, calling for savings on maintenance and signalling. All that was in unhappy contrast to the conclusions reached by the minority of the Serpell Committee who called for a 20-year plan, a proposal different from what the Government had in mind.
The policies have been manifestly wrong. It has been wrong to reduce the PSO grant over the past two years. To allow the service to run down, to observe that there are then serious deficiencies and then to suggest that the answer must be privatisation is a time honoured tactic of this Government. They speak a great deal about privatisation but they do not say much about what it really means. If it means joint ventures with the private sector, there is no problem

827
for us. If it means allowing the private sector access to the railway system, it is happening already. It does not represent a problem for us. We would go on to encourage it. But do they really mean competition between passenger trains using the same tracks? In that connection I shall cite the salutary words of Mr. Richard Hope, an acknowledged expert on railways, when he gave evidence to the European Communities Committee of your Lordships's House on 25th October 1990. He said:
"I am not aware of any situation in the world where there is effective competition between passenger trains using the same tracks".
As a Conservative Member of another place put it: "It is phoney competition that will not result in the running of a better railway service".
We need to face up to real problems and not rely on those phoney solutions. What is needed is real commitment to the railways, as has been demonstrated in other member states. Joint ventures and partnerships and some change of rules regarding borrowing requirements are to be welcomed. Equally, what would also be welcomed is a change of heart about the infrastructure programme for the European Community This encapsulates the way in which, over the past few years, the Government have considered the whole railway and infrastructure problem. When the Commission sought to advance a pragmatic, non-ideological attitude about the infrastructure to fill in the missing links in the community, the Government's response was opposition. It is fair to say that they were not alone. The overwhelming majority of the capital will have to be provided by the private market. But there is a major role for public capital too—as a catalyst for attracting private finance and as the sole instrument where private finance finds that vital areas of infrastructural development are unattractive.
Just as there has been an unquestionable advance in the way the present Secretary of State has looked at railways, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government will examine the whole infrastructure programme of the European Community. That is critical to the future of the Community and all our citizens. I concede that the Secretary of State has belatedly recognised—belatedly for the Government, not for him—that our railways are in a position of crisis. He is perfectly reasonably, at this stage, engaging in crisis management. But we should recognise that crisis management is always expensive, that it follows abdications of responsibility which are always costly in the end. What we need—all of us, preferably operating together—is to strive for the best system, the most efficient, the safest and least polluting system. If a consensual approach is possible, why should we not try it? Some of the solutions will involve difficult measures so far as concerns the electorate. When I say that I do not believe that we should engage in the thin pretence that the Secretary of State for the Environment engaged in when he invited everyone to help him solve the self-inflicted problems of the Government in relation to the poll tax. I mean it genuinely. I think it can be done. It is done in other countries. It should be done here. I hope that that will be possible.
828
Having said all that, I believe that the Government are right to introduce the Bill. It is right too that all the proceedings on the Bill should be concluded in one day.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, after that speech, I shall be brief. It is clear that the Bill is necessary. British Rail will run into the buffers between now and October unless we do something about the situation. I shall return to that aspect later. I cannot help, once again, noting the enormous interest that the outside world is showing in the debate. I should like to point out to noble Lords who are fresh to this place the little signs which indicate that interest. For example, it is always quite clear when a transport debate is taking place. The covers are on the television cameras.
There are just one or two points I should like to make. We welcome the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, we welcome too the apparent change of direction which seems to have come with the new Secretary of State. We hope that that change in direction continues. I say that because, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, we believe strongly that the railways of this country must be boosted in order to shift passengers and freight off the roads.
I am not at all sure that British Rail always helps itself. Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied that it is doing sufficient at present in terms of collecting fares? It seems to me that BR has got itself into a vicious spiral. Underfunded as it is, it has resorted to making a large number of staff cuts. These are continuing; indeed, in some places, they are accelerating. One wonders whether those staff cuts have meant a loss of revenue through the failure to collect fares. It is obvious on InterCity trains that it would not be too difficult for people to dodge paying their fares. There is a tendency for the inspector to walk along the carriage inviting people to offer their tickets rather than demanding to see them. I have an unpleasant feeling that some people take advantage of that.
One wonders how the increased funding will affect the existing problems of British Rail. I shall mention just one or two. Many of the problems relate to the Channel Tunnel development. We need to know from the Minister, if possible today, when the Government expect to be able to determine the new link with the Channel Tunnel. I do hope that it will not be announced during the Summer Recess when Parliament will not have a chance to discuss the matter. There will be deep disappointment if no announcement is made before the House rises for the recess. Indeed, the people of Kent, who will have to wait another three months or so—that is, if it is to be explained in parliamentary time—will suffer another period of uncertainty, planning blight and all the other related aspects. We need a clear answer on where the link is to go.
Can the Minister say when Ashford will start? We discussed this matter on 1st July. It was not at all clear at that time what the programme would be. Again, we need to know. Further, what is the current position on the rolling stock for trains travelling north of London?

829
Have the difficulties been overcome whereby when trains pass signal points they turn the lights to green as a result of some electronic complication? I gather that that is what was holding up the development of the rolling stock. However, we cannot hope to have a proper rail network link into the Channel Tunnel until we have resolved such problems. In the meantime, as we know, people will have to change platforms at Waterloo in order to get from the North to Europe. That is not what the Channel Tunnel was designed for; it was designed to encourage people to board a train in Edinburgh, Manchester or Liverpool and go straight through to the capital cities of Europe.
Further, is there any news about King's Cross? Will the extra funding help in that respect? What news is there of further freight terminals? The one at Wakefield has been determined, but has anything further happened. For example, has any money been allocated for the building of that freight terminal in time to coincide with the opening of the Channel Tunnel? Again, it must be stressed that freight is one of the most important aspects of the Channel Tunnel.
I also remind the Minister that my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked him on 1st July, at col. 769 of Hansard, when the review would be completed on the Ryrie rules. That is quite relevant to the Bill before the House in terms of funding. I believe that the Minister promised to write to my noble friend. But either he has not done so or the Post Office is becoming as inefficient as British Rail.
I really do not want to say any more. This Bill must go through quickly today. However, it is perhaps a reflection of lack of forward planning that we find ourselves in this sort of hurry and scurry two days before the Summer Recess. Surely, someone should have thought ahead and realized that British Rail would be more than a little short of cash in the coming year. One is surprised that we have to suspend normal processes in this House in order to get a Bill through quite so quickly. Nevertheless, I commend it to the House.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mountebanks: My Lords, I should first declare an interest. The Bill before us is an important and welcome measure setting, as it does, the framework for meeting British Rail's borrowing and grant requirements over the next few years. I think that we are all agreed that the present situation is not a happy one. British Rail went from a profit of £270 million in 1989–90 to a loss of £11 million in 1990–91—a loss which reflected both reduced levels of economic activity, reduced demand and also the problems that British Rail's generally highly successful property operations were experiencing.
One cannot really be certain that this year will be any better. Customer revenues are falling away badly and the property market is still extremely poor. Therefore, while one welcomes the recent increase in British Rail's external financing limit by 36 per cent. to £1.5 billion, one would have wished to see BR's request for £1,862 million met in full. Without the missing £340 million, investment projects which have
830
already been mentioned such as the Heathrow Express, the Manchester Airport Link, Ashford International and Ashford-Ore electrification are all slipping. Those projects have not just local importance; they have international importance. They are all projects for the future. It seems to me that they serve to focus just how far British Rail has come over the past decade, not only in terms of ongoing investment but also in terms of customer appeal, efficiency and, indeed, of general appeal.
We must make the most of this Bill's opportunities for preserving investment momentum at the record £1.1 billion which we are hoping to see this year or perhaps—the other figure which has been quoted—£4 billion over the next three years. One has Sir Bob Reid looking—I think, perhaps, rightly—for £1.1 billion on average over the next decade. One wonders whether the powers in the Bill will be adequate to meet those requirements. We know the commitments and we know the slippages. However, there are other very large projects on the horizon, some of which have been mentioned. I refer to those such as Kings's Cross International, the Channel Tunnel link and British Rail's share of the costs of Cross-Rail which is very much more than just a tunnel under central London.
We must look to an ever increasing level of investment in safety. I know that the chairman and the leaders of the rail unions are all agreed on the matter. Whatever is vulnerable in terms of recession, we must make sure that safety investment is not prejudiced. Can my noble friend give any figures for projected safety investment over the next few years? Further, does he have any details as to BR's research into that most unpredictable of safety factors —the human one?
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned several accidents. It is sad to note that most were caused by driver error; that is, a driver running through a red light. I know that there is co-operative research into that topic. Is my noble friend able to report any progress?
As has been said, the Bill deals with BR's external financing limit which is made up of grant and borrowings. One sees that last year's investment was funded inter alias 34 per cent. by borrowings and 24 per cent. by grant. The Government have set BR a target of eliminating grant for Network South-East by March 1993 and of seriously reducing grant payable to the regional railways by the same date. I wonder whether that target stands. If it does, investment could again be prejudiced. Furthermore, loss of grant could lead to increased borrowings. One must be worried that those could more quickly reach the limits set out in the Bill.
I have some reservations about the Bill, but in general terms I give it a warm welcome. Whatever one's hopes for BR, it needs a financial framework and that is what the Bill provides.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, when this matter was discussed in another place the Secretary of State invited a general discussion on British Rail. My noble friend accepted that invitation. I do not propose to

831
repeat his wide-ranging comments. I spent some years on the British Railways Board like the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, whom I see in his place. We travelled 900 miles each week by BR from our homes to the House. I have an abiding interest in BR and a fair amount of practical experience of how it works.
I welcome the Government's changed attitude to BR. I have considerable admiration for the new Secretary of State who presided over Scottish affairs until he was transferred to transport. It is nice to hear Mr. Rifkind's bullish statements in connection with BR's Future and his plans to increase investment. The only worrying feature about that is that I checked today how many Ministers there had been in the Department of Transport in the past 12 years. The number is eight. That means that the Minister who proposes the forward investment programme may find that he is no longer in post in 16 months or so.
The efficient working of a large industry such as BR depends upon a good understanding and working relationship between the chairman, the chief executive and the management. The railways have been denied that. Sir Peter Parker used to say, "I did not know what my targets were. My Minister kept changing. When I was appointed chairman, I did not know what targets I was supposed to meet". I am happy to say that since Sir Peter Parker's time BR's new chairmen have been given well-established remits and their performances can be judged against them. That is an improvement.
There is a good deal of public misunderstanding about BR's finances. The Bill proposes to give BR increased borrowing powers and deals with the PSO. When the press reports on BR, the usual headline is, "BR to get another £1.3 billion". There is a suggestion that BR is being given that money by the Government, whereas we are talking about a further loan to BR to finance investment. The Minister and BR should make that point clear. Incidentally, I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who said that BR should help itself. It should also advise the House from time to time. I telephoned BR this morning to discover whether it had any comment to make about the Bill. I received some information at about 10 a.m. this morning. I went to the PPO and asked whether it had BR's latest annual report. The staff said, "Does it publish an annual report, because we do not have it". BR has an obligation to keep the House somewhat better advised of its activities.
I wanted to make the point that we are talking about increased borrowing. The money is a loan and not a gift. What is a gift is the PSO grant. It is interesting to note that the PSO grant now is only half in real terms what it was in 1983. BR has cut its demand on the Treasury by 50 per cent. since 1983. Railfreight and InterCity now receive no subsidy. They are outside of grant. They pay their own way. People make comparison with continental railways. It is a compliment to BR that the Bundesbahn and the Swiss Railways now call their new high speed trains InterCity. They have copied BR's example.
It is a tribute to the management and the people who serve in BR that they have been able to accomplish this reduction in PSO. I saw the noble
832
Lord, Lord Marsh, in his place earlier. I hoped that he might participate in the debate, because I seem to recall that in his day BR had over 200,000 employees. Today the figure is 130,000. In 1979, in Sir Peter Parker's day, it was 182,000. BR has paid considerable attention to economies and productivity, and that should be recognised.
I wish to say one more thing about the considerable investment programme that is now being approved. The investment programme is BR's highest for 30 years, and that is to be welcomed. One thing worries me; and that is British manufacturing industry's ability to produce the rolling stock necessary to deliver up the £1.3 billion. I understand, for example that our rolling stock provision for the Channel Tunnel is well behind. Certain technical problems have not yet been solved. If the Continent prepares its side of the Channel Tunnel and has the rails in place, it would be a tragedy if British industry were not in a position to provide the necessary rolling stock. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on that matter, because the new investment programme that he is introducing today involves a high commitment to the Channel Tunnel as well as to BR's general responsibilities for keeping a national network going.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis finished his interesting speech with a plea for consensus in running this great industry. That is one of the matters that I support. I am essentially a consensus politician. I very much regret, although it is probably inevitable, that in the run up to a general election, every issue will be politicised. Even accidents on the railways are sometimes exploited for political purposes. I resent that. I should like to have a consensus approach such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
I hope that we shall not get too bogged down in the debate about privatising British Rail. The experience of British Rail in privatising has not been happy. If there is one blemish on the record of the new Secretary of State since he took office it is his continual emphasis that he wants British Rail privatised at some stage. I hope that he will forget that arid, doctrinaire debate for a little while, at least until after the election. I remember when Mr. Nicholas Ridley was Minister and I was on the board. He insisted that we should privatise the British Transport hotels. That was a good idea and I supported the privatisation. Railwaymen are not good at running hotels.
However, it was a matter of party policy; it was a kind of macho thing to put 28 hotels on the market at the same time. That privatisation exercise attracted £40 million; today one could not buy a single hotel for £40 million. The company that bought the Gleneagles group reckoned that they got Gleneagles for nothing. When we talk about privatising, we should look at this example. We did not carry that out sensibly in British Rail, as we did it at the behest of a doctrinaire Minister.
I wish to say a word about the property board. It has been one of the great financial supports of British Rail. It has raised for British Rail about £2 billion in 10 years. Here again, there was the doctrinaire influence of Ministers from time to time demanding

833
that we must sell off all the sites, that we must get rid of these surplus sites. Some of them are the best sites in every town—city centre sites. Thus, we were pressed to dispose of them in order to satisfy the great privatisation hunger.
Only recently have we been able to develop sites in partnerships such as the great Broadgate development at Liverpool Street where British Rail managed to obtain an entirely new station out of the deal and £200 million up front. It also has a share of the rental revenues. That concept of property development would have made possible for British Rail a continuing income rather than disposing of prime sites to private enterprise, to make large amounts of money in property development. I hope that when we look at these matters we shall be able to approach the problems of financing British Rail in a totally non-doctrinaire manner.
The presence of the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, reminds me, since I saw the debate in the other place, that British Rail debates are always an invitation to constituency members to complain about their railway service. I cannot resist saying that, although British Rail has done wonders in providing trains from London to Edinburgh which take four hours and 10 minutes—which is a great service—they have forgotten to connect stations beyond Edinburgh for people who live in St. Andrews, Dundee, or Aberdeen like the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, and myself. The four o'clock train has been withdrawn which took people home to Aberdeen after a day in London. That service ought to be better planned. Having made that individual but important comment, I very much support the Bill; I hope that we shall not have an early change of Minister and that the impetus of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and his noble friend will be sustained.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I recognise, even in my novice state, that the Bill is largely technical, but I consider that the role of railways in our economy is so crucial that I wish briefly to mention some of my concerns. Unfortunately, all of us who travel as passengers have our horror stories, although I suspect that if there were a club for members who had missed appointments by courtesy of British Rail I should be chairman. Gradually I begin to admire the information system which tells British Rail when I am travelling.
The Citizen's Charter will, I believe, deal with several of our discontents. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am not looking for special arrangements for women passengers. I believe that journeys should be safe for all passengers, of whom women form part. I hope that some of the borrowings will be spent on training. There is minimal value in reducing the booking office waiting times for the privilege of speaking to extremely rude personnel. I hope that while electrifying the lines, British Rail will galvanise their staff.
834
I hope also that British Rail's forthcoming passengers' charter will do something for the youngsters who buy a valid saver ticket from London to Glasgow for the privilege of sitting on the corridor floor much too often. I hope that the wearing of name badges will spread to those commuting British Rail staff who occupy seats on the peak hour trains, leaving full fare-paying passengers to stand.
As Liverpool Street emerges from its chrysalis in true glory, I hope that with the new borrowings British Rail will now pay attention to Birmingham New Street station. The city has built one of the finest convention centres in the world, but the conditions one finds on getting off the train at Birmingham would encourage most visitors to get straight back on again. I believe this to be one illustration of the seeming reluctance on the part of British Rail to work in close partnership with other organisations. At the time the Government authorised the initial £130 million to regenerate the Black Country, British Rail removed 13 trains from the timetable on which potential investors and future employees could travel.
It is the West Midlands which brings me to my feet today. The area is the heart of manufacturing industry. It sees the opportunities in Europe as enormous, but it knows that efficient servicing of these markets will be based on rail networks. Here I share common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I find it surprising and depressing that the site of a European rail freight terminal in the West Midlands has not yet been identified. It is already too late in the planning timetable and it is totally inexplicable to investors examining the possibilities of building factories in the area.
I believe that we need to support access to funds for British Rail. If we get freight off the roads and on to the railways, we save lives and improve quality. We save money and open new avenues for industry. However, we must pre-plan. Europe is now, not tomorrow. I have considerable respect for the chairman of British Rail. I hope that he and my noble friend the Minister will recognise the concern of those of us involved in regeneration that British Rail should use some of its new resources to give industry the infrastructure it so desperately needs, if it is to be the successful player in Europe which the Prime Minister foretells.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on what is, as my noble friend said, largely a technical Bill. I shall try to respond briefly but, I hope, reasonably comprehensively to the points that have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as is his wont if I may say so, launched into a very critical attack on the Government's attitude to the national transport system in general and their attitude to the railway system in particular. He described the national transport system as disgraceful and the Bill as being just another bit of crisis management. He put the blame largely on the former Prime Minister's prejudice against the railways. However, he did say

835
that he welcomed the advance, or alleged advance, in our attitude to the railways expressed by the present Secretary of State. I would only say in response that we are at present investing in the railway system at the highest real level for 29 years. That investment was started during the term of office of my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister. It is certainly a much higher level of investment than that achieved under the party opposite in its previous term of office and even in its term of office before that. We can be proud of our investment record.
The noble Lord compared our investment proposals with those in France. I believe he said that France intended to invest £21 billion in the TGV system over the next 20 years. All I can say is that investment for this year on British Rail is expected to rise to over £1 billion. We do not perhaps look 20 years ahead, but if one extrapolates £1 billion over 20 years one reaches a similar figure to that proposed by the French.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. The French are investing £21 billion in the TGV alone. In addition to that a vast number of new lines are being constructed. On the Minister's own figures the French are far in advance of us in terms of investment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point. We, of course, have plans for new lines in connection with the Channel Tunnel. I shall have more to say about that in a moment. The noble Lord also criticised the Citizen's Charter. I was glad that my noble friend Lady Denton welcomed the proposals within that charter. Of course, there is always room for improvement within existing resources as regards the way services are produced. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that British Rail will publish its charter commitments within the next month or two. Therefore, we shall see those commitments by the time we return from the Recess.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Mountevans referred to safety. That is an important issue. Last year British Rail spent £140 million on safety improvements. Next year it plans to spend more. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has on previous occasions made clear that British Rail will not be short of money for safety improvements. The PSO grant has risen over the past two years by 25 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to that grant. The noble Lord quite rightly said that we should be proud of the fact that both the freight division and InterCity no longer require grants and are able to run on a freestanding and profitable basis.
International comparisons have been made. We should be proud of the fact that we do not need to give as high a subsidy to British Rail as is the case with SNCF or Deutsche Bundesbahn. As a percentage of GDP we give British Rail a subsidy of some 0.12 per cent., whereas both the French and the Germans—I am referring here only to what was formerly West Germany—give a subsidy of 0.63 and 0.62 per cent. respectively in total. One of the reasons that subsidy is low for British Rail is because British Rail's debt levels
836
have been low until recently. The debt levels have been around £200 to £300 million. In contrast SNCF had debts of around £10 billion after a substantial write-off in 1989. Deutsche Bundesbahn had debts of around £16 billion at the end of 1990. We can be proud of British Rail's figures in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, also mentioned efficiency. In 1989 total train kilometres per employee stood in France at 2,460 and in Germany at 2,570. British Rail managed a figure of 3,470. British Rail achieved a substantially better figure than either the French or the Germans of whom we hear so much praise. The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, both referred to the prospects for privatisation. I fear that on this matter there is no consensus between us. We on this side of the House remain convinced that, ultimately, privatisation is the right way forward for the railway system. We intend to proceed along those lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and others, asked how British Rail would make use of the money to be made available by this Bill. We believe that British Rail should take responsibility for managing the railway network and planning investment. The Government discuss with BR the latter's overall financial requirements in the course of the annual public spending round. It is then for British Rail to determine its priorities within the resources available.
I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave to the Bill. He wondered whether BR was doing enough to ensure that it collected its fares properly. British Rail makes every effort to collect fares, as obviously it is in its interests to do so. Staff are paid a bonus incentive to collect excess fares on trains. Recently, penalty fare schemes have been introduced on some lines. It is hoped to introduce them more widely over the network. It is notable that nearly all European Community countries are moving away from ticket barriers and are relying on fare collection on trains. When I last travelled on a train last Friday not only was my ticket checked as I entered the platform but it was also checked during the journey and it was taken away from me when I reached my destination. Perhaps noble Lords may regard that action as a little excessive.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the staff did not trust the Minister.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the staff did not trust me. In that case they did not trust anyone else on the train either.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me a number of questions, mainly related to the Channel Tunnel. As regards the rail link, we received British Rail's report on the rail link options on 3rd May. A decision on the way forward will be reached as soon as possible though not, as the noble Lord said, before the Recess. The project is a large one and we must consider the options thoroughly and carefully. We shall almost certainly wish to make a statement on the subject as soon as Parliament returns after the Recess.
As regards Ashford international passenger station, my right honourable friend received British

837
Rail's investment submission for that station at the end of January. The Government remain committed to the provision of that station. It is up to British Rail, following the increase of £400 million in its external financing limit—announced in June—to consider, in the light of the funds now available to it and its priorities, whether the works on Ashford international passenger station could go ahead quickly if they were approved.
The noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to the Channel Tunnel trains north of London that are to run during the day. We have not yet received an investment submission from British Rail for those trains. British Rail has now received a tender from GEC-Alsthom which it is evaluating. The technical difficulties with the trains have been overcome, though British Rail has not decided whether to use trains which are capable of being split or shorter trains which would be able to use the platforms north of London. British Rail is currently seeking to negotiate a competitive price for the trains. Once we receive BR's investment submission we shall process it as quickly as we can.
The King's Cross terminal is linked to a decision on the Channel Tunnel rail link. It is also dependent on the progress of the Bill in another place. British Rail is continuing to develop proposals for freight terminals. We expect further announcements shortly. A delay in introducing this Bill has been referred to. We could not introduce this Bill until agreement had been reached on the revised EFL. That has been reached only recently.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans referred to future levels of safety investment. I believe I have already commented on that. I mentioned investment for this year and next year. Investment on safety in future years will, of course, be discussed with British Rail in the light of the board's proposals. As regards research into driver error, I believe British Rail accepts the conclusions of the joint study with London University and is implementing its recommendations on improved management, information and the training and supervision of drivers.
Regarding the PSO grant objectives for Network SouthEast and regional railways, the Government have made clear that the objectives are targets and not obligations. The chairman said recently in the annual report—which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will find was published on 2nd July and copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses but I can certainly let the noble Lord have another copy—that the timetable for achieving the objectives would have to be reviewed. The Government stand ready to enter discussions with the board on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, with his great experience on the board of British Rail, gave us the benefit of his advice. I agree with much of what he said. I particularly agreed with his observation that accidents on British Rail have sometimes been politicised. That is a very regrettable step. During my time in the department I have had the misfortune to be involved with a number of different transport accidents. On every occasion the first judgments which
838
have been made have proved to be entirely wrong when the report on the accident has finally been published. It is much better to wait to see what the report has to say.
I shall not comment on the noble Lord's constituency points, and I do not believe that he expects me to do so.
My noble friend Lady Denton praised British Rail's developments at Liverpool Street and hoped that similar developments would occur at Birmingham New Street station. I hope that the board will take careful note of what my noble friend said.
Regarding freight links in the West Midlands, the region will have a Channel Tunnel freight terminal offering through freight services to the Continent. For 1993 British Rail plans to enhance the existing Freightliner terminal in Birmingham to service Channel Tunnel freight from the Midlands. To meet growth in the medium term BR plans to develop either an intermodal freight village at Bescot or construct a new intermodal terminal and freight village at Coleshill adjacent to the M6 and M42 motorways.
With those brief words I hope that I have covered most of the points which noble Lords made in this short debate—but I obviously have not!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to do so. I asked him about the Ryrie rules. I remind him that he also had a mental block on the point at an earlier stage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I am under the impression that I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I can clearly recall having done so. However, I shall check on that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps he has lost the letter!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not lost the letter, but I shall check to make sure that that correspondence is complete.
With those few words I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987
6.53 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the Income Support (General) Regulations (S.I. 1987, No. 1967) to extend the eligibility for income support until the age of 18 to 16 and 17 year-olds who have completed, or are available for, and actively seeking, training under the youth training scheme, or for whom such training is not available by reason of their age; who are pregnant; or who are registered people living

839
away from their parents, or from any person acting in place of their parents, and are doing so for the purposes of seeking work or training, or were in the care of a local authority or in custody immediately before reaching the age of 16.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is an established procedure, but I owe the House a word or two of explanation since not all noble Lords are familiar with it. It has been used a number of times recently, by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in 1986, among others. It was described in paragraph 11 of the first report of the Procedure Committee this Session:
"a motion or amendment may be moved calling upon the Government to take some specific action. In particular, such motions have been used to invite the Government to amend subordinate legislation, thereby obviating the need to divide on such legislation itself. If carried, the effect of such a motion is to invite amendment of the subordinate legislation in question".
In other words, the effect is not mandatory.
Nevertheless, as a matter of good form, government have complied with such Motions when they have been carried. The last one carried in this place was a Motion moved in 1977 by Lord Duncan-Sandys against putting motorways through national parks. The Government withdrew the regulations and brought them back amended as the noble Lord suggested. So, were this Motion to be carried, the House might have a certain cautious optimism that as a matter of good form what was asked might be done.
On matters of good form there are few noble Lords who carry more weight than the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I should like, with his permission, to quote what he said on 2nd July last year on this subject. He said:
"If noble Lords desire to alter the provisions of a regulation they can table a Motion in the ordinary way requesting the Government to amend the regulation. If noble Lords can persuade the House to carry that Motion most governments will be inclined to respond. If governments do not respond they will get themselves into considerable difficulties and trouble. Surely that is the practical way of proceeiling".—[Official Report, 2/7/90; col. 1906.]
The noble Lord was addressing that advice to me, among others, on this subject. I have listened to it and I have taken it.
The Government's policy with which we are now dealing is that those aged 16 and 17 should be in education, work or youth training. They are to be denied the option of benefit. The Motion does not challenge the principle of that policy. My noble kinsman will concede that, by the use of this procedure, it is impossible to challenge a principle of government policy. This procedure can only amend what is contained in regulations. My noble kinsman has told the House many times that the general principles of Government policy are spelt out in statute, which this procedure cannot touch. Therefore, the procedure can deal only with the details, which is what I am attempting to do.
Since that policy came into effect in 1988 there has been a swelling chorus of complaint about the hardship it has caused. We have had innumerable small surveys. I shall mention only, among others, those conducted by Centrepoint, Barnados, Professor
840
Sinfield for the University of Edinburgh, the Children's Society report Fit for Nothing, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, and a succession of large briefings from citizens advice bureaux. We have also had briefings from such bodies as Shelter, Maternity Alliance, Youth Aid, and today, by coincidence, from Church Action on Poverty, on which I believe my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley intends to speak.
Those have been met by a series of very small responses. Rather than using my own words I shall use those of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless:
"The Government has tinkered with the edges of the problem by introducing a series of minor amendments over the past two years".
By coincidence, a number of those amendments have been introduced immediately in front of votes in this House. If my noble kinsman intends to run true to form tonight, there may be another. If so, I shall bear in mind that those which have been offered to us previously have been very little ones and the chorus of reports of hardship have not diminished after them.
In addition to all of those reports we have the MORI report commissioned by the Department of Social Security dealing with the severe hardship provision on which the Government rely. That is a very valuable report but its authors have themselves admitted that it is limited by its own method. It deals only with those who have already submitted applications for the severe hardship provision. It does that well but it leaves out the lower part of the iceberg, those who have lost touch with the system altogether. Therefore, in order to get a full picture it needs to be used in context with one of the reports dealing with that part of our sample; such as, for example, the Centrepoint survey of some two years ago.
The categories that I have selected for this Motion have been chosen from an innumerable collection of briefing papers that have come to me over the past three years. First, I have been looking for a particular type of hardship that seems to me to have recurred over and over again; and, secondly, cases where that hardship has occurred as a result of the application of a principle that seems to me likely to recur, and likely, by its very nature, to create further hardship.
The Government sometimes refer to a category of 16 and 17 year-olds who simply are not willing to take youth training places. Those create desperately difficult issues. We may discuss them on some other occasion, but they are not on our agenda today. My Motion is not addressed to them. It is addressed only to those who are willing to take youth training places and who are, in the words of the Motion, "actively seeking" a youth training place. Those are words that the Government must find familiar. If the Government stick to their argument that the guarantee of a youth training place for every 16 and 17 year-old is effective, they should not object to those words because they should believe that that would cost them nothing.
There is a real problem here. Youth training has a dual purpose. It has a welfare purpose that demands universality, but it is also provided by private employers who have a legitimate interest in having the freedom to take on only those whom they are willing

841
to employ. MORI, for example, found that 5 per cent. of those who had been turned down by employers for youth training had a criminal record. I can see the employers' point here, but it did not stop those people needing to eat.
One can only check this question of the guarantee by looking at a short parallel report issued by the Department of Employment on 17th July this year. It deals with 120 people discovered by MORI who were willing to take a youth training place and could not get one. They had a follow-up action on that after four weeks. For 16 of them they said that placing action was continuing. I must stress that during those four weeks, unless they were successful under the severe hardship provisions, which not all of them were, they had no right to any subsistence whatever; 12 three of them had disappeared, and if that does not concern the Government it concerns me; 12 of them were no longer eligible because they were over 18. That figure is double, by statistical average, what it should have been.
It seems in fact that those aged 17 and 11 months suffered particular difficulties because employers will not take them on for youth training because they cannot complete the course, and from the employers' point of view that is perfectly legitimate. Four weeks is quite a long time to go without any subsistence. I have here details of 77 cases in which no youth training place was made available and in which the severe hardship provisions did not operate. All that has been provided by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and all, I assure my noble kinsman, have arisen since we last debated this subject in July 1990.
One other major category of hardship to which this Motion applies is those who have completed a youth training course. It seems to me that they have done everything that government policy requires of them. As the period we are dealing with is two years and the vast majority of youth training courses last under six months, and some of them a great deal less, a great many people have completed a youth training course and regrettably in the present climate cannot get a job. They are told that they are expected to live on a bridging allowance of £15 a week, which lasts for eight weeks, and after that nothing.
This Motion would restore an entitlement to income support to those who have taken a youth training place, who have completed the course and who are looking for work in the normal way. It would deal also with cases of pregnancy. I have information on 37 such cases with me. Those of us who are parents will know that one pregnancy is not like another, and one person's reaction to a pregnancy is not like another's. We have regularly heard cases like the one I have here of the waitress who was dismissed for suffering from morning sickness. One also thinks of toxemia.
The reaction of employers to pregnancy may vary sharply; particularly in the middle stages of pregnancy employers, perfectly legitimately in their own interest, have a reluctance to take on for youth training those who cannot complete the course. That accounts for a
842
vast number of hardship cases, and I cannot believe that the dietary implications are anything other than harmful for the children.
We also have cases of those who are estranged from their parents. This is the category where probably some of the greatest hardships happen. A number of those who have no benefit were found to be living off parents, friends, or relatives; I was dismayed to find that 5 per cent. were living off their social workers, who are not the richest section of our community. But some of those who have been thrown out—and that is 242 in MORI's sample of 551—had no such contacts. Indeed, some of them, especially those who have been abused, are often particularly friendless people. They account for a high proportion of the considerable sample who have been found sleeping rough, and also of the considerable sample—58 per cent. of those who have slept rough—who have been pushed to make a living by illegal means.
Twenty one per cent. of MORI's sample admitted to having made money by stealing, but I should be surprised if that were the complete figure; 6 per cent. admitted to having made a living by begging; 2 per cent admitted to having made a living by selling drugs. None of them admitted to living by prostitution. Here again one needs as a control the Centre-point survey, which asked the answerable and shrewdly worded question whether they had ever been approached to sell sex. The answer was "yes" for 20 per cent. of both sexes. That is the sort of thing that I mean by severe hardship, and that is the sort of thing with which this Motion is intended to deal. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the Income Support (General) Regulations (S.I. 1987, No. 1967) to extend the eligibility for income support until the age of 18 to 16 and 17 year-olds who have completed, or are available for, and actively seeking, training under the youth training scheme, or for whom such training is not available by reason of their age; who are pregnant; or who are registered people living away from their parents, or from any person acting in place of their parents, and are doing so for the purposes of seeking work or training, or were in the care of a local authority or in custody immediately before reaching the age of 16.—(Earl Russell.)
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Earl has explained the procedural considerations; he has also explained the situation that has arisen since 1988 when the benefit conditions for young teenagers were amended by the Government. A number of us expressed deep concern at the time. We thought that the move would lead to further impoverishment of a number of vulnerable young people. Unfortunately our fears appear to have been justified.
The Government's assumption was, and apparently still is, that most young people should continue to live at home. That view is held despite the evidence of broken homes, of young teenagers as well as children suffering abuse—sometimes sexual abuse—and of

843
children growing up in households where there is a great deal of domestic tension and sometimes violence. Such young people want to get away from that atmosphere and to live independently. Sometimes they are thrown out of the home. In the MORI research, of the 79 per cent. who were living away from home, half said that they had been thrown out.
The Government said that there would be a guarantee of a YT place so that all young people should have the opportunity of proper training and of some income while it proceeded. As we know now, that is not happening. In the South-East in particular there are now waiting lists for YT places. Yet Ministers apparently continue to believe that there is no need for 16 and 17 year-olds to be without an income and that they can either be in a job—although there is very high unemployment in some areas—or they can remain in education or take a YT place.
It is estimated that the Government have saved money as a result of the benefit changes. How much is not c ear, but estimates vary between £88 million and £200 million a year. That is not a lot, one would have thought. Certainly, if the benefit changes contribute to the creation of poverty, homelessness and crime, it is simply not worth it.
Another aspect of the benefit changes has been that young people, along with some other groups, cease to feature as part of the unemployment statistics. In response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, we were told this week that the figure of unemployed is now 2.3 million—despite the numerous changes made in the way in which the statistics are compiled. The changes always result in a downward reassessment of the figures. If unemployed claimants in the 16 to 17 year-old category were still counted, I am advised that there would be around 77,000 added to that figure, 55,000 of whom have no benefit at all. At least 14,000 of those unemployed are in the South-East.
We are now all familiar with the homelessness which is such a distressing feature of London streets and those of some other large cities. Many of those sleeping rough are young. It has been fashionable to assert that the poor have always been with us, but I cannot recollect homelessness and begging as a feature of London streets some 10 or 12 years ago. It is a relatively new phenomenon. In my view it is directly attributable to some of the policies of the Government. It has become worse in the past 12 months. It is now quite common to be approached on tube stations by people who are openly begging. Many of them are young women and some have babies with them. I simply do not believe that anyone would choose to sleep rough and beg on the streets if there were any other solution. Clearly, for many there is not.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I too am aware of a number of cases reported by the Citizens Advice Bureaux. For example, there was the case of a 17 year-old pregnant girl who was evicted from her previous home. The DSS had refused her benefit. The London CAB to which she reported said that she had absolutely no money at all. There were other instances of under-nutrition and shoplifting by young people who saw no other way to feed themselves. Perhaps the
844
Government can tell us the number of young people who are homeless. A recent report alleges that 150,000 16 to 17 year-olds experience homelessness at some time or other every year. Benefits for young people in board and lodging changed in 1989, with the result that they lost money. Some hostels and hotels no longer accommodate young people.
The Minister will no doubt refer to the statement recently made in the other place based on the MORI research which they commissioned. Additional steps are to be taken to alleviate the situation. These have been brought about because of the pressure and lobbying conducted by concerned organisations and individuals, notably some Members of your Lordships' House and in particular, if I may say so, the noble Earl, who is responsible for this Motion. But the steps proposed are largely administrative and, although they are to be welcomed, they do not go far enough.
It is necessary to ensure that the DSS officials who deal with young people have adequate training and are thus able to deal sensitively and in a sympathetic way with their problems. Measures to improve YT placements are also to be welcomed, as are plans to ensure priority for those with particular problems: those who are sleeping rough, those who have just left care, pregnant young women, the disabled and so on.
But those measures do not address the main problem, which is that young people, particularly those who somehow have lost contact with the system, as the noble Earl explained, frequently have no money at all or access to it. But they cannot obtain accommodation of any kind without it. If they are sleeping rough, they are unlikely to be able to get jobs, even if they are available. It costs money to make oneself presentable enough to get employment or perhaps a YT place. Young people in that situation frequently have no supportive background and no supporting family. To be young, lonely, hungry and penniless in a big city is a frightening experience. In such circumstances it is not surprising that some young people turn to petty crime and that young women and some young men, having nothing else to sell and seeing no other way to make a living, fall easy prey to those who would exploit them sexually.
The noble Earl who tabled this Motion has in my view performed a humane and valuable service. I very much appreciate that he has given us the opportunity to debate this sad and unacceptable state of affairs. I commend his Motion to your Lordships.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for having introduced this subject. We are discussing young people who find themselves in a gap for which there is no provision. I am sure that the Government regret that as much as anyone. Perhaps, however, we can produce some examples of how the situation could be improved.
I am advised by the Coalition on Young People and Social Security, which includes in its membership the Children's Society. I address your Lordships at the request of my noble friend Lady Faithfull who sadly

845
is not able to be present. I am sure that, with her great knowledge as an ex-director of social services, she would have given your Lordships a much better picture than I shall be able to do.
References have been made to the MORI research. I also shall make some reference to it. It has not been easy in the time available to take more than a superficial look at the findings. That being the case, I may be accused of being selective in the examples that I have chosen. The fact is that some are so horrifying, in the sense that people seem to be very much in the dark, notwithstanding the administrative system to which they can refer, that I think it is reasonable to give them.
We are talking of the 16 to 17 year-olds. These young people may have to deal with five different agencies. I have a grandson who is 16 coming on 17. I like to think that he is highly intelligent; of course I would say that about my grandson. However, although he would hate me for saying it publicly, I suspect that even he would find it difficult to pick out which of the five agencies he should approach. He might have to go to the careers service to find work and training, to the employment service to register as unemployed, and to the social security office, which I believe is now called the benefits office, to claim income support. If he wants severe hardship allowance, he has to claim it from a unit in a remote part of the kingdom, centred in Glasgow. And he might have to go to the TEC to uphold his youth training guarantee. Those are five bodies. As made clear by both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, he might well turn to the citizens advice bureaux, though that is not what one might call an obligatory service to which to turn. However, he probably would do so.
In the Isle of Wight, the Isle of Wight Youth Trust was set up by a very splendid and dedicated lady doctor to cope with the problems of young people, particularly in the age bracket of those who have just left school and up to about 23, who take drugs, who are thrown out of their homes by their parents, or who take to playing fruit machines, drinking alcohol or indulging in any kind of habit forming activity. The Trust encompasses all the people about whom we are talking. We have to struggle to receive backing from many sources—sponsorships, government, we try them all, and keep going. However, we need the trust because the official system—the social services department and so on —has not covered those gaps.
I hope that my noble friend will take this point on board. I am advised that it would be much better if one of the compulsory agencies were to co-ordinate any application so that young people did not have to hunt around all the other bodies that I have mentioned, many of which are in different parts of the country. Those who advise me suggest the careers service. The MORI research indicates that 46 per cent. of the sample considered that the information provided by the local social security offices was poor; 48 per cent. said that the social security staff were not good at explaining what could be claimed; and 73 per cent. said that the social security people failed to
846
mention other sources of income such as bridging allowance, housing benefit or crisis loans from the Social Fund. On the other hand, 98 per cent. of the MORI sample had been to their careers service; 71 per cent. had seen someone from the careers service before leaving school; and 72 per cent. of those who had been to the careers service found it helpful.
I am sure that it would be difficult, given our funny government system in which we have rival departments of state, like autonomous republics, to hand the matter over to the careers service. However, if that body were to be the centre for applications, it might be a good solution. It would help young people. They know of the careers service before they leave school.
Another problem is that the severe hardship arrangements are not working smoothly. The MORI research makes that clear. The severe hardship claims unit is located in Glasgow. Local social security offices have to refer cases to it for decision. As a result, 20 per cent. of those whose claim was unsuccessful thought that it had been successful; 21 per cent. of those who were successful thought that they had been unsuccessful; and 29 per cent. of those who said that their severe hardship claim was unsuccessful stated that they had received no explanation for refusal. I appreciate that that is one factor that the Government have picked up.
It is questionable whether youth training is sufficiently relevant and useful in finding and holding a job. The MORI research indicated that only 36 per cent. of the people in YT placements thought that the training they had received was useful. I do not believe that 36 per cent. is a good figure.
The evidence of the citizens advice bureaux confirms that the guarantee of a training place for every young person who needs one has failed. The bureaux continue to be approached by young people who are unable to find youth training places. Many have exhausted their eight weeks' entitlement to the £15 bridging allowance and will have no income unless they manage exceptionally to obtain the discretionary severe hardship payment—and that is difficult enough. The citizens advice bureaux give examples, but I shall not waste your Lordships' time on them.
In a statement in another place, the Government said that they would take additional steps. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to them. Perhaps I may ask the Government some questions. They say that they will have a specific manager in benefits districts to handle the 16 to 17 year-olds. Does that mean one manager in each office? If not, will not the difficulties that I have recounted of the severe hardship decisions being made remotely in some strange place repeat themselves in the offices if the expert is in only one place? The Government talk about training, which I welcome, as did the noble Baroness. One cannot give too much training on how to handle those young people. I believe that there is need for a specific manager in each office.
The Government talk of staff training in handling 16 to 17 year-olds and refer to private interviews and priority handling. Will such training cover all offices? The Government state that they will review the leaflets for 16 to 17 year-olds. Will copies of those leaflets be

847
available to the careers service offices, the employment service offices, the TEC and the citizens advice bureaux? Will the Government have someone write the leaflets who understands how 16 to 17 year-olds think rather than an official, or possibly a journalist?
With regard to sleeping rough in London, the Government say that the Department of Employment have earmarked hostel beds in London. Will my noble friend say whether that will be extended to other major cities? We might require some in the Isle of Wight and there are larger areas in the country which could benefit from that too.
We are having an interesting debate. It is important to raise these points and to have the subject clearly on the record. However, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will not feel that he has to take the matter to a Division. As the noble Earl explained, if he wins a Division it will not achieve immediate executive action. The Government will have to proceed as they think right. I hope that the noble Earl will not press us into corner. The important factor is the debate; and that should be enough.
When my noble friend the Minister replies I hope that he will give us more information about what the Government may do and will indicate that he has grasped the seriousness of the problem which applies to a relatively small number of vulnerable 16 to 17 year-olds.
7.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I was glad to see the Motion on the Order Paper. The noble Earl has done us all a service by giving us an opportunity to discuss this vital matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that, whether or not it is taken to a Division, it is important that the subject should be aired because it is grave. The mover of the Motion spoke of a chorus of reports of severe hardship among young people aged 16 and 17 years. I back that up from the experience that we have had in the Greater Manchester area.
The most obvious manifestation of hardship is the increase in the number of people begging and sleeping rough. That matter was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. However, there are other angles to the issue. As regards begging, one used to be able to say in this country that it was not good to give money to people who asked one for it in the street. The advice given to clergy in vicarages was that when people come knocking at the door, as they frequently do, they should offer them a cup of coffee and a sandwich but certainly not give them money. I find that a little harder these days because the evidence of growing poverty is so strong. We are discussing only one aspect of that growing poverty among a certain group of young people.
The issue of crime has already been referred to. Anything that increases the escalating level of crime is to be deplored. I align myself with the noble Earl's comments about the number of representations that have been received from different bodies which study these matters. There is ample evidence of individual cases in which such hardship has led to crime, in particular theft. One of the most disturbing issues
848
about the increasing level of crime in our older industrial areas is that the age of people engaged in such crime has dropped steadily year by year. Perhaps that point is not strictly relevant to the Motion but the issues are connected. Today many children are engaged in serious crime and it is extraordinarily difficult to know how to deal with that.
The changes in the benefit provisions have resulted in increased hardship for 16 and 17 year-olds and that matter should be addressed urgently. Recently a presentation was made to our diocesan synod by someone working in pastoral care in a college of further education in Bolton. He described the severe depravation even in students who are fortunate enough to have college places. They are simply unable to make ends meet and are not looking after themselves properly. They are driven towards illegal ways of keeping themselves going.
I and all noble Lords appreciate the many problems which face the Government when enormous demands for resources are made on them from every quarter. We know that money is limited and that there are many competing claims on public resources. None of us should talk as though resources are unlimited. On the other hand, if we agree that severe damage is being done, the problem of resources must be addressed. We must take the view that one does not establish absolute limits on what can be afforded, in particular by taxation policies.
I wish to quote from evidence given by the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility when the whole matter was under review in 1985. It stated:
"As Christians it is imperative that we challenge any policies which keep people poor. The values and assumptions about society implicit in the present Review of Supplementary Benefits disturb us deeply. We cannot accept the basic premise that whatever evidence is presented about needs, social security expenditure must be kept within its present limits. There is well-founded evidence … that large numbers of people in our society are not receiving enough money to maintain the health and morale of themselves and their children. A Christian understanding of responsible government implies that all citizens should be enabled to share adequately in the life of society. To allow a large section of the population to be excluded by lack of resources is morally unacceptable to us".
The Board for Social Responsibility was referring to the emergence of what has been called Britain's "under class". We are now dealing with one aspect of that; those aged 16 and 17.
Part of the idea behind the change in the benefit rules was that people of that age should remain in their families and that nothing should be done to encourage them to leave. Perhaps I may quote from a letter written last year by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. He stated:
"It is clearly not in the best interests of young people, their families, or the nation as a whole that young people move straight into the benefit culture on leaving school. The social security system should not provide an incentive for the vast majority of them to leave the family home which is the best environment for them".
However, the family home is not the best environment for a large number of the young people about whom we are now speaking. Obviously we should all prefer the family to remain undivided and give protection to young people of this age until they are fit to be fully independent. But life is not like that. We must realise

849
the facts that lead families to break up and young people of that age to separate from their parents to try to be independent somewhere else, even on the streets of London.
There is a similar argument in relation to divorce. Obviously we should prefer husband and wife to stay together whatever the pressures. Yet the reality of the situation in respect of divorce has led more of us to appreciate that in certain circumstances that simply cannot happen. So it is, surely, with young people who leave their families, go elsewhere and find themselves on our streets.
When last week I saw the headline in a newspaper stating that teenage benefit rules were to be eased my heart was lifted because I believed that this Motion might be unnecessary. However, the headline referred to the fact that the Government have acted to ease restrictions on social security claims made by teenagers of this age who have been in council care. We should be grateful that the Government have listened to those in that situation but the changes do not go far enough. We shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply and shall look for encouragement in the Government going further to try to meet the pressing needs which have been so well outlined this evening.
As regards places on YTS schemes the evidence is abundant. Although according to the overall national picture the situation may appear to be satisfactory, it varies from one area to another. It is not true that there are sufficient places in further education, on YTS schemes or in employment to deal with young people of this age.
Accommodation must be a major worry. There is a lack of affordable accommodation for young people and they may be unable to pay for bedsit or other accommodation. The assumption that somehow people of this age do not need as much money to sustain themselves as do the over-25s is not borne out by the facts. The case is argued on the grounds that one cannot expect youth wages to come up to adult wages. However, we are not concerned about wages but about basic needs. Surely the basic needs of youngsters of this age are as great as the needs of those who are older.
I conclude by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on speaking so eloquently about the complexities of claiming benefits. That is a major problem now facing us and it goes wider than this debate. The more the attempt is made to target benefits, the more complex becomes the claiming of those benefits. For many people, especially the youngsters about whom we are talking, claiming benefits has become very complex, very difficult and drives them into further hardship. I hope that we shall hear encouraging words from the Minister.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to follow the right reverend Prelate on this subject because I wish to underline the fact that this is a matter on which the Christian conscience of this country is properly exercised. I know that that phrase
850
could be misused and has been misused in the past. However, I have two reasons for believing that that is true. First, in the parishes which I have served in the past five years from the comfortable suburban part of southern England, the pews are full of people of all persuasions who have highly troubled consciences about what we are doing to help those involved in the underpart of society. That is one reason.
The second is that for quite a long time I have been involved in the organisation Church Action on Poverty. That is an ecumenical organisation originally formed by a number of diocesan social responsibility officers of the Church of England. I have been associated with that body for some seven or eight years since about a year after it was formed. It has furnished me with some interesting figures which are referred to in a news item in this morning's Independent.
Those figures refer to the claims for bridging allowance—the payment available to those between training schemes. They show a 50 per cent. increase in those applying for loans and those receiving them as between April 1990 and April 1991. Such figures may not appear interesting let alone damaging to your Lordships at first hearing. However, they measure the progressive breakdown in the availability of training places and, therefore, a breakdown in the whole scheme on which the Government have been depending. In some cases the figures are even worse. For example, in Coventry the increase is 75 per cent.
Bridging loans last for eight weeks. After that, although there are one or two areas in which extreme distress applications can be made, it is quite likely—and the statistics support this—that a young person drops out of the system altogether. That must inevitably lead to an increase in crime, among other things.
There are one or two marginal changes which can and should be made even if this Motion is not adopted. If the Government are to continue tinkering with the situation I hope that they will make the changes. First, the bridging allowance of £15 per week has been unchanged since 1988 and it should be increased to take account of inflation. Secondly, the length of entitlement for a bridging loan should be at least doubled from eight to 16 weeks. It is clear from the figures which I have given to your Lordships that eight weeks does not cover the problem. The situation should be realistic.
My noble friend mentioned case histories provided by the citizens advice bureaux. They tell of individual cases and there are pages of them. They are heartrending. It is possible to put up a barrier of indignation as to how it is the fault of the youths that they are in such a situation; how it is the fault of the families; how it is the fault of the "lefties" who educate them, and so on. If that is pushed aside—and it must be pushed aside—one reaches a degree of individual misery for youths finding themselves without resources, without families and in some cases without food or any money at all. One is therefore building a small part of a generation which will have received

851
many horrible lessons. The most horrible is that it appears that society does not care at all about what happens to those youths.
We know that the Government care. They have taken a number of steps which will try to put right the situation. Nevertheless, we must go further than that. Two of the speeches which I have heard in this debate, which I appreciated, enjoyed and admired, stated something which I thought was not quite right; namely, that it is important that the subject should be aired. My Lords, the important thing is that something should be done.
7.45 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, there is little more to be said on this subject that has not already been said in the past three or four years. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl for once again bringing the subject to your Lordships' attention for it is clear that Her Majesty's Government are behaving like the proverbial ostrich. How many young people are to have their lives destroyed before the Government step in with positive action?
As any parent will know, children reared in a secure environment do not voluntarily leave home unless they are able to provide for themselves an equally secure environment. In fact, many young people who are perfectly capable of fending for themselves will remain in the parental home until they marry.
There can be no doubt that all the young men and women who fall within the ambit of this Motion have problems. Their inability to cope with the demands math by our society may have external causes. We are all aware of abused children, of children who leave care without adequate provision being made for them, and of children of feckless parents who cannot wait until the child reaches the age of 16 when their legal responsibility to provide a home for the child ends.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government have failed totally to comprehend the problems encountered and the sometimes drastic solutions resorted to by another group of young people. They have been variously described as those with behavioural problems, low achievers and slow learners and have been given numerous other labels over the years. Whatever their difficulties, they find themselves approaching their majority ill equipped for the demands of this modern self-seeking society.
A young girl who has been deprived of love and attention as a child will subconsciously yearn for someone upon whom she can shower her repressed emotions, perhaps hoping that the object of her love will love her in return. She may have little comprehension of the immense responsibility she should be assuming when she deliberately or carelessly conceives a child.
I have my doubts that many girls set out to get themselves pregnant in order to obtain housing and social security benefits. Whatever moral judgment we may make upon the girl, we should see that she has the income—earned or in the form of benefits—to ensure that she is adequately nourished, housed and clothed throughout the pregnancy (not just during the last 11 weeks) in order to protect her child.
852
A number of young people are more than willing to work and are capable of some kind of work but because they may have learning difficulties they find it almost impossible to sustain a job for any length of time. It may be that they have a poor concept of timekeeping, that they are clumsy or that they have challenging behavioural problems. They may well present themselves as suitable to an employer initially and their unsuitability does not emerge for some time. In that case, the bridging allowance of eight weeks within a continuous period of 52 weeks is not by any means adequate. It may well take several weeks for young people to find a YTS place only to discover that it is unsuitable. As time goes on, placement becomes increasingly difficult.
There is no doubt that such young people are genuinely seeking work and that they are willing to work. In many cases they are being supported by social workers and voluntary organisations such as MENCAP work officers and local authority social education centres in their search for work. The same group may well have attended special schools and left later than the term of their sixteenth birthday. They become hard to place on YTS because they may not be able to complete the scheme before their eighteenth birthday.
Social workers working with young people with gross behavioural problems are increasingly aware of the likelihood that they will turn to crime in order to support themselves. Indeed, as the noble Earl and several others have said, the recent MORI survey of 16 and 17 year-old applicants for severe hardship payments found that 21 per cent. of those questioned admitted that they had supported themselves by theft. What advice would the Minister give to social workers trying to guide such young people? It truly is a terrible dilemma.
Is the extra cost of treating bridging allowances and special hardship claims as an entitlement rather than a discretionary payment, and providing it for as long as it is needed instead of for eight in 52 weeks, greater than the cost of the destruction of those young lives? There would no longer be the need for the special hardship claims unit in Glasgow; so savings could be made there.
I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his Motion. I agree that it should be taken to a Division if the Minister cannot provide a sufficiently encouraging reply.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, one of the advantages of being the last Back Bench speaker is that the other speakers will have painted the picture and the House will be aware of it. I shall therefore content myself, in the couple of minutes I shall use, with an appeal to the Government to accept the Motion.
Noble Lords will remember our debates in 1988. It was after a long battle that we eventually persuaded the Government to agree to add severe hardship to the list of conditions under which 16 and 17 year-olds would be able to obtain income support. Today's Motion spells out more cases of severe hardship.

853
There are others but at least what the Motion proposes is a step forward in setting out certain conditions under which help should be given.
Noble Lords will remember also in the debate last year that I tried to have pregnancy included among the conditions for which young people could obtain support. I did not succeed. There are all sorts of difficulties from which these young people suffer. We who are in London and involved with them, as I was at Shelter, see homeless young people who should not be homeless. There are hostels which would take them but the payment needs to be guaranteed. All those problems are unnecessary.
The Government want to turn young people away from their dependence on benefit. I understand that. What is more, I understand that they want to say to the kids, "Until you are 18 you are the responsibility of your parents. You should be at home and the only reason you should be away from home is if you are working or pregnant." I understand all that. Nothing is wrong with that save that it could be achieved more successfully using a carrot rather than a stick. The Government are determined to use a stick and we see the consequences.
Many people fall through the net. Therefore we must pick them up. I am grateful to the noble Earl; at least he is picking up some. There are many more.
I do not want to waste the time of the House. I want to appeal to the Minister to accept the Motion as a step forward. We all want—including, I am sure, the Government—to prevent unnecessary hardship befalling these youngsters. We continue to insist that they should be at home. Many do not have a home to go to. In some instances it is not that they have left home but that home has left them. We ought to be facing up to our responsibilities. We are responsible for those young people and should face up to that.
Our approach to the issue of problem youngsters is wrong. I plead with the Government on this occasion to move quietly, at least one stage. I ask them to accept the Motion and allow a number of young people to receive the allowance and not simply specify a vague severe hardship group. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say that he accepts the Motion.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may intervene briefly. I requested permission from both my noble friend Lord Henley and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and also the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for bringing the Motion before the House. I should first like to say that I fully understand the general principle of the Government and I think that most noble Lords have accepted that there is a perfectly reasonable case for young people of 16 not to receive income support. In this wealthy country they can continue with full education up to the age of 18 and they have that choice before them. At 16 they have the choice, if they wish, to obtain a job. That is more difficult in a period of high unemployment.
854
There is a third option, which is to take part in a youth training scheme. It is perhaps more difficult to find youth training opportunities today in a period of recession. We hope that the situation is changing but in the South-East it is not easy to find firms who will offer opportunities for youth training or courses which are relevant to the needs of the area in which these children live.
I totally accept and support the general principle of the regulations and I think that the Government have been perfectly reasonable in their attitude. However, we are dealing with what I might call a series of special cases. Noble Lords have described cases of young people who fall into special categories. That makes it difficult for the Government to produce a blanket solution. There is no blanket solution to these problems. The situation calls for adaptability. The Government must turn their minds to examining how they can resolve these many special cases. It is totally unacceptable that in one of the wealthiest countries of the world we should have to debate this problem in this House tonight.
As a trustee of the Caldecote Community I wish to make a special plea, because I believe that there are special cases. We take care of severely disturbed children up to the age of 18. Almost all of them have no home because they have usually been attacked, assaulted or harmed by their family or their family has split up. Those children are certainly not in a position to take part in youth training schemes in the area. Their education often has to cease at 16 because they do not have the potential to carry on in the local schools or indeed in the special education unit that the community provides.
We have the most dedicated workers who devote their whole time to the children, some of whom are very seriously disturbed. They are aged from around three upwards. At the age of 16 it is inconceivable that we should request the children to leave the community and go out into the world with no home, no money and no opportunity either to work or train. It is for that section of society that I make my plea. There are not many, but young people between the ages of 16 and 17 in certain homes do need income support. That would come from government sources. Many charities provide financial support to the community for which the community is extremely grateful.
I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the specific category where financial resources are needed and which were deprived by the amendments to the Social Security Act 1988. I know that my noble friend the Minister, under that rigorous appearance, has a very soft heart. I join with others in hoping and requesting that he will look carefully and closely at the speeches made tonight. I hope that he will take into account the fact that the Government are depriving these young people of the opportunity of ever becoming decent citizens if they are not helped at this particular age. They are so vulnerable in their own formation and in the kind of society which, regrettably, we find in this country today.
8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for tabling this Motion and for enabling us to debate the subject. It is not the first time that he has brought it to our attention. In the Motion the noble Earl is not attempting to amend the regulations but calling on the Government to do so, which is obviously a very different matter. There are a number of precedents for that procedure.
The debate has clearly identified the need for the changes which are set out in the Motion. Therefore, I can be brief. The problem is increasing. The press and the radio this morning mentioned the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, which has been prepared by Church Action on Poverty. It reveals the severe difficulties faced by a large number of 16 and 17 year-olds.
The recent improvement for youngsters who have been in care has been mentioned. I understand that that improvement will benefit only about 300 young people. Can the Minister confirm that figure when he replies? A number of references have been made to the MOB I report and research commissioned by the Government. That research was restricted to the 16 and 17 year-olds who were claiming under the severe hardship provisions. I wish to know the reasons for that restriction. Can the Minister say why MORI was not asked to examine the whole problem of that age group who are eligible for benefit and who have the kinds of problems that we have been discussing today?
However restricted in its research, the report revealed a very worrying situation which has been made extremely clear during the debate. A number of statistics have been quoted from the report, though one could mention some that were not. Almost half of the claimants who took part in the survey said that they had slept rough; 59 per cent. said that they were in debt; 16 per cent. had no money when they claimed and one-in-four of the girls was pregnant. One-third of the boys admitted that they had engaged in at least one of the activities of stealing, begging or selling drugs in order to get money.
The rationale of the policy of the Government rests on the guarantee of a training place. That was a point made by a number of your Lordships. We know that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux reports that the Government's guarantee of a training place for every young person who needs one has failed When the Minister replies to the debate can he give tie figures for the number of young people who have been unable to find a training place? We have to recognise the failure of the guarantee to provide adequate youth training places and the hardship among young pregnant women. We also have to recognise the hardship among vulnerable young people who are estranged from their parents; the failure of the scheme for severe hardship payments to provide an adequate safety net and the difficulties which are caused by the complexity of the benefits. Those are points which have also been borne out by MORI research.
My noble friend Lady Turner referred to £88 million to £200 million a year as the saving to the
856
Government arising from the restriction of access to benefit for young people. Can the Minister give the House the Government's estimate of the saving to Government funds resulting from the changes that have been made since 1988 in the access to benefits for young people? It will be interesting to learn how the Government react to the estimates that have been made.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been deployed so convincingly by all speakers this evening and therefore, as I said, I can be brief in winding up. Not unusually on these occasions, I believe that the Minister will find himself the only speaker who is willing to defend the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, that is not so.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, spoke in support. She was critical and although she understood the problems of the Government she was not all that impressed by the solutions to them. Can the Minister therefore also tell the House why unemployed 16 to 17 year-olds are treated differently, why are they paid less; and why it is assumed that living independently costs less if you are young?
A number of references have been made to the MORI Report which the Government commissioned. However, recently there was another MORI Report called The Changing Nature of Deprivation in Britain—The Inner Cities Perspective. It is a survey which evaluates the nature and extent of poverty in Britain and compares them with the results of a similar survey conducted in 1983. The report states:
"It provides readers with insight into social change under the premiership of Mrs. Thatcher, based on an original survey methodology".
The report applies to poverty in our society as a whole and not just to young people. It is a damning indictment of the Government's social policy since 1979. There is one statistic in the report which is very relevant when considering the attitude of the public towards the Government and their policies which have led to the problems that we have been discussing concerning 16 and 17 year-olds. One has the feeling that at times the whole of the Government's social policy towards the family since the mid-1980s has been based on the ideal of the model family living in Grantham, circa 1930. The reality is very different.
The survey asks a question similar to that asked by the EC in 1976 and by similar surveys in 1983 and 1990. The question was:
"Why in your opinion are there people who live in need?"
Four answers were suggested and the respondents had to choose. The first response suggested was:
"Because there is much injustice in our society".
That was given as a reason why people live in need. In 1976 the number of people who replied that that was the reason for living in need was 16 per cent. In 1983 the figure was 32 per cent. and in 1990 it was 40 per cent. Therefore, in the 14 years from 1976 to 1990 the number of people who thought that the reason for living in need is because there is "much injustice in our society" had more than doubled.

857
The second response was:
"Because of laziness and lack of will-power".
In 1976 the percentage of people who gave that reply was 43 per cent. In 1983 the figure was 22 per cent. and in 1990 it was 19 per cent. The number of people who thought that the reason for living in need was the increase in injustice in society had more than doubled in the 14 years. The number of those who thought the reason was laziness and lack of willpower had more than halved.
In my view, that reveals a very marked change in social attitudes and the realisation by the public of the Government's direct responsibility for many of our social ills, not least those we have been discussing this evening. The categories for the extension of eligibility for income support in the Motion are clearly drawn. The Motion is procedurally correct. If the noble Earl decides to divide the House on the Motion I shall give him my own support and I shall encourage my colleagues to do the same.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble kinsman Earl Russell claims that this is an accepted procedure. I make no bones about that. I see nothing wrong with the House debating these matters. I should point out to the noble Earl that debating this matter is one thing, but pressing it to a Division and carrying a Motion to the effect that the House agrees with the Motion that the noble Earl has moved, is another. Obviously this is a matter for another place. It may very well be a breach of its privilege. That is entirely a matter for another place. These issues affect financial matters and it could affect the privilege of the other Chamber. I refer my noble kinsman to Halsbury's Laws of England and the entry under Parliament, paragraph 10.21. Perhaps at some point he might like to look at that.
I now move on to the Motion itself. When the Government withdrew the automatic entitlement for all 16 and 17 year-olds to income support, they did so to promote a positive alternative. In passing, perhaps I may say that we have not heard much in the way of positive alternatives from the two parties opposite. That positive alternative was training for young people. This Government believe most firmly in the value of education and training. The latest figures show that currently some six out of 10 16 year-olds are staying on in full-time education, compared with a mere four out of 10 in 1979.
For those people who decide to leave the education system at 16, we are committed to the provision of high quality vocational training, under the youth training scheme. The considerable resources we are devoting to training enable us to guarantee—and I repeat this guarantee—a youth training place to every 16 or 17 year-old who wants one. The latest available figures show that more than 260,000 young people in England and Wales were taking advantage of youth training to enhance their employment prospects. It is simply not true to say, as the noble Earl said in his article in the Independent today, that there is failure to meet the guarantee in 9.25 per cent. of occasions. Research recently published by the Department of
858
Employment found no cases where an active seeker after work was not given an offer of a YT place. I give way to my noble kinsman.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that is the very piece of research I was quoting. I am very surprised by my noble kinsman's reading of it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble kinsman is incorrect. I am saying that the research found that no active seeker was not given an offer of a YT place. Of course, youth training is a voluntary option—we accept that—as is staying at school or getting a job. The only option we are not continuing to offer is to leave it open to fit young people. I stress the word "fit" because, as noble Lords will know, those who are disabled or incapable of work are still entitled to income support. The option is no longer available for those people who have been unemployed and in receipt of benefit. I am sure that the House will agree that the acquisition of vocational skills represents a much sounder preparation for a life of productive work.
Perhaps I may also say in passing that the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that those who live away from home are not entitled to income support is not true. If young people have to live away from home by reason of abuse or violence then obviously they will be entitled to income support for a limited period of time, as the noble Baroness well knows.
In his Motion my noble kinsman seeks to restore benefit entitlement to five groups of young people. These five groups are those 16 and 17 year-olds who are, first, those who have completed or who are available for and actively seeking training under the youth training scheme; secondly, 16 and 17 year-olds for whom such training is not available by reason of their age; thirdly, those who are pregnant; fourthly, registered people living away from their parents, or any person acting in place of their parents, and are doing so for the purpose of seeking work or training; fifthly, those who were in care of the local authority or in custody immediately before reaching the age of 16. As I said, current legislation provides for groups of young people such as these and others—lone parents, the long-term sick and the handicapped—to receive special treatment under the benefit regulations. As has also been said and as the House will know, there is also a further safety net procedure by which benefits can be paid to youngsters who do not normally qualify. The severe hardship payment system provides a flexible and fair means of directing payment of income support to any young person in severe and immediate need regardless of their entitlement under the normal rules.
I believe that the present policy framework strikes the correct balance between creating an environment of positive —I stress the word "positive" because, as I said, we did not hear anything positive from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches—opportunities for young people and meeting our obligations towards those young people in genuine need.
Much has been made of the MORI Report which I announced we had commissioned a year ago. Much of

859
what the MORI Report has to say is very positive. Briefly, 21 per cent. of claimants were living with their parents at the time of their claim, and, of those, 69 per cent. successfully claimed for severe hardship allowance. The policy is, therefore, effective for those young people at home even where there is the risk of severe hardship. Sixty three per cent. said that the time working on YT was very or fairly useful. Seventy five per cent. of all claims were successful. Ninety six per cent. of all claims of those with no fixed address were successful.
The latest figure I have on the success rate is over 80 per cent. There is no discrimination influencing the outcome of claims and there are no significant differences in success rates by age, sex, pregnancy or reason. Fifty six per cent. felt that the staff of my department were understanding of the claimants' problems, and 78 per cent. felt that the staff who interviewed them were polite. Further, 51 per cent. of claimants left home before their 16th birthday. On this occasion I do not think the homelessness problem can be blamed on the income support policy as operated by my department.
The findings show that severe hardship payments are going to those young people seeking youth training places who are most at risk, most notably to those at risk of homelessness or the break-up of the family. They also, as intended, enabled the Government to identify a number of positive steps which we announced last week—and I shall mention one of them later on in the debate—whereby we could further improve our policies and their delivery. But to say, as my noble kinsman said in his article in the Independent today, that the Government were merely blaming the alleged shortcomings of our policy on the staff is, as my noble kinsman knows, quite palpable nonsense. We in the department have utmost faith in the staff in our local offices but obviously it is our duty to see that all the procedures adopted by them are improved as much as possible to deliver a fit and proper service.
Perhaps I may at this point comment on the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone on improving the liaison arrangements between the various agencies that young people have to deal with. The Government fully recognise the importance of effective liaison arrangements between the various agencies involved and have emphasised that to all our local offices. Business education partnerships are being set up by the TECs and local authorities to ensure that the maximum effort is made to meet the needs of young people in the locality. The employment services liaise closely with the careers and benefits agency and guarantee liaison officers have proved very successful in finding places for those young people who have proved difficult to place. My noble friend also asked whether there would be an expert in each local office. I can answer him quite simply by saying, yes, that will be the case.
I should stress that the number of young people claiming income support under the severe hardship provisions should be kept in perspective. For example, the Iffiest information available suggests that there are almost 785,000 16 and 17 year-olds in employment.
860
There are some 725,000 16 and 17 year-olds in full-time education. As I said earlier, in April 1991 there were some 260,000 young people on youth training in England and Wales compared to the 11,000 young people who claimed under the severe hardship provisions on one or more occasion in the period between October 1990 and April 1991.
I shall now deal with the five groups that my noble kinsman sets out in his Motion. In the first group the noble Earl proposes to extend eligibility for benefits to all 16 and 17 year-olds who have applied for and are awaiting, or actively seeking, placement on a training course. The cost to the taxpayer of that proposal would be considerable and I do not believe that it would be justifiable. I am sure the whole House will agree—though possibly not the right reverend Prelate—that targeting of benefits is an important principle when framing social security legislation to ensure that help reaches those in need while money is not misdirected to those who do not require assistance. Most people awaiting a youth training placement are living in the parental home, and I do not believe that all require income support during that period. Most parents are able to, expect to, and indeed have a legal responsibility to support their children until they reach the age of 18.
Moreover, just as child benefit is available to parents of young people who remain in education, so too is it available, for a period of up to 16 weeks, to all parents of young people who have applied for and are awaiting a youth training place. During this child benefit extension period, income support is also available to young people awaiting placement who have no living parent or guardian or who have good cause to be living away from the parental or family home. Even if they are living in the parental or family home, they can still apply for severe hardship payments. In some 69 per cent. of cases, according to the MORI report, they are successful; that is, in cases where the parents themselves might be on income support.
There is also provision for a bridging allowance to be paid to people who for one reason or another have left one period of youth training and are awaiting another placement, or for the under 18s, who have lost their jobs and are awaiting a placement. I shall deal with the bridging allowance later. The current provisions successfully protect people who need financial support while awaiting a youth training placement. Extending access of benefits to all people awaiting placement, regardless of their personal circumstances, would represent a poor use of taxpayers' money.
I turn to the second group identified by my noble kinsman. Young people who are near to, but not, 18, who are not employed and who are not in full time education, are still covered by the guarantee of a suitable YT place. If not already on YT, they should be offered a full YT course right up to level 2 standard in the vast majority of cases with suitable length of training. Such young people will not be offered just a few scrappy days or weeks of training even if they have been in YT before. If the near 18s are finishing their YT courses before they are 18, under the TEC

861
contract they should still have a further suitable YT offered to them for a period up to at least their 18th birthday and if they do not have employment status. If for any reason that is not available to them, they will leave their training provider but then they can fall back into that guarantee group and can get another offer of YT training by that route.
I turn now to the third group specified by my noble kinsman. He called on the Government to extend eligibility to all pregnant young girls. As he will be aware, income support is available to expectant mothers who are within 11 weeks of their expected date of confinement, or earlier if they suffer from a medical condition related to their pregnancy. It is important to stress that point. Pregnancy itself is not an incapacity. I see no reason why benefit should automatically be available merely by reason of pregnancy. However, if there is a medical condition related to that pregnancy, income support will be available 11 weeks before the expected date of confinement. Young women in the earlier stages of pregnancy are included in the Government's guarantee of a YT placement.
In March this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced measures to improve access to appropriate provision specifically for this group, including the provision of short care-related courses where that is the best option. For those young women who wish to resume training after the birth of their babies, part-time training can be arranged if the resumption of full-time training proves too onerous a proposition. Last week we announced further initiatives intended specifically to help groups, such as young pregnant girls, who have a special requirement for rapid training placements.
The aim of the current system is to provide training which is relevant to the needs of young pregnant women—for example, through a care-related course—and which can develop into more dedicated occupational training as time goes on, while of course providing financial support and assistance when it is most required. I do not believe that it would be responsible for the Government to provide incentives —even though my noble kinsman will not accept them as incentives—to young women to give up training in the early stages of pregnancy when they are still capable of training or work.
My noble kinsman also seeks to extend benefit entitlement to young people who are living away from home for the purposes of seeking work or training. Almost all youth training is locally based, and most young people do not have to leave home due to a training placement. For those few who incur lodging costs or travel expenses, provision already exists for them to receive extra financial support from training and enterprise councils to help cover those expenses. Current policy in this area is designed to recognise the greater needs of young people who are forced to live away from home, while not providing an incentive to do so, as we believe that in the vast majority of cases the home is the best environment in which young people can live. The proposed amendment would
862
encourage, whatever my noble kinsman says, more young people to leave home unnecessarily at an early age and become dependent on state benefits, which is not in their interests.
Perhaps I may make one brief mention of the allegations made by my noble kinsman and by the right reverend Prelate that our policy in this field is leading to a rise in crime. My noble kinsman quoted the fact that, according to the MORI research, some 21 per cent. of the group were supporting themselves by theft, 6 per cent. by begging and 2 per cent. by selling drugs. Severe hardship claims come from a very small proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds. Some are, it must be accepted, on the fringes of criminality. To put those figures into perspective, one should remember that 31 per cent. of all claimants of severe hardship allowance had been in trouble with the police before leaving school. Half of the claimants had also played truant from school. Therefore one simply cannot argue that income support provisions in this field are driving young people into a life of crime.
The final group mentioned by my noble kinsman are those to whom we can offer some comfort, as he will know from our announcement last week concerning the extension of entitlement to those 16 and 17 year-olds who are just leaving local authority care or custody. He will, I am sure, know that a young person released from prison or detention and registered for a job or youth training who has a good reason for living independently from his parents is already eligible, for a limited period, for income support. We announced last week that we intend to extend that provision to young people leaving care so as to enable them to receive benefit for up to eight weeks without the uncertainty caused by having to prove either estrangement or hardship. That will be brought forward by secondary legislation as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me to confirm the figure of 300. I am quite happy to confirm that it is a figure of around 300. The noble Lord will no doubt say that that is a small number and that the Government are not making a concession. We have all accepted that we are talking about small numbers of young people. As the noble Lord well knows, the vast majority of those with whom we are concerned are in education, training or work. We are talking about a very small number.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the change will affect 300 out of 11,000. Is that correct? The change will help 300 of those coming under the severe hardship provisions.
Lord Henley: My Lords, 11,000 people successfully claimed severe hardship allowance last year. The change will help another 300. That is true. We are talking about very small numbers. The Government are showing flexibility and an ability to meet demand. I do not think that noble Lords have put forward any case for extending benefits universally to all 16 and 17 year-olds, whether or not they are seeking work.
I could go on for much longer. I understand that there are further points with which I should deal. However, in view of the time that I have spent thus far, I believe that it would not be right at this stage for me

863
to answer all the points which were raised. I shall of course write, so far as I can, to noble Lords on specific points.
We believe that our record in providing for young people is an impressive one. Record numbers of people are now staying on in education and taking advantage of training opportunities, as I said at the beginning of my speech. Opportunities now exist in youth training for those who decide to leave school at the age of 16. Moreover, thanks to the Government's youth training guarantee, no young person need be lacking in financial support.
Those who are able are rightly expected to take advantage of the offer of vocational training, while income support remains available to help people who are unable, for good reasons, to participate. Too often, income support to all 16 and 17 year-olds would not be a kindness.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the noble Earl's Motion does not ask for benefits to be handed out to all 16 and 17 year-olds; he specified certain groups. I fear that the Minister is misleading the House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not misleading the House. I understand that the noble Earl's Motion deals with five specific groups. I have dealt with five specific groups. However, there have been general accusations of government meanness in this field and claims that, by this policy, we have been saving money. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, categorically made that remark. Moreover, the right reverend Prelate—correctly, if I may say so—stated that obviously resources are limited and therefore must be directed to those most in need.
However, this is not a question of saving money: the YT guarantee will cost the Government and the taxpayer £844 million in the current year. Restoring entitlement to income support for all young people would actually save the taxpayer money. YT is not a cheap option; it is a considerable investment by the taxpayer in young people and in the future health of the economy. We do not think that it would be right to provide, as noble Lords opposite would wish, a continued, perverse incentive to leave home, to drift to London and become dependent permanently upon state 13enefit. That would mean losing out on all the advantages which come from taking part in training as offered. It would also mean falling into the very way of life of petty crime and homelessness which noble Lords opposite have blamed on us, and which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, quite rightly condemned. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the Motion.
8.32 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble kinsman for that reply. I should also like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I have never seen the House so unanimous: noble Lords, spiritual and temporal, of all parties and of none, have spoken with a single voice. The last time I
864
heard this House so unanimous was when it approved the Loyal Address for the 90th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen Mother—God bless her!
However, when my noble kinsman rose to speak, the unanimity disappeared. I shall not take too much of the time of the House. I wish to make just a few points. On the propriety of what I am doing, I listened to his advice; but I found that of his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter more persuasive. As regards the guarantee, I was relying upon paragraph 11 of the report of the Department of Employment to which my noble kinsman referred. That refers to the outcome after four weeks of looking for a placement. It reads:
"For 16 placing action was continuing. 23 could not be traced and a further 12 had turned 18 years of age".
Four weeks with no legal means of support! To me that means that the guarantee has failed.
I shall refer to just one other point made by my noble kinsman. He said that home was the best place for these young people to be. But 65 per cent. of those who left home had been thrown out. Politics is the art of the possible. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, but I must commend the Motion to the House.
8.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion be agreed to?
* Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 67.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Alport, L.

McNair, L.

Avebury, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar, C.

Brain, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Lawrence, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Arran, E.

Elton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Astor, V.

Fisher, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Barber, L.

Gisborough, L.

Blatch, B.

Greenway, L.

Blyth, L.

Gridley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hemphill, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Henley, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Hertford, M.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Holderness, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Hooper, B.

Dudley, E..

Howe, E.

865

Huntly, M.

Pender, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kimball, L.

Reay, L.

Long, V.

Renton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rochdale, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Savile, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Seccombe, B.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Mersey, V.

Torphichen, L.

Milverton, L.

Tryon, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ullswater, V.

Morris, L.

Vinson, L.

Mountevans, L.

Waddington, L.

Moyne, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wynford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

* The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 67 names. The Clerks recorded 68 names.
Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Social Security (Severe Disablement Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1991
8.42 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these regulations, it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss also the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board Regulations 1991.
The House may recall that on 7th March during the Committee stage of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, I announced the Government's intention to modify the residence qualifying condition for severe disablement allowance for serving members of the armed forces and their close families. Regulation 2 of this draft instrument gives effect to this commitment.
The latter part of Regulation 2 and the whole of Regulation 3 bring forward some purely technical amendments. These amendments are needed to clarify earlier drafting, relating to the introduction of age-related additions to SDA, and to the exceptions which already apply to the SDA presence conditions. I should stress that these provisions do not introduce any changes of policy.
The qualifying conditions for severe disablement allowance require a claimant to have been resident in Great Britain for a total of 10 years in the 20 years preceding the date for which benefit is claimed. We recognise, as indeed my noble friend Lord Swinfen has pointed out on a number of occasions, that this rule has presented difficulties for some members of the families of servicemen required to be abroad in the service of their country.
Although recent case law has enabled some members of service families who have been abroad to qualify under the existing rules, there may still be a small number of such claimants who will be unable to do so. Regulation 2 of these draft regulations makes it absolutely clear that periods abroad as a serving
866
member of the armed forces, or as part of his close family, shall count as residence in Great Britain for the purposes of the SDA qualifying conditions.
The House will agree that this small amendment to the severe disablement allowance is, nonetheless, a worthwhile improvement in benefit provision to make at this time. It is wholly consistent with making improvements to the benefits for sick and disabled people. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.
I shall deal now with the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board Regulations 1991. Noble Lords may recall that they gave widespread support for the creation of such a body when what is now the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act was debated earlier in the year.
The regulations for the DLAAB put the flesh on the bone of the provisions in Section 3 of the Act. In particular, they provide details of our proposals for the qualifications of members. I hope that noble Lords will welcome our emphasis on a balanced membership which includes people from caring professions such as physiotherapy, nursing, occupational therapy and social work as well as doctors. I am sure that noble Lords will note particularly that the regulations stipulate that the board must include at least one informal carer and six people with disabilities.
Our approach to the membership of the board, as set out in the regulations, underlines our commitment to ensuring that the emphasis is on the effects of a condition, rather than diagnosis. Through the board's assistance in the drafting of a disability handbook, adjudication officers will be better placed to determine claims for disability living allowance and attendance allowance on the basis of self-assessment, without the need for a medical examination.
The board's job will not be a one-off task. Clearly it will not be the board's job to monitor the standard of decision-making by adjudication officers. That is the role of the chief adjudication officer, but the board will be expected to monitor the handbook. It will need to ensure that it covers new conditions and treatments as they emerge. It will also wish to monitor the use that is made of it by adjudication officers and their medical advisers, and that it is being properly interpreted. In addition, we shall welcome any observations that the board, either from its own experience or through contact with specialist groups, wishes to make on the broader operation of the new assessment arrangements.
I hope that the House will welcome these regulations; I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th July be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for explaining the two sets of regulations. As he said, it is convenient to discuss them together.
On the Social Security (Severe Disablement Allowance) Amendment Regulations, we know (because we have discussed this many times in the past) that the residence rules are more stringent for SDA than for other disability benefits. For example,

867
people who have been in Great Britain for fewer than 10 years will not be entitled to SDA but may qualify for mobility allowance as a result of the difference in the residence rules.
Claimants who go abroad may risk a loss of their entitlement under that rule. It has been argued that that would discriminate against some black and ethnic claimants. We know that if a test of residence is used to establish entitlement, that creates anomalies between claimants and bears no relationship to the disability which brings about the claim. Two people with identical disabilities may be treated differently. One will be awarded SDA and the other refused it. There may not be many claimants affected by that rule. As the Government have removed the residence anomaly for members of the forces, which we understand and support, would this not have been the chance to remove it for all claimants? It would be interesting to know why that was not done.
Once again I must remind the Government that they have ignored the recommendations of the SSAC that SDA should be upgraded to the level of invalidity benefit. I think that I know the answer that the Minister will give; but he might be good enough to repeat that it is because of the cost. The SSAC regarded it as unfair that people disabled from birth and unable to work still receive substantially less benefit than those who have been disabled later in life or through work injury.
It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us whether there will be any retrospection in respect of people who will now benefit from the change. I have already mentioned the 10-year residence test. It has been argued that that discriminates against people who have the right of settlement in Great Britain and who may be British citizens. It may also be seen as giving a message to black and ethnic minority communities that their severely disabled members are awarded less priority than white British people.
That argument has been put by a number of organisations. I should be glad if the Minister would comment on it.
I turn to the second group of regulations and I shall also use the awful acronym, DLAAB. I have made the point on previous occasions. The principal Act received Royal Assent on 27th June. We have the draft statutory instrument in front of us with a number of handwritten amendments. I have said before that it seems that the amendments are in respect of printing errors. Does no one proof read the documents, or is there some other reason for the errors? I see that the Minister is taking advice on the matter.
I should be interested to know, since there has been over a month in which to prepare the document, why there have to be handwritten amendments. There have been previous occasions when the House has adjourned for pleasure because we could not read the writing. However, these amendments are clear and we can read them. I make that point in passing.
Unlike the attendance allowance board which will now disappear, the DLAAB has no decision-making powers and no real power to act independently. Under Section 3(2) of the principal Act there is no clear remit
868
for DLAAB, other than that its functions must relate to DLA or attendance allowance. Section 3(2)states that:
"Regulations shall confer on the Board such functions relating to disability living allowance or attendance allowance as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
The section then goes on to make provision for membership of the board.
On the regulations themselves, Regulation 2 sets up the functions and powers of the board. It is clearly in no sense an independent body. It is:
"to give advice to the Secretary of State on such matters as he may refer to them for consideration … to give advice to a medical practitioner … which he refers to the Board",
and,
"to present an annual report on its activities".
It therefore has no effective power to act independently. It has the ability to present an annual report on its activities to the Secretary of State. Is it the intention that the annual report will be published and will be available for debate in Parliament?
The Minister mentioned advice from the board on the handbook on the care needs and mobility requirements which are likely to arise from different medical conditions. I presume that there has been consultation with outside organisations in the drafting of the handbook. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
I have already said that under Regulation 2(1) (b), the board's role in adjudication is simply to give advice to DSS doctors on those individual cases or questions arising in individual cases which have been specifically referred to it. Why was the board not given independent powers to give general advice, to comment on the efficacy of medical report forms and self-assessment forms or to carry out general research on medical issues arising?
We have been advised that at the very least the regulations should give the board the capacity to act independently of the Secretary of State and of individual requests for advice from the medical practitioners under Section 115C(4) of the Social Security Act 1975.
There is a feeling among the organisations that in the setting up of the board an opportunity has been missed. It seems that the DSS is still attempting to retain powers for itself which it otherwise might lose. In that sense, there is a degree of disappointment. Having said that, we support the Government and accept the regulations.
8.55 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, after our previous debate it is a great pleasure to welcome an announcement by my noble kinsman. The severe disablement regulations give effect to an undertaking that my noble kinsman made in the House on 7th March. They also recognise the tenacity and skill of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who brought the point to the Government's attention. He authorised me to make his apologies to the House this evening. He is regrettably unable to be present because of his obligations as host to newly arrived guests.
I understand that he is satisfied with the point made by the regulations. They deal with members of the

869
armed forces who would otherwise have been excluded from severe disablement allowance under the residence qualifications. This concession may cover rather fewer people than it would have done a few weeks ago, but it is nonetheless welcome.
However, in welcoming it I ask the Government to consider whether the principle in the regulations may legitimately be applied to other categories of people. The obvious one is diplomats who are often abroad for long periods in the service of their country. Civil servants may be abroad for similar reasons. Also, since their living depends on selling goods abroad, the Government might give similar consideration to those who are sent abroad on the service of their firms.
I also wish to ask a question which has been asked on previous occasions. When do the Government intend to raise the severe disablement allowance to the level of invalidity benefit? On this question the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, once gently encouraged me to hope. She does not do that very often but, when she does, I am interested.
The other regulations, the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board regulations—I shall not attempt the initials—deal with the board which advises the Minister on questions to do with the disability living allowance. The composition of the board was discussed exhaustively in the House. I shall not touch on it now. I am worried about the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the freedom of the Board to give advice. This is becoming a general matter of anxiety dealing with organisations appointed by the Government. It arose first on the appointment of the Universities Funding Council, which was not allowed to give advice to the Government in public. I divided the House on that occasion and I do not regret having done so. Of course, I shall not do so now, particularly in the light of the remarks of the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Scott speaking in Committee in the other place on 23rd July. He said:
"We envisage that the report will not be sat on by the Secretary of State but will be published and be a matter of public discussion".—[Official Report, Commons, First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 23/7/91; Col. 12].
I warmly welcome that assurance by the right honourable gentleman and should be grateful if my noble kinsman can confirm it.
8.57 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I regret that Her Majesty's Government have not taken the opportunity to harmonise the residence qualifications in line with attendance allowance and mobility allowance, which are six and 12 months respectively. This is particularly so since on the introduction of the disability living allowance the two will be harmonised to six months.
I ask the Minister what consideration the Government have given to any EC directives as the SDA is a work-related benefit. This was apparently not considered by the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I caught the last point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Did she say that it had not been referred to the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I understand that it was not discussed by that Committee.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a point that I meant to make. There is a case before the European Court of Justice. Perhaps the Minister would refer to it in his reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding is that it was referred to the committee. The fact that it did not discuss the regulations means nothing; the committee did not disagree with them.
First, I shall deal with the severe disablement allowance and the grudging acceptance that it was a concession for the armed forces. The suggestion was that the measure should go further, particularly, as my noble kinsman put it, to Crown servants. Obviously, these regulations were to address one particular difficulty affecting members of the armed forces. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for his persistence in the matter. I thank my noble kinsman for his kind words about my noble friend who came to see me beforehand to tell me that he regretted being unable to stay for the end of the debate. I presume that he also regretted that he was unable to stay to support me earlier in the Division Lobby. However, I am not putting words into my noble friend's mouth.
The House will recognise that apart from Crown servants there are others whose work takes them abroad. A wider change of rules at this stage to accommodate all those groups—we were trying to meet the needs of one particular group—would have considerable cost implications which would have to be set against other very pressing demands on social security expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was quite correct to refer to my next point. We would need to take account of the views of the European Court of Justice which is to consider the length of such residence conditions in the context of the case before it concerning a Belgian benefit. For the moment therefore I believe it is quite permissible to go as far as we have done, but it would not be right to go further. Again I stress the cost implications when I say that I do not believe now is the time as the noble Countess put it —to align SDA residence tests with those which apply to attendance allowance, mobility allowance and disability living allowance. I stress that the test for SDA contains no racial discrimination. It has always been accepted that a person should be expected to have established some connection with this country in order to receive benefits such as severe disablement allowance which do not depend on national insurance contributions.
I now turn to the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board regulations. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, had a copy of the regulations that contained manuscript amendments. My copy does not have manuscript amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, all the copies in the Printed Paper Office had manuscript amendments. That was quite surprising.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is not suggesting that—as happened on a previous occasion—we should now adjourn the House. I shall certainly look into this matter. I understood that my copy was the final copy. I do not know whether the noble Lord's copy is the same as mine but amended, or whether my copy is his as it was amended. However, this state of affairs does not sound satisfactory. I shall look into it.
I am also sorry that there was a slightly grudging acceptance of the board. It was suggested that the board should be given much greater and more independent powers. However, there was certainly a general welcome of the new board at the time of the passage of the Bill which has now become an Act.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should point out that the copy of the regulations on the Table also has manuscript amendments.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point the noble Lord has made. I shall certainly look into this matter. I apologise for the fact that I did not go to the Printed Paper Office as I should have done. I relied on the copy that I lad in the department. I accept that this state of affairs is not satisfactory. I shall certainly try to ensure that this problem does not arise again.
I have only one point to make on the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board and that concerns its annual report. I can confirm that its report will be published. That report will give an account of the board's activities over the year and it will feature any amendments or additions that have been made to the disability handbook. It will report on meetings of the board with groups representing people with disabilities. On the positive side I should stress that a wide range of people were trying to get on to the board, particularly representatives of the disabled, those with personal experience of caring for the disabled and—as noble Lords will see in Section 3(2) (a) of the regulations—various people with either professional knowledge or experience in various fields.
As I have said, the report will comment on groups representing people with disabilities and on those cases of special difficulty or of a complex nature which will have been referred to the board by doctors in the benefit agency's medical services. I hope I have answered most of the points that have been made. I commend both the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board Regulations 1991
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th July be approved. [26th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Waterways Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent was signified, and the Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Avon Weir Bill [H.L.]
British Waterways Bill [H.L.]
City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill [H.L.]
Folkestone Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Harris Tweed Bill [H.L.]
River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
Torquay Market Bill [H.L.]

Woodgrange Park Cemetery and Crematorium Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons that they agree with the resolutions of this House of 16th and 18th July.

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

British Railways (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following Orders:
That the promoters of the British Railways (No. 3) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if that Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating
874
that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That the petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to private business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to private business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at five minutes past nine o'clock.