Lords Sitting of 22 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
The Earl of Dundonald The Earl of Dundonald —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the judges and staff at Staines and Slough County Courts on Friday 7th June, 1991. Accordingly, as these arrangements were made before it was known that this House would be sitting on that day, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence for Friday 7th June.

Lord Denham: Tributes
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, it is unusual to pay tribute in this House to one of our colleagues until he has gone to another place—and I do not mean along the corridor to the other end of this building! However, this is a very unusual occasion. Today my noble friend Lord Denham is resigning as Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms and Government Chief Whip, having served as such for 12 years and as Opposition Chief Whip before that.
I have known my noble friend for a long time. I know his fads and his foibles, and I have even read his books—well, one of them. I was his opposite number in another place for some years and I know how he fought tenaciously for the rights of this House and for all he believed in.
My noble friend has given conspicuous service to his party, to his Government and to his country. He is a great character who loves this place and has added lustre to it. He will not be sorely missed because I am sure that he will not go missing. We shall see plenty of him in the future, and thank goodness for that.
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw is unable to be present today but he has asked me to associate him with this tribute. He gives his personal thanks to my noble friend for all the help that he gave him when in government and as Leader of this House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Leader of the House has paid a suitably warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for his years of service both as Government Chief Whip and before that as a member of the Whips' Office.
In contemplating the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I cannot help but think of the old song—and I do not propose to sing it:
"We've been together now for 30 years and it don't seem a day too much".
232
The noble Lord has decided that 30 years is enough. I believe that we all sympathise with him, although we shall miss him from his high office.
Throughout, the noble Lord has been a loyal servant to this House and to his party. He has stood up for the traditions and conventions of the House of Lords and in doing so has helped those of us who have entered here from another place to adapt to its atmosphere and to respect its ways. We shall continue to see the noble Lord and he will be able to pursue his many interests outside politics.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned that the noble Lord is an author and we look forward to reading more of his books. I understand that the title of his next volume will be, The Mystery of the Lost Divisions. We shall also study his future Division record with great care. Most important, we wish Lady Denham and the noble Lord many years of happiness.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I echo the opening words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. This is the first occasion in my relatively short experience of your Lordships' House on which I have had the opportunity of paying tribute to a man in his presence. Mostly such occasions are rather melancholy. However, this is not melancholy except that we shall miss the noble Lord when he is not sitting in that familiar place in which he sits today. We hope to see much of him in other places and in other parts of the House.
His style of whipping and leadership has never been melancholy. It has been rumbustious and invigorating. He has provoked many varying reactions but he has never bored or depressed us and has left a stamp on our conduct of business. I thank the noble Lord and wish him well.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers would also like to thank the noble Lord for his 12 years of very active service. We hope that the unwhippable and unpredictable 250 Cross-Bench Peers, not counting the Bishops and Law Lords, have not been too much of a thorn in his flesh. As far as we are concerned, he has always done his duty, enabling us to play an active part as both dogs and bitches in this revising Chamber! We hope that he will go on writing books. I gather that the latest is called The Mystery of the Lost Divisions. I hope that there will be plenty of them in the Library for us to read. On a personal note, I hope that the noble Lord will start this Recess with a very tight line and catch lots of fish.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am delighted to add a brief tribute from these Benches to the noble Lord, Lord Denham. Whips do not come out very well in the Bible, if I remember rightly. We are told that we will be chastised with whips. It is recorded that Christ used whips to drive the traders out of the temple. Therefore, I did not know quite what to expect when coming to meet a Government Chief Whip for the first time. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the Lords Spiritual when I say that we have always valued tremendously his friendliness, kindliness and the way in which he has helped us along the road in this House. He has a wonderful knack of

233
drawing attention to the ways in which he would like us to go. I remember that not long after I became a Member of this House he took me gently by the arm and said, "Bishop, I do not think that you have quite discovered every place in this House. For example, the way to vote for the Government is over there". I hope that I have not disappointed him too much over the years. If I have, then I am sure that it has been made up for by many of my colleagues. We wish him every blessing in the time to come.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it is given to few corpses to have the privilege of being able to listen to their own obituary, let alone to say a word of thanks for it. I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and the right reverend Prelate. I also thank every Member of this House both past and present for the forbearance and kindness that they have shown over the past 30 years and particularly over the past 12 years. Thank you very much indeed.

Road Safety and the Handicapped
2.45 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they plan to improve safety standards for blind, deaf and other handicapped persons when crossing main roads in major cities; and whether they intend to ensure more standardisation of traffic lights.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Department of Transport has issued advice to local authorities on dropped kerbs and the use of a tactile surface at controlled crossings. The department will shortly be issuing further advice on the use of these surfaces at uncontrolled crossings. Signals have been developed to assist blind and deaf/blind persons. Three new traffic advisory unit leaflets will be published to encourage their use. New methods of improving pedestrian safety at crossings are being developed. Standardisation of traffic lights is achieved through the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 and a type approval process.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that extremely helpful Answer. Is he aware that I am a patron of the Greater London Fund for the Blind, which will be extremely pleased to hear what he has said? Is he also aware that it is not only in the cities that there are problems with crossing at traffic lights but in country towns and villages? In the part of Surrey near Leatherhead where my wife and I live, there is the Royal School for the Blind and several other places for physically and mentally handicapped persons. Will my noble friend accept that what he has said will be of great comfort to such people?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those words. At the moment we
234
have two new provisions coming forward which will be of great benefit to the blind and others who have difficulty in crossing the road. The pelican crossings will soon be fitted with the new infra-red device. That will mean that pedestrians will get as long a crossing time as is necessary. There will also be a new audible signal for dual carriageway crossings.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure in further consideration of this matter that the department will keep in touch with the Greater London Association for Disabled People, which produced a report on the difficulties that handicapped people have in the metropolis and which has many valuable suggestions to make?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I know that the department consults widely on these matters with the groups concerned with the disabled and blind. I shall ensure that the organisation referred to by my noble friend is among them.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not only the physically handicapped who have difficulty in crossing the road but those who are more able and active? If they have difficulty, how much more difficult must it be for the handicapped? Is the noble Lord aware that the little green man who flashes, now flashes for an ever shorter time? Is he also aware that it is very difficult even for active people to get across in time such roads as the Strand and outside Buckingham Palace? Will he look into the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can do better than that. The new system will come into action fairly shortly. I refer to the infra-red system which I described, which will give as much time as is needed. The system will be able to detect when a person is on the crossing and it will therefore give as much time as is necessary.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Opposition welcome what he has said in response to this very helpful Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland? In the consultation process in which the Minister has been engaged, has he taken into account the highway authorities, including the local authorities, and whether once the new regime is agreed it will be given suitable publicity? Publicity is the key to success in this matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly. We work very closely with the highway and local authorities in these matters. They are the people who will be initially in receipt of our new advisory leaflets. For the most part, they will be the people who have to install the new devices. I shall endeavour to make sure that good publicity is given to the matter.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will the new regime allow for traffic lights at the top of Constitution Hill on to Hyde Park Corner? Most of us dread going to Hyde Park Corner, including, I understand, taxi-cab drivers.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on individual traffic lights in London.

Local Government Tax
2.50 p.m.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider basing the new local government tax on the type and size of a house rather than its value.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Government believe that a banded system, based on the market value of domestic property, will be simple to administer, easily understood and cheap to collect and is therefore the right way forward.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he not agree that the banding of the type of property by its type and not its value, such as semi-detached or detached, three or four bedrooms, and so on, would be much more descriptive? That would be less likely to arouse the envy of those who say that people in the South East can afford to pay more on their properties and therefore should do so?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the banded system involves no need to value each individual house. There will be no need at all for regular revaluation. Therefore, it will be simple, cheap, and also fair to administer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that historically the old rateable system was very unfair and there was a severe imbalance? For example, some people could never understand why flats were always rated higher than larger houses on ground floor level. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no imbalances that will operate unfairly under the new system?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do know that the plan of the Labour Party is immensely complicated—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords,—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we have aimed at simplicity. There is not only an advantage in simplicity, there is also an advantage in banding. If there are a number of bands the effect of moving from one band to the next is not traumatic in itself. One can only move a certain distance and that is another recommendation for the system.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there are houses of identical size in the North which compare with houses in small villages in Cornwall and Devon where prices are highly inflated due to second home ownership? At the moment people in those villages cannot afford to buy homes in the area because they have very high rates which are quite out of proportion to their ability to pay.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the top banded house will attract a council tax 2.5 times higher than a house in the bottom band. Therefore, the difference between
236
the cheapest house and the most expensive will be far less than under the old rating system. One of the great criticisms of the old rating system was that an unacceptable burden was placed on a person who might be living in the suburbs of a town on his or her own, in a property which was very highly valued. The result was that he or she had to pay a very large sum of money for limited services. The system we propose will be much simpler and much fairer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the banding system proposed unduly restrictive in that it will have only seven bands? Will that not mean that people living in much smaller properties, in poorer parts of the country, will pay more than they should while other people living in large houses in more prosperous parts of the country will pay a lot less? Should not the system be much fairer than that?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there are many great virtues in simplicity. Of course, one could have a proliferation of bands, but the more bands there are, the more complicated the system becomes. Surely it is preferable to have a system such as the one we set out in our consultation document than to have a system which involves no limits whatever on local authority expenditure and the setting up of regional authorities with the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy. The total cost of that puts the Question posed by the noble Lord into proportion. Labour's plans would mean vastly increased expenses for local authorities.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, as one of my noble friend's supporters, and as one who has suffered grievous bureaucratic difficulties over the poll tax, and remembering the advocates of that tax saying how simple it would be to operate, can the Minister give me an assurance that we have got it right this time?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that I certainly believe so. It is a very much simpler system than the poll tax. Surely it is a very much simpler system than going back to the old rating system and eventually changing yet again to a tax that is based not on the capital value of a property but on a value based on building costs, repair costs, rental values and capital value lumped together.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the valuation of property on which these bands are calculated is done by the Inland Revenue in England and by independent assessors in Scotland? The variations in valuations are great. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be some uniformity in standards of valuation covering the United Kingdom?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is certainly the intention.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the population will be appalled at the suggestion that there should not be regular revaluations of bands related to individual properties? It should be borne in mind that one of the major problems caused by the old rating system was the fact that properties were not revalued regularly.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, one of the attractions of the banded system is that it is not necessary to have regular valuations. Assuming that some sort of reasonable relationship still applies between the bottom band and the next band and the band after that, all that has to be done is to apply the same tax at a higher £age. One will get precisely the same result.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord is falling into the same trap as the poll tax argument to which he has referred. His argument totally gets away from the fact that the housing market, as a market, is enormously complicated and we cannot just take values for granted. My question to the Minister is: will the tax, assuming we have to suffer it, at least allow local democracy to survive? In particular, will local authorities be able to set their own rate of tax apropos of the value?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking whether we are going to abandon capping, then the answer is certainly not. I am quite sure that when the people of this country grasp the fact that it is part of Labour's policy that there should be no limits whatever on local authority expenditure they will not vote Labour.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember the argument on poll tax; that if a local authority taxes too much the electorate will get rid of it? What happened to that argument? It seemed to fail with the poll tax; is it also going to fail this time round?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord wants it both ways. If, indeed, he is right that the accountability arguments did not result in restraint in expenditure by local authorities, I am saying that that adds to the argument for capping. It does not detract from it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord insists that this tax is fair. Is his concept of fair that a person with a house worth £1 million pays the same as a person with a house valued £160,000?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I only have to remind the noble Lord of the criticisms which were made of the old rating system. The principal criticism made was that a completely unfair burden was placed on people who occupied what in these days might be considered quite moderately valued houses. Therefore, some decision must be made as to the relationship between what is paid by the person living in a small house and what is paid at the top of the scale.
One should bear in mind that under this scheme the person at the top of the scale. will pay 2.5 times as much for local authority services to his local authority than the person at the bottom of the scale. On top of that, the remaining 80 per cent. of the cost of local authority services will be paid for by central government, which operates under a steeply graduated system of direct taxation. I think the noble Lord will concede that that system will be fair.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, under the new scheme, will there still be standard spending assessments to tell local authorities what they are allowed to spend?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there will be standard spending assessments in order to assess what grants should be paid to local authorities. That is certainly correct. How else could it be? There must be some way in which one apportions grant between one area and another so as to make sure that as near as possible a person living in one part of the country receiving a standard level of service pays about the same as someone in another part of the country receiving the same service.

Health Visitors
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will recruit more health visitors, or make more assistance available to them in the performance of their duties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government are involved in a number of measures to help with the recruitment and retention of health visitors, but it is for individual service units to decide on how many health visitors and supporting staff they need in order to fulfil their contracts with district health authorities and other purchasers. The role of district health authorities is to ensure that those contracts adequately reflect the community health needs of their resident populations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that the real complaint of health visitors is against the regional health authorities which they feel are not carrying out their duties? The regional health authorities have had the money from the Government so to do but are not spending it on health visitors. The general medical profession regards health visitors as the first line of defence. They play a vital role. The Health Visitors' Association acknowledges the abilities of its members but believes that their talents are not being fully utilised.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise the valuable service provided by health visitors. They have an important role in giving general family support. It is vital in terms of the progress into community care and to the plans to integrate primary and secondary care. However, we believe that the reforms will help greatly in this area by providing delivery mechanisms and in the sense that the region is now responsible both for FHSAs and district health authorities which form two important elements in this provision.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the new system seems to be totally falling apart? She says that there is great merit in it and that the opportunities for district health authorities are there. I am told by the Health Visitors' Association that the new system—working under Working Paper No. 10

239
—does not seem to have produced as much as a half of the expected number of people in training. The secondments are not coming through. Is it the case that they are being held up by the regions? What is the problem? Is she further aware that, if there is no increase in the number of health visitors, there will be a crisis? There has been no increase in the complement of health visitors over the past few years.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in terms of training, which is the point that the noble Lord is getting at, during the year ending 31st March 1990, 847 students entered health visitor training in England. This represented a 2.9 per cent. increase on the previous year. In terms of safeguarding the future training of health visitors, we have asked that post-registration professional training for nurses, including health visitor training, should for the time being at least be funded from the separate and protected regional budget. We have also asked regional health authorities to identify current investment in this training to form the initial baseline for a budget in the next financial year. "That perhaps goes some way to meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I heard the assurance but I ask the Minister to look into the matter very carefully. The Health Visitors' Association says that the number of people now being transferred for training; is very low indeed, at about 50 per cent. of what is needed. Will the noble Baroness look into the matter personally?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall most certainly look into it and also refer it to my honourable friend the Minister for Health. We are concerned that there should be adequate provision of health service workers for the community care plans.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that health visitors have made a magnificent contribution in serving the community in a variety of ways? Many GPs say that hospital waiting lists would be much longer if it were not for health visitors. Health visitors want to contribute more to the community. They believe they have great talents and think that more of them can help the National Health Service, the country and those who need some form of help but do not necessarily need to go into hospital. The Health Visitors' Association believes that health visitors can make this contribution and it is proud of the talents of its members. Will the Minister be good enough to look into its complaints? It wants to do more to make the National Health Service even more efficient
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already given an assurance that I shall look into the matter. I refer the noble Lord to the findings of the Roy Report, published last December, which was commissioned to look into this whole area. It very interestingly sets out
240
five different organisational models for the organisation of community nursing, including GP-based practice nurses. There has been a phenomenal increase in the number of GP-based practice nurses.

UK Ships: Flagging Out
3.6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What United Kingdom based shipping lines have indicated in 1991, and especially since the last Budget, that they intend to "flag out" UK-registered ships; how many ships and how many seafarers' jobs are involved; and what has been Her Majesty's Government's response.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, from January to April 1991, 19 trading vessels have left the United Kingdom register. Of those, four have gone to other British registers. In the same period, 13 vessels have come on to the register. I understand that Cunard, Blue Star and P&O Containers are currently flagging out a total of five vessels and that P&O has announced that it is considering further moves. These are commercial decisions. It is too early to say what the effect of such action would be on the crews of the vessels involved.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the Minister refers to them being commercial decisions, is he not aware that P&O and indeed others have attributed their decisions directly to the fact that no fiscal help whatever has been forthcoming from the Government to meet their pleas for a restructuring of a very old British fleet? Is he further aware that the Government's response in the Budget in particular has been rather like throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope? When will the Government do something to assist this vital British industry upon which our country significantly depends?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, so far as concerns fiscal measures, my right honourable friend the Chancellor explained in the Budget Statement that there is a limit to the extent to which the tax regime can be manipulated to meet the specific needs of individual industries. He did, however, reduce corporation tax from 35 per cent. to 33 per cent., which makes it, with Luxembourg, the lowest level in the European Community and among the G7 countries. That will benefit shipping as well as other industries. Shipping also benefits from the 25 per cent. depreciation allowance. A vessel with a life of 15 to 20 years can be written down in just eight. In recognition of the strategic value of British seafarers, the Chancellor also announced an extension to the arrangements under which seafarers can in some circumstances be exempt from United Kingdom tax on foreign earnings.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not correct that recent reports in the press have indicated that British shipowners operate at a disadvantage as against other shipowners in the world, especially in

241
Europe? British shipowners should not operate at a disadvantage as against their competitors. What will the Government do to protect this valuable asset which may, if we are not careful, disappear altogether?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to Europe. We are working hard in Europe to encourage the reduction of subsidies. We believe that subsidies distort the economic decisions and are not the way to encourage a healthy and competitive industry. We are pressing the European Commission to apply to shipping the state aids provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, from the defence point of view, do the Government feel any anxiety about the running down of the British Merchant Navy, which in certain foreseeable situations might be of considerable defence importance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course we recognise the contribution that the Merchant Navy makes in times of crisis. Indeed, we monitor the fleet and manning levels accordingly. For that reason, we introduced relatively recently two measures of assistance to the merchant fleet. One of them, which has been most successful, concerned the training of officers and the other involved help towards crew relief costs.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, in order to try to put some flesh on the balance of that particular answer, can the Minister inform us, in terms of either the number of ships which are UK-owned and registered, the gross registered tonnage under the Red Ensign fleet, or the total number of British seafarers and officers—or any combination of those factors—at what point the Government's anxiety about flagging out will take the shape of positive action comparable to that taken by our competitors, to support the British fleet? Alternatively, are we to assume that when the last British ship has been flagged out, the Government will still show the same lack of concern that they are showing now?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that my original Answer indicated that at present the situation so far as concerns flagging out is not that critical. In fact, only a small net number of vessels had left the register at the beginning of this year. We have introduced various measures of assistance to the merchant fleet over the past two or three years. I hope that they will be successful in encouraging the fleet.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, I trust that my noble friend will recall that as president of the General Council of British Shipping and chairman of P&O, I chaired jointly the working party on the shipping industry last year. Is he aware that the group's findings in its report were unanimous that British shipping was a vital national asset? Does he also remember that the report stated that it was fast accelerating towards extinction, and that it was feared that many ships would flag out if something was not done? It was also
242
found that British shipping was a necessity and had been the fourth arm of defence for about 400 years. I alone represent a fleet operating 200 ships at sea.
I believe that the number of ships that will flag out will accelerate. Does my noble friend agree that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget speech that he fully recognised the strategic need of the Red Ensign fleet, in practice he said that measures would be required to meet that need? Does he also accept that as those measures will not be forthcoming, the Government will he presiding over the demise of the Red Duster?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend's great experience in the matter. As he said, he was the joint chairman of the working party. Most of what my noble friend said is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The report of the working party contained five main recommendations to help the British fleet. All of those have either been acted on or will be acted on.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, with an election looming in the wings, now is the time to go one step further down the road in addition to the constructive measures that the Government have already taken with regard to our merchant fleet? Will he further agree that the zero option in relation to a merchant fleet, as practised by Canada unsuccessfully some years ago, is no option at all when it comes to the Red Duster?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I very much hope that that is not an option. I agree with the noble Lord. That is why, as I said, we have introduced various measures during the past few years to encourage the merchant fleet.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the minimum tonnage under the British flag that the Government will tolerate before they take some action?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have taken action. I cannot give the noble Lord an answer in terms of minimum tonnage.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that the situation regarding the British fleet is looking up? I suppose that we might even agree with that view: it is actually flat on its back; it has no alternative.

Business of the House: Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
3.15.p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that it has been decided through the usual channels to take the Second Reading of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill off the Order Paper for tomorrow. It will be set down again for Friday 14th June.
It would be wrong of me not to acknowledge that this Bill's Second Reading is now being moved for the

243
second time. I apologise to the House for that. Interest in the Bill has grown progressively since it arrived here from another place, and the usual channels have attempted, therefore, to find time for a substantial debate in the face of the other pressures on the programme before the House. I hope that I can undertake to the House now that the Bill will not be moved again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for acceding to our request that this Second Reading should be postponed, as he rightly said, for the second time. I can assure the noble Lord that, from our point of view, we shall not attempt to move it again. I am very glad that we now have a day upon which I hope that many speakers who wish to speak cm the Bill, but who would be unable to do so tomorrow, will be able to do so.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that the phenomenon in relation to the Bill has been the growth of opposition to it which was not sufficiently noted at the time of the Gulf War when it slipped through the other place? However, having said that, we on these Benches also welcome the opportunity to debate the matter more thoroughly.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we are not here this afternoon to debate the merits of the matter; I am here to give the House what I understood it wanted. I am most grateful for the thanks that have been afforded to the Government for having given way. I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to thank the Government in as magnificent a way as did the noble Lord opposite.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords; after the debate on fixed term Parliaments and before the debate on inner cities, my noble friend Lord Reay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on dangerous dogs.
I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit for either debate. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that speeches should still be confined to limits compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House: Debates, 5th June
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Baroness Ewart-Biggs set down for 5th June shall each be limited to 2i- hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Waddington).
On question, Motion agreed to.

Fixed Term Parliaments
3.18 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham rose to call attention to the case for fixed term parliaments, following the practice of many other democracies, to avoid the economic and political effects of sustained speculation about the dates of general elections; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a minute or two ago during Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, spoke about an election looming. In a sense he provided the text for the Motion which we propose from these Benches today. It is: to draw attention to the need for fixed term Parliaments.
I do not think that anyone can doubt that this is a topical and timely issue. I shall attempt to explain why I think that it is also an important issue which will be well explored in your Lordships' House. It is not a new issue. In 1931, Professor Ramsay Muir, in his evidence on the triennial and septennial Acts, described what had become by then the personal prime-ministerial prerogative of calling an election at a time of his political convenience as an "unsound constitutional doctrine". I shall return to the constitutionality of the matter later.
However, I start by asking your Lordships a common sense Question. It is a question which may be best addressed to those who support what I shall call the "floating" date as opposed to the "fixed" date for the general election. To those who support the idea of a floating date, my Question is: why does the British electorate have to endure every few years a coy guessing game about the date of the general election? It has become the electoral equivalent of that childish game of peekaboo: "Now you see it, now you don't!" At least once a month since January of this year, the Government's Back-Benchers have been marched

245
grumbling up to the top of the hill, perched on the verge of a general election, and then marched unceremoniously down the other side of the hill. We know that the opinion polls are scrutinised with all the feverish anxiety of a hypochondriac. The Conservative Party Chairman raises and lowers expectations every day like a political barometer.
One might say that that is all good clean fun, and so it would be if it were an obscure private game, but it is not. General elections are about renewing the power and re-establishing the legitimacy upon which democratic government rests. So in a very real sense, elections should belong to the voters rather than in any sense belonging to or being manipulated by the Prime Minister and the Government. If that is not so, it is to give to the Prime Minister and his party what, in American politics is known as an incumbency advantage. It is a travesty of serious democracy when Messrs. William Hill and Ladbroke give odds not just on the result of the election—that is fair enough—but on the date of the general election. One can place a wager on the date upon which the general election will be held as if it had all the unpredictability and charm of a horse race.
The bad effects are not confined merely to lowering standards of democracy, they affect everyone. In industry, industrialists hold back on investment until the political outlook becomes clearer; markets dance to political calculations; and civil servants now spend much of their time on contingency plans of one sort or another. Ordinary citizens, let alone Members of Parliament, begin to wonder what is the best time at which to take their annual holidays. What is more crucial is that the management of the economy tends to become coloured, and some would say controlled, by manipulation of the election date. Can anyone doubt that the current debate within the government party, and between it and the Governor of the Bank of England, on interest rates, or the debate and negotiation on economic and monetary union with our European partners—both decisions being crucial to the country's future prosperity—are not being pervasively and daily influenced by consideration of the various options of the date of the general election?
We have a curious system. It is said that the British contribution to world civilisation is to invent games; that we have a genius for inventing games. I cannot believe that this is one of our better contributions. What would people think about a race in which the Prime Minister is allowed to approach it with his running shoes in one hand and his starting pistol in the other? Can that be thought to be fair in any real sense? Let alone it being unfair, is it suited to the complexity of the modern world?
Business and industry require predictability and rationality so that they can function effectively. They do not want the second-guessing and gamesmanship to which we are exposed with a floating-date system, with the consequences of what the Financial Times last week described as the "election blight on economic policy". I refer the noble Lord the Leader of the House to the leader published in the Financial Times last Friday.
A fixed date every four years, as in Germany and the United States, or every five years, as with the European Parliament, would be infinitely superior to a floating date. I readily acknowledge that one should not over-emphasise the virtues of a fixed-term parliament. It is not a panacea that will solve all problems. No one ever will or should try to take politics out of electioneering, or to take the economics out of politics; but at least with a fixed-term parliament and a set date for elections both would be in proportion and in their proper place.
The problem is sometimes raised—I am sure that it will be raised by other speakers in the debate—that if a parliament has ceased to be viable, there has to be some escape hatch through which an earlier election can be sought. That problem is not insoluble. In the Bundestag in West Germany that problem is handled by providing that any vote of no confidence must also involve an expression of positive support for an alternative Chancellor. Both parts of the proposition of that constructive vote of confidence are voted on together. It is only when that procedure fails and in exceptional circumstances—as in 1972, which is the only case in 40 years in West Germany—that under Article 68 of the West German constitution a straight vote of no confidence is taken and the parliament is potentially dissolved earlier; but even then discretion remains with the German president to use a 21-day cooling-off period to see whether there is an alternative Administration within the Parliament.
The consequence of making it more difficult for politicians to call elections when it suits them, and making them, like everyone else, conform to certain rules and expectations, is that elected politicians cannot then rush for the exit, however much it may happen to suit them. They are forced to consider whether there is an alternative government within their midst. That could become important if there were to be a balanced parliament some time in the future. Your Lordships may think that I am predicting that outcome from these Benches, but it is important to note that even with the first-past-the-post voting system we have balanced parliaments from time to time. If there were to be electoral reform, we should probably have them more often. In 1964 and 1966, and between the two elections in 1974, there was the inevitable temptation under our system for the Government to try to play for time and avoid the necessity to muster the full confidence of a long-term Parliament. If we had a fixed term, the House of Commons would ultimately control its own destiny. I mean the House of Commons as a whole and not merely the Prime Minister.
What is the public's attitude to that reform? There is irritation in the country which may perhaps in some quarters —possibly among frequent television viewers —border on fury at the pre-election war of nerves and the premature and sometimes nearly hysterical electioneering which is going on at a time when we understand we may be months or even a year away from a general election. It is an example of crying "wolf!" If we carry on like that, we shall begin to devalue the whole political process and the election itself, whenever it finally comes.
It is not surprising that a MORI opinion poll carried out for the Joseph Rowntree Social Services Trust and called the "State of the Nation Poll" a month ago showed that there was over 2:1 support among the public for a fixed date for general elections. Fifty-six per cent. supported it, 24 per cent. opposed it and 20 per cent. did not know. Interestingly, among young voters£ 18 to 24 year-olds—the majority was 3:1. Fifty-nine per cent. supported it, with only 19 per cent. opposing it.
Speaking from these Benches, I feel that it will no doubt occur to some noble Lords that this is part of a wider constitutional reform agenda. Again, I wish to acknowledge that a fixed term parliament would connect on the economic front with Liberal Democrat proposals for greater independence for the Bank of England, both of them promoting greater stability of economic management.
Equally, I wish to acknowledge that a fixed term parliament would connect well with a more open and rational system, were we to reform our electoral system, have proportional representation and reform parliamentary procedures. Ultimately, however, the arguments for a fixed term parliament stand free and unconnected with any other considerations. I maintain that it would be a worthwhile reform in itself.
I do not level my criticism at the present Prime Minister in particular—it is a game that has been played by all who have held that office—but why should the prime minister of the day have peculiar and particular powers over the date of the general election? Is it fair? Is it rational? If not, could it readily he reformed? If the answers to those questions are that it is unfair, it is irrational and it could readily be reformed, then I believe it is a proper matter for Parliament to consider.
On Sunday, the Observer newspaper called in a leading; article for a levelling of the electoral playing field and an end to what it called "this absurdity". I look forward very much to hearing the views of other noble Lords who will speak in the debate. In that spirit, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that this is not a new subject. It is trotted out from time to time, together with proportional representation and other nostrums which appeal particularly to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. However, it has been thrashed out again and again in our history. So far, at any rate, it has not succeeded in establishing itself as a sensible variant to our constitutional system and its workings.
The reasons for this are fairly clear. It is very difficult indeed to relate a system of parliaments of a fixed length of time to a system under which the government of the day, if they lose the confidence of another place, either have to resign or appeal to the electorate for a new mandate. It is all very well to refer, as the noble Lord did, to the system in the United States, but there the presidency and headship of the government are the result of direct election from the
248
electorate. Any disagreement that may arise—as it often does—between the president and Congress cannot in any event produce the resignation of the president. The system is totally different.
I was interested when the noble Lord tried to cite the German precedent. He had to admit that under that system there was an escape clause if it proved politically to be impossible for the strict period of time to elapse for which the parliament was supposed to have been elected. The noble Lord now suggests that, come hell or high water, we should have a parliament elected for four years, regardless apparently of what happens during that period. I do not know why he believes that that would prevent anxiety about elections. On the contrary, surely it would mean that, as the date of the election was known years ahead, for quite a considerable time a general election would cast a shadow of uncertainty over the economy. However, under our system, with only limited notice given of the date of an election, that period—and I agree that it is not a period of great advantage to the economy—is much shorter. Therefore, the noble Lord's proposition would secure that the doubt and uncertainty preceding an election should operate for a considerably longer period than at present.
I come to the more important point of the working of the system. If there is a fixed four-year term for parliament, what happens if the government of the day are defeated on a question of confidence? Must the government resign, although they still have a majority in another place? Is somebody else supposed to take over the government as prime minister, with, ex hypothesi, no majority in another place and so in permanent minority? Surely that is a recipe for futile and ineffective government. It is the merit of our system that the government of the day have to secure and have to continue to secure the confidence of another place. If they lose it, they have the alternative of going back to the people and asking the electorate to restore them to power or of resigning and leaving it to Her Majesty to send for the leader of the next largest party. That is a far more flexible and effective system.
Then we ask your Lordships to consider, if we have a fixed duration for a parliament, what is to happen if the government of the day lose on major issues of confidence. One need not look at this solely theoretically. What would have happened in 1966 if, with their minute majority and all the difficulties they had to face, the Labour Government had not been free to appeal to the electorate for support? Whether or not one welcomes it, that appeal was granted. After the 1966 election, there was a government with full authority to govern and a full majority.
What would have been the situation in 1974 when Mr. Heath felt unable to stand against the onslaught of the miners and wished to appeal to the electorate? The fact that his appeal was not successful is surely the best possible evidence of the flexibility of our system. In a situation in which the government of the day face real difficulties and problems, an immediate appeal to the electorate was and is possible.
If we accept that the electorate is the body with ultimate authority, it seems to me extraordinarily

249
unwise and undemocratic to produce a system under which—whatever happens in parliament, politics or public affairs—that electorate is mute, helpless and can do nothing until the four-year period has elapsed. I can conceive of nothing more calculated to produce a breakdown in the system of parliamentary government.
That is why I personally regard the proposal so delightfully put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, as dangerous. Our system works with admirable flexibility. There is a major issue and Members of another place have to face the question of whether they will support the Government, whether they believe the Government are right in what they are doing, or whether Members are prepared to see a change of government and, very likely, a general election to support and secure that change.
That is what happened in 1966 and 1974. I shall not weary your Lordships by recapitulating other episodes of our history. It has happened throughout the whole working of our system. It occurred in 1911 when the original Parliament Act—to a certain extent that has been in our minds recently for other reasons—was passed. The Liberal government of the day properly dissolved Parliament and appealed to the electorate for support for their policy of reducing the powers of your Lordships' House. That was the right and constitutional way to proceed. They could not have had any justification for passing that Act unless they had obtained the assent of the electorate. A fixed four-year term would mean that one would eliminate entirely the possibility of the government of the day referring a contentious and important matter to the electorate for their decision.
The noble Lord discussed all kinds of difficulties which certainly occur in a pre-election period. However, I believe that those difficulties would occur to a greater extent if the election date were certain and if one knew months and months ahead that, for example, 10th October or 15th September were the election date. A pre-election situation would occur, not as the noble Lord suggested for a shorter time, but for a much longer time than under the present system because the election date would be universally known well in advance.
A system of a fixed four-year parliament where the parliament could not be changed during those four years would give us the worst of both worlds. Undoubtedly there would be more of the worry and uncertainty of a pre-election period and the government of the day would be denied the opportunity to appeal to the electorate for support for their policies. Above all, one would deny the electorate the right to be consulted and the right to decide major and contentious issues. With great respect I must say that I hope we shall hear no more of this discussion about parliamentary terms being fixed with absolute rigidity. I hope we shall appreciate the flexibility of our present system and appreciate that in this respect, as in so many others, it is a system of which we should be proud.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is with pleasure that I support the Motion put forward so impressively by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham. We have just heard a contrary view from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The noble Lord is well known to us as a compelling orator. In taking the opposite view he used all his skills of oratory. He made two points. I say with respect that I consider his first point totally invalid. He represented that my noble friend had not accepted that if, during a fixed term, a government were to lose a vote of confidence, that government could not continue in power. It was not my impression that my noble friend ever suggested that. Any government who lose the confidence of Members in another place would inevitably have to go to the people. There is no doubt about that, and I believe that that is what my noble friend said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord challenged me, I shall reply to him. I did not say that a defeated government would have to remain in power. I said that either the government would have to remain in power or the Opposition could take office without a majority. The noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, did not say that if a government were defeated, they would have the right to dissolve. I ask the noble Lord to deal with the following point. If that is now the story —although it was not the story of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—what would be the position as regards elections? There would be an additional election. Does the four-year period run from that election or does the government run on for a couple of years, say, until the end of the original four-year term?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the latter point, I should say that if a new government were elected, they would run for their elected term which would be four or five years as agreed in the new arrangements. There is no question whatever: if any government were to lose a vote of confidence, that would be an occasion for turning to the electorate to test public opinion. That was the first point the noble Lord made.
Secondly, he said that the flexibility of our system has worked over the years and therefore we should continue with the present system. All I can say to that is that the time comes when one needs to learn from the experience of others. We may be the mother of parliaments—that is a wonderful role to have—but we have many children. There are many other parliaments which have adopted other systems. Who are we to say that the system adopted in Germany, France, Belgium or Holland, where fixed term Parliaments apply, is in any way inferior to our own? On the contrary, those countries have had more stable governments and more stable policies than we have had in recent years. They have benefited from that. We should look seriously at the proposition.
I wish particularly to consider the economic implications of our present system. Does the uncertainty created by our system of not knowing exactly when an election will be called—leaving aside the Question of lack of confidence—jeopardise the

251
economy and make its conduct less satisfactory? That is a perfectly fair and proper question to ask. The present position is that for at least a year before the term of a government expires, speculation begins and uncertainty is generated. While that may be of interest to the bookmakers, such uncertainty and speculation are of no interest whatever to business. Uncertainty weakens confidence and therefore business operations suffer. Worse still, it gives rise to all kinds of fanciful speculation. I draw your Lordships' attention to The Times of 16th May. On the first page of that esteemed newspaper a heading stated:
"Major ready to defer election to help Lamont".
That may or may not be true. We do not always have to believe what appears in the press. But it is extraordinary to discover that the newspaper also reported that Mr. Patten, the chairman of the Conservative Party, was said,
"to be keen to see early interest rate cuts to bring down mortgage payments and induce a feeling of economic wellbeing, so keeping open the option of an October election".
Those were two totally contrary propositions. A usually reliable newspaper informed us on the one hand that the Prime Minister supported the Chancellor in seeking to defer the election, but on the other hand informs us that the chairman of the party was keen to keep the option of an early election open. Who knows what validity any of those propositions contained? However, particularly since Sir Bernard Ingham has gone to press, we are familiar with the way non-attributable press briefings work in this country. It is difficult to believe that there was not some non-attributable press briefings which led to those reflections in an important newspaper.
I do not know whether it is right that we should be subjected—and that the business community in particular should be subjected—to these extreme uncertainties as regards the Government's economic policy. Economic policy is far too important to be manipulated a year or more ahead of an election. If we had a fixed date, everyone would know the date the Government were going to the polls, and every government approaching the end of their term would be justified in making their best efforts to persuade the electorate that they should be re-elected. That is the stuff of democracy. What is not necessarily the stuff of democracy is to have a number of false starts and a number. of uncertainties. Are the Government going to cut interest rates in order to have an early election, or are they going to listen to the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England and defer interest rate cut s in order to strengthen the currency and go for a later election? What is the lesson to be learnt from that by business? What is it to do about its investments? Investment these days depends very much on the cost of money. Is the cost of money going to be made cheaper now or later? Will it be made cheaper now in order to have an early election or later in order to have a more distant election? That certainly does not seem to me to be the right way to run the business of the country.
If we had a fixed term, consistent policies could be pursued. Everybody would know when the election was to come, leaving aside Questions of confidence. The Government could organise their policies in such
252
a way—and they would be perfectly entitled to do so —as to achieve the maximum impact by the date of the election. Governments are, of course, human and in a democracy we would expect them to do everything they could to be re-elected. However, to have the opportunity of manipulating their policies in order to choose a propitious date in my opinion is no longer relevant to the way in which modern democracies are run. It is certainly not done on the Continent.
It is difficult to see who gains from the present situation. Governments do not necessarily gain. In recent history governments have made mistakes about the dates on which they have sought re-election. Certainly, business does not gain from the protracted uncertainty. I believe that the public become confused and eventually bored, which is not good for democracy.
To have a clear date on which the renewal of the people's mandate to the government of the country or a change of government is determined seems to me to overcome those basic uncertainties. Therefore, I very much hope that your Lordships will regard this as an opportunity seriously to review one of the aspects of our generally very satisfactory political system which may now have reached the time when it could, with advantage, be changed.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, two major points were made against the proposition of my noble friend by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The first was that the four or five-year period would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, described it, absolutely fixed. The noble Lord misunderstood my noble friend. That was never his suggestion. In fact he specifically denied that the four or five-year time was absolutely fixed. It could be changed if the Government lost a vote of confidence. It would then be open for Parliament to be dissolved and new elections held. The points were made well by my noble friend Lord Ezra, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Holme will return to the matter when he speaks again.
The second major point was that the period of uncertainty would be even longer if we had fixed terms than if we retained movable dates for general elections.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, since the noble Lord referred to my argument perhaps I may ask whether he is saying—as I did not understand his noble friend to say—that under the proposals the government of the day would retain the right to have a dissolution if defeated in the other place whether or not the four-year term was up. Was he saying that?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, no. Emphatically my noble friend did not say that the Prime Minister and the governing party should have that right. He said that Parliament should have that right. That is the point of what we are saying. We do not deny that we are taking away the privilege of the Prime Minister to decide such matters. We justify that on democratic grounds, on grounds of practicality and on the grounds of removing the uncertainties which my noble friend Lord Ezra mentioned.

253
The second point which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made was that the period of uncertainty would be greater if there were four or five-year fixed terms. That argument cannot stand up. We do not for a moment deny that prior to a fixed-term election the parties will not resort to their party games. We are not so naive as that. If an election were required statutorily in October next we accept that Mr. Major would, as now, postpone awkward decisions, announce personally the banning of dangerous dogs and keep unpopular Ministers off television. We agree that all the things that are going on now would go on if there was a fixed term for an election. However, we say that the prime minister can only play that trick once during the period of a parliament. As the position now stands he can start playing those tricks in the first year of government, in the second year, in the third, fourth or fifth year of government. Research would probably show that over the years one-third or half of the period of a parliament has been marked by uncertainty caused by not knowing whether or not the prime minister is going to call an election.
Here I disagree slightly with my noble friend Lord Ezra. I think that it does pay the governing party to have an indeterminate date. It pays more now because of the greater accuracy and comprehensiveness of public opinion polls which register not only the present and future standing of the political parties but also the relative popularity or unpopularity of particular courses of action. Undoubtedly it pays.
It does not pay the opposition. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It may be that the Labour Party will put a brave face on this, but the fact is that the system bears particularly hard on the chief opposition party. It must prepare for a general election not three or fourth months before a statutory date; it must prepare for a general election three or four months before practically any date in the calendar. It cannot afford to be taken by surprise.
We see the effect of that now. Issues such as health and education are not discussed on their merits but are treated simply as an election football with parties accusing each other of lying and so on. That reinforces the already widespread feeling that politicians and political parties are simply out for themselves and say and do things not for the public good but simply as a short-term exercise in an effort to improve their election prospects.
I find an extraordinary lack of arguments of substance against the proposal. The proportion of Conservative and Labour Members of this House who are prepared to speak against it in this debate is remarkably low. All honour, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, that limits somewhat the duties of those who are to wind up the debate.
I can think of three classes of people who gain from the present system. The first class has been referred to as the bookmakers who like to make a book on the date of the general election. There is a widespread
254
feeling, which I believe is shared in all parts of the House, that if misfortune is to fall upon anybody it might just as well fall upon the bookmakers.
The second class of person to gain from the present system are the political journalists. We should not assume that what the political journalists write about the possible date of a future general election is any more interesting or valuable than what they would have written about something else if we had fixed term parliaments. My view is rather the opposite. I think that what they write about the possible date of a future general election is even less valuable and interesting than what they write about other subjects.
The third class of people who profit are prime ministers. We must ask ourselves what chance there is of enacting any reform which prime ministers and governing parties think is not in their interests. The answer is that while they think that it is not in their interests, the reform will not be enacted. Water does not flow uphill, nor do governing parties support constitutional reforms that lead them to have fewer members in the other place.
What, then, can we do? There is good hope because the electors are already increasingly alerted to the truth. It is slowly entering the minds of thoughtful Conservative and Labour people that if they support the reforms—not only reforms regarding a fixed term but electoral reforms—instead of opposing them, that will help their ratings. I believe that before long we shall see the Labour Party, or the Tory Party, or both, seeing the light on those constitutional reforms. Better still, we shall see a government partly or wholly Liberal Democratic in nature and we shall then have a constitution which is fairer and more practical and democratic.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put a question to him. I do so because he indicated dissatisfaction with the interest being shown in the debate by Members sitting on this side of the House. I can assure him that I have listened with great attention to the arguments that he and his colleagues have put forward. They do not seem to me to hold water. I therefore feel bound to put this point to him. Once he admits that a parliament might be dissolved before the four years have expired, is he not arguing simply for a reduction in the period of a parliament from five years to four years? That is a perfectly reputable argument whether you agree with it or not because, if he remembers, one of his predecessors reduced it from seven years to five years.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I think that noble Lords who occupy that Bench have once again failed to understand the case put by my noble friend. We are not saying that a parliament should necessarily go for four or five years. We are saying that new elections should be held only with the positive support of parliament and not as a result of the tactical decision of the prime minister.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Motion refers to the practice in many other democracies. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that some countries have adopted

255
systems other than ours. They may be right and we may be wrong. Looking at research work which was undertaken in connection with lower chambers in other countries, we see that 25 have fixed periods of four years in office; 24 have fixed periods of five years in office; only four have a fixed three-year period; and two have a six-year period, but there are none longer than that.
Reference was made to one or two countries. Perhaps I may elaborate on that aspect. Countries with a statutory four-year term of office for their lower Chambers include Germany, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain. Those with a five-year term of office include France, Canada, India, Ireland, Luxembourg and Italy. I understand that most if not all of Close countries provide for an earlier dissolution should that be considered desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly said that the position in the United States is different, but there are fixed terms for members of the Senate and for members of the House of Representatives. In so far as the executive president has to stand every four years, that is almost a fixed term too.
The Labour Party has not declared any straightforward Policy on this issue. Members on the other side of the House may smile, but we have clearly stated our policy review in a document of 88 pages. It was revised in March of this year to a document of 51 pages, taking changed circumstances into consideration. I mention those facts in order to indicate the care and attention that the Labour Party has exercised in this matter and the fact that it has put down its proposals in black and white so that people can see exactly what its future programme is. Without referring at length to recent arguments, there is no need for people to use unparliamentary language about Labour Party statements. I hope that no one will make such references to the documents produced by the Labour Party.
The Motion deals with one aspect of suggested democratic change. The Labour Party's document incorporates issues designed to develop democracy for the individual and the community. It includes proposals not for a Bill of rights, but for a charter of rights. A separate document of 16 pages is devoted to that important Question.
In addition, noble Lords are aware that the Labour Party has appointed a working party to look into the Question of electoral reform, of which I and my noble friend Lady Hollis are members. It has an open mind and will determine exactly what recommendations to make the Labour Party's National Executive Committee. I stress that point because, as I said earlier, the Labour Party has no declared view on the Question of fixed parliamentary terms. I have therefore been given complete freedom to present a personal view.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has done the House a service in bringing forward this matter For consideration. I am inclined to go towards the proposal for a fixed term, a view that is shared by quite a number of my colleagues. I shall endeavour to put the arguments for both sides.
256
Reference has been made to the MORI poll, an important poll in which people are clearly asked whether there should be a fixed parliamentary term, thus removing a government's power to choose the date of the election. If my memory serves me correctly, there were not 24 per cent. "Don't knows" but only 5 per cent. "Don't knows". I understand that 56 per cent. were quite definitely in favour of a fixed term. That is the view of a large number of respondents. Whatever one thinks about opinion polls, everyone recognises that MORI is an efficient and well-conducted polling organisation.
Only as recently as last Friday, there was a debate in the other place on constitutional reform which was opened by Mr. Archie Kirkwood. He gave details of the MORI poll on the state of the nation and referred to the fact that, as has been said, more than half the respondents were in favour of a fixed parliamentary term. Strangely enough, the debate took five hours —longer than we shall take this afternoon—and covered 82 columns. Save for the reference made by Mr. Kirkwood and for the speech made by my honourable friend Mr. Tony Banks, no other speaker referred to that important Question. The Minister spoke for 53 minutes, but he made no reference to that point. Mr. Banks reminded the other place that in February 1987 he introduced into Parliament a Private Member's Bill to provide for a fixed parliamentary term.
What are the arguments for change? First, the present system confers an undue and unnecessary power on the prime minister of the day. Secondly, it also confers a distinct advantage on the party in office. I acknowledge completely —so must anybody who thinks clearly about the matter and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does so—that with a fixed term parliament there must be provision for an election in the event of loss of confidence; that is to say, a vote of lack of confidence in the Government. There must be provision for an election if the country is in a state wherein Parliament finds it almost impossible to operate. However, it must be done by consent of the House of Commons, by resolution by the House of Commons and by nobody else.
As for opposition to any change, it is argued that in effect by virtue of the Parliament Act 1911 the United Kingdom already has fixed-term parliaments in that a parliament may not continue beyond five years. In practice most elections seem to be held in this country at four-yearly intervals. It is argued that to introduce a fixed parliamentary term would undoubtedly mean an increase in the amount and duration of electioneering. That was the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. My personal view, which is shared by a number of colleagues, is that even without a fixed parliamentary term there is already a substantial degree of electioneering. That intensifies until the government decide to call an election. We are going through a period of electioneering now and have been for some months.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the system works with admirable simplicity. For whom? I have been the national organiser of the Labour Party and because we were in opposition we

257
have not known when to spend money, not knowing how long we had to undertake a campaign. We had to ask: dare we fund a campaign over the next three months? We might find that no election was called and have to find money for another period of three months. The same thing will happen to the Conservative Party when it is in opposition, as it will be very shortly. The system works with simplicity if one is in government and can decide when to have an election and when to prepare for it. That is simplicity.
I do not believe that any prime minister solely should have the power to determine when there should be an election. I take that view not from any party political angle but considering the essence of democracy and the rights of Parliament. Why should the prime minister be able to decide on an election when he or she feels that it is the best time for his or her party? The prime minister in fact does not decide the matter alone; he or she discusses it with colleagues. Therefore a cabal decides when there will be an election and indeed when there will not be an election. The time may not be good for an election.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, says that mistakes may be made in preparing or not preparing for an election. But why should it be possible for economic and financial matters to be manipulated in order to assist such a decision? It is no good saying that these things do not happen and that there is no economic or financial manipulation. I have been in politics now for 61 years and I know that every party, including the Labour Party, will decide when is the best opportunity to have an election and if necessary will work towards that end. What is the best time not to have an election? Mistakes may occur when deciding that Question. Once past a certain point there is no return. This Government will find, when they have passed a certain point, that there will he no possibility of return. Therefore, everything will be done in a certain number of months to try to put right some of the terrible economic messes in the country and make some financial adjustments.
Reference was made to this issue in the leading article in Sunday's Observer. Rather than read just one sentence to the House, I should like to end my remarks by quoting the whole of one paragraph:
"Our present ramshackle electoral system, which allows a Prime Minister to call an election whenever it suits him within a five-year period, is an absurdity in a modern economy and looks more and more out of touch with democratic developments elsewhere in Europe. The case for fixed term parliaments, subject to a Government retaining the confidence of the House of Commons"
that is the important point—
"is a powerful one. If an election has to be held every four years, legislation could be progressed more efficiently".
That surely is a point that has not been made but which needs to be emphasised. It goes on:
"Whitehall, industry and the business community could plan ahead, and—no less important—the electoral field would be levelled. All this, alas, seems likely to remain wishful thinking until we have a Government committed to electoral reform".
I do not believe that this issue needs to be linked to electoral reform and proportional representation. It is an issue that needs to be considered on its own.
258
Speaking for myself, I hope that fixed-term parliaments will be introduced into this country at the earliest opportunity.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, this debate will linger in my memory if only for the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. He said that the Labour Party has not declared any straightforward policy on the issue. Not only on this issue. I humbly suggest.
We ought to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for having initiated what has turned out to be a short but very interesting debate. He will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with the conclusions that he has reached. I certainly do not believe that it is a very great mischief if people bet on the date of a general election. At the end of the day it depends on what is meant by fixed term parliaments. That is why it is quite difficult to follow some of the arguments advanced during the course of the afternoon. It is also the reason why I take with a pinch of salt the replies given to pollsters. I cannot believe for one moment that those who are asked whether they believe in fixed term parliaments understand all the niceties of the matter and all the distinctions which people have tried to draw today.
It could be said that Parliament has a fixed term under our present system, in the narrow sense that there is an upper limit beyond which a parliament may not run without a change in the law. Very few democracies have fixed term parliaments in the sense that there is no possibility of a dissolution before x number of years have expired, with no circumstances under which that term of years can be extended. Japan, Norway, the United States of America and possibly Switzerland are the only examples among Western or Western-syle democracies. Many other countries with what we would recognise as a democratic system of government make provision in their law or constitution for an early dissolution of their parliament or legislature in certain circumstances. Indeed, every single member of the European Community has a parliament with a fixed duration of four or five years; but earlier dissolution is possible in every single case, including Germany, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, acknowledged. The dissolution is usually effected by the head of state on the advice of the prime minister or head of the government, not because parliament itself decides that it wants to dissolve itself, as was suggested ought to be the case by the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Underhill.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He referred to West Germany. Although he is quite correct to say that it is the president and head of state who grants the dissolution, the chancellor—in our terms the prime minister—has to put the proposition to a vote of the Bundestag that there should be an election. It is on that vote and that vote only that the matter goes forward to the president.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my understanding is that there can be a dissolution by the president if the Bundestag fails to elect a chancellor or if there is the

259
loss of a vote of confidence. But that is only one country among all the countries of Europe. In Austria, the parliament can be dissolved by the president. In Belgium, if the government have lost the confidence of parliament they can request the King for a dissolution. In Denmark, the monarch dissolves parliament on the advice of the prime minister of the day. In France, parliament can be dissolved by the president after consultation with the prime minister. In Greece, parliament can be dissolved by the president in circumstances where there is a loss of confidence in the government. In Ireland, the president can dissolve parliament on the advice of the prime minister of the day and has no power whatsoever to refuse to dissolve parliament when the prime minister so advises. Parliament is dissolved in Italy on the advice of the president. In the Netherlands, the monarch dissolves parliament it the two chambers are in conflict.
It is difficult to think of a single case which matches the formula that is being put forward from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Many countries allow their parliament to prolong its own life, but that, as with ourselves, is usually in wartime or in another national emergency.
The circumstances in which a parliament can dissolve itself or seek a dissolution by the head of state obviously vary from country to country. Most commonly perhaps early dissolution is allowed if the government lose a vote of no confidence. If I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Holme, correctly, this would be allowed under the system which he envisages.
However, it is not difficult to think of other circumstances in which an early dissolution of parliament would be desirable, if not essential, for the good of the country. It is quite conceivable, for example, for a government with a workable or even large majority to lose the confidence of the electorate or lose confidence in themselves and yet survive any vote in another place. There would justifiably be calls on all sides for such a government to resign and for a general election to be called. I am sure your Lordships would agree that it would be wrong for a parliament or government who are clearly dead in the water to be forced to linger on until their allotted term is at an end. That would be bad for the country and bad for democracy.
It is also conceivable that a general election may be desirable following a change of prime minister. The example of 1955 may be apt. Sir Anthony Eden sought a personal mandate at the 1955 general election after he had taken over from Sir Winston Churchill. The parliament elected in October 1951 had run for only three-and-a-half years. At the time it seemed only right that he should be able to go to the country, perhaps because he was taking over from such a dominant personality as Sir Winston and the new government were bound to be very different from the old. I cannot remember at that time that there was the slightest feeling in the country that it was wrong that Sir Anthony Eden should go to the country and seek a mandate of his own.
Lastly, it seems right that a government should be able to seek a dissolution if they find themselves or will
260
find themselves unable to govern effectively because they lack a majority. That is where we are bound to disagree most fervently with the case put forward from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, argues that a government in those circumstances should seek the co-operation of one or more of the other parties. However, I do not believe for one moment that the experience of the Lib/Lab pact is all that encouraging. Which really is better? Is it better for a government unable to govern to go to the country to try to obtain a new mandate or for the same government to spend their time fixing up deals in which the unfortunate electorate has no say whatsoever? In the same way they would have no say about which government were to be formed under a system of proportional representation, the whole issue being carved up behind closed doors by the party managers. I say this. The people not the parties should decide who governs.
I adopt the argument of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. There can be no merit whatsoever in rendering the electorate mute and helpless in a situation such as that created by the 1974 election. What conceivable benefit would have come to this country if after the February 1974 election Parliament had to try to form a series of shifting coalitions in order to keep that parliament alive?
I have set out some of the circumstances—there are no doubt others—in which a government should be able to call an early general election. They provide compelling reasons for the law not to say that a parliament must last for a fixed term. It could of course be argued that a system of fixed term parliaments could allow for earlier dissolution in a prescribed range of circumstances. That is what is being suggested by the Liberal Democrat Benches. If so, in what true sense could the term still be said to be fixed?
The fewer the number of exceptions to the fixed term rule, the greater the risk of keeping alive a parliament for no reason. The greater the number of exceptions, the more difficult it is to understand what on earth would be gained by introducing a fixed term in the first place. The system would not differ in reality from the one that we have at present. That is the dilemma.
No one is suggesting that there should be a fixed term parliament. Those on the Liberal Democrat Benches suggest that there should not be a fixed term parliament but fewer circumstances—they suggest a list of them—in which there could be a dissolution prior to the expiry of the five years. That is the difficulty. How long should the list be? It is difficult to compile. The longer the list, the less realism there is in the debate, because eventually one has an unnecessarily long list which makes a mockery of suggesting that one has a fixed term parliament system.
It has been suggested by noble Lords that our present system gives an unfair advantage to the governing party and that the power it has to dictate the date of dissolution leads to distortion of the economy and of the process of government in general. I do not deny that the ability to decide when a general election is to take place represents a significant tactical

261
advantage to the government of the day. However, I have noted that no opposition have ever sought to relinquish this advantage on coming to power themselves.
It is also true that governments tend to introduce unpopular measures early in their term of office and arrange their programme so that measures which are more likely to court popularity with the electorate come to fruition when a general election is in prospect. The introduction of fixed term parliaments would not change that. Indeed, it might make it easier for the government of the day to plan their legislative programme to their own electoral advantage if they knew with certainty when the next election would take place.
It is difficult to argue that any post-war general election has been timed primarily in order to catch the opposition unprepared. In every case impending dissolution has been well canvassed. In many if not all these cases of course the opposition were themselves pressing the government to go to the country.
It is then said that speculation and uncertainty about the timing of the next general election are inherent in the present system, with unnecessarily protracted electioneering by the political parties and harmful economic effects. I am not sure whether one can prove such harmful economic effects under our system as were suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. However, it is absolutely certain that a fixed term parliament would not in itself ensure stability and continuity of economic policy. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, under a fixed term system the possibility of the return of, say, a Labour Government could cast a baleful shadow over the economy for months before the fixed election date. Why should not a government be tempted to try to rig the economy, thereby endangering long-term economic prosperity, in order to have the maximum support when the fixed term ends? I find it difficult to accept the argument advanced by the noble Lord.
With regard to party electioneering, one has only to look at what happens in the United States, where the government's term of office is rigidly fixed. The American system is so different from our own that comparisons can be misleading, but campaigning there never seems to stop. Once one presidential election campaign is over, the parties prepare themselves for the next.
What it all amounts to is this. A strong system of fixed term parliaments, rigidly adhered to, would be undesirable. On the other hand, a weak system, incorporating numerous qualifications and exceptions, would differ little from the system that we have at present. That system, for all its defects, is the one which this Government, like those before them, prefer.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the seriousness with which he has taken the debate. He will hardly expect me to agree with his conclusions. I also thank all other noble Lords who have taken part.
262
I was grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Mayhew and Lord Ezra. The comparative statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, were extremely helpful. Any sadness that I feel because the Labour Party have not yet embraced the policy of a fixed-term parliament is more than compensated for by the fact that the noble Lord and several of his noble friends informed us that they now support the concept of a fixed-term parliament. I hope that the contagion will spread rapidly through the noble Lord's party so that it too can support us on the reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the Leader of the House, raised a substantive point which I wish to clarify. We on these Benches propose fixed-term parliaments. However, if a parliament becomes unviable there should be an escape hatch. What should it be and how should it be triggered? Rather than repeating the debate, I say merely that it should be a last rather than a first resort. It should be possible only by an affirmative vote of Parliament so that the onus rests with Parliament and not with the prime minister of the day. That system works in West Germany where only once in 40 years has that exceptional circumstance been resorted to rather than being the stuff of everyday politics, as is the case in this country. Since the Second World War British parliaments have lasted on average for three and a half years against a theoretical maximum time of five years.
The subject is important and will not go away; we shall hear more about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dangerous Dogs
4.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on dangerous dogs which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
"As we are all aware, there have been a number of recent attacks by dogs which have left their victims badly injured.
The first of these was the horrific attack on 8th May by two pit bull terriers on Mr. Frank Tempest, which has left him with severe facial and other injuries. The second was an attack on a two year-old child by a pit bull terrier owned by her grandparents. The third incident, which took place last Saturday, left a six year-old Bradford girl, Rukhsana Khan, very seriously injured. The whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of these dreadful attacks and our wishes for their recovery.
"These most recent attacks were of a different degree of seriousness altogether than the great majority of dog-biting incidents.
"All three were carried out by American pit bull terriers. The American pit bull terrier is a

263
cross-breed dog, specifically bred for fighting and, in many cases, trained to be aggressive. As has been tragically shown, it is capable of vicious and sustained assault without warning or provocation. Once a pit bull terrier has started an attack, it has been shown to be impossible for full-grown adults to prevent the dog from causing horrific injuries.
"The public are increasingly concerned about attacks by these vicious dogs and are entitled to look to the Government to take action to tackle the problem. I have therefore decided to bring before the House as soon as possible this Session legislation which will ban the breeding and ownership of pit bull terriers and other dogs bred especially for fighting. Also included in the ban will be the Japanese Tosa, a dog bred for fighting which, apparently, can weigh up to 17 stone.
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, we have taken action to ban the import of these dogs as from midnight last night.
"I emphasise that the ban will initially apply only to these breeds of fighting dogs, but it is clearly important to prevent new and dangerous breeds coming in to replace dogs which have been banned from domestic ownership. The legislation will therefore include powers to add other types of fighting dogs to those which are banned.
"It is essential to rid the country of the danger from such dogs. As my right honourable friend said in the House yesterday, they have no place in our homes.
"Owners of these fighting dogs may be able to return them to their country of origin.
"It has been put to me that it would be possible to make these dogs safe by neutering them. I am advised that this policy is unlikely to be effective. I am ready to consider further evidence on this point with experts, including the veterinary profession. If that will not be effective, the ban on dogs bred for fighting will mean, sadly, that these types of dogs have to put down.
"The RSPCA and the veterinary profession have also suggested that there could be some specific and very tightly drawn exemptions to the ban and I will be considering that suggestion. I am also considering the question of compensation for owners whose dogs are destroyed.
"There were many attacks by dogs last year. The types of dogs responsible for these attacks are numerous, and include breeds such as alsatians, Rottweilers. terriers and collies. Many of these attacks, unfortunately, can be laid at the door of irresponsible owners. The Government have always recognised this. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 made the law to control dogs more effective. Courts can now guarantee the destruction of any dog which has shown itself to be dangerous and, as a result, they are quickly put down. That is an important step forward.
"Last year the Government issued a consultation paper on the control of dogs and proposed a number of measures to bring about the safer control of dogs and powers to penalise the
264
irresponsible owner. The response to the consultation paper shows an encouraging measure of support for such action.
"This includes a tougher criminal offence to penalise dog owners, whatever the breed, who fail to keep their dogs safely under control in public, as well as a power to allow a court to specify the control of a particular dog of any type. This could include muzzling.
"The right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition indicated in the House yesterday that the Opposition would co-operate in getting such measures onto the statute book as quickly as possible. I hope the right honourable gentleman will confirm that in his response today.
"Dogs, Mr. Speaker, can provide companionship, friendship and comfort. But there is a clear distinction in the public's mind between the domestic pet and a dog bred to fight and kill. I hope that our proposals to ban these most dangerous of dogs will therefore command the full support of the House and pass quickly into law."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the statement.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches associate ourselves with the sympathy which the Minister expressed for the victims of the horrific attacks. We wish them a speedy recovery and extend that sympathy to their families.
We support the measures outlined by the Minister this afternoon. They are necessary in order to protect members of the public, in particular children, from attacks by such vicious dogs. However, I must ask the Minister yet again why the Government are resisting the all-round pressure to set up a compulsory registration scheme for all dogs.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Does the Minister agree that the task of destroying a large number of fighting dogs, if that becomes necessary, will be made a great deal more difficult in the absence of a dog registration scheme? How will the Government identify such dogs and their owners? Will the Minister elaborate on how the venture which the Government are rightly introducing will be facilitated without the framework of a dog registration scheme? Is the Minister able to inform the House of the latest estimate of pit bull terriers, Tosas and Rottweilers in this country? Perhaps he can also say under what timescale owners will be required to dispose of their dogs.
Will the Government plug the loopholes in the present law which allow those owners who have their dogs put down immediately after an incident to escape prosecution? Will the law be changed by the measures which the Minister has brought forward?
We entirely agree that something has to be done about those dogs which are trained as fighting dogs and which do not have it in their make-up to be

265
friendly to a child or adult. They are not pets. They should not be allowed to mingle with the public as they do at present.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, may I join him in expressing deep regret that children have been hurt. The reason, I believe, why the Statement has been made now, and why it was not made months ago when other children were savaged by dogs, is that on this occasion a photograph appeared in a number of tabloid newspapers demonstrating the scale of the injuries. That is why legislation is to be introduced.
I do not believe it sensible, following a Statement of this sort, to respond in detail to every proposal that the Government are making. After all, the Government have had several days to consider what to do: some of us will want to consider the matter also for a number of days before coming to a final conclusion on the proposals. Quite apart from anything else they are not in final form.
In the Statement the noble Lord indicated a number of matters on which the Home Secretary has not made a final decision—the question of compensation and the question of tightly drawn exemptions, as they are described. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could tell us when the Bill will be presented.
At first glance it seems that one of the most urgent matters, apart from the question of imports on which the Government have rightly taken immediate action, is the crucial question of the owners, not of the dogs specified this afternoon but of the other dogs such as alsations which also attack children and cause horrific injuries. It seems clear that the criminal penalties involved should be increased, and some form of third party insurance should be considered so far as the owners of all dogs are concerned.
On the substance of the measures announced, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in saying that the Government have adopted an extraordinarily rigid view in the past on the question of a dog registration scheme. If the view of this House had prevailed, we would have had dog wardens in the streets and some of these attacks would not have taken place. It is as simple as that.
In conclusion, there are slightly ominous words in the Statement about the co-operation of the Opposition. We shall do everything we can to ensure that the legislation is discussed seriously in this House. I hope however that we will not be presented with the suggestion that the legislation should be put through in one day or two days. The fact is that when we had a previous piece of legislation dealing with alcohol at sports grounds—not one of the most sensible pieces of legislation presented to us—we were asked first to do this in a single day. Only as a result of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did the Government retreat from that position and agree to more time.
All I am asking of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the government business managers, is an indication that this House will have a proper opportunity of discussing this matter with a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage, if necessary, and a
266
Third Reading, and that we will not be presented with the suggestion that anyone who insists on detailed consideration of the Bill is in some way trying to prevent it reaching the statute book.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful at least to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for implying that they will be supporting the legislation when it is brought before this House. If I may take up immediately a Question on which we are bound to differ—the Question of registration—I do not believe that registration would make dangerous dogs any less dangerous. The justification for a registration scheme is that it enables one to trace dogs. But in the last three incidents, there was no difficulty in tracing the owners. Therefore registration would not in this case have added anything to the situation.
I recognise that there are strong views on the subject of registration. However, I hope that that issue will not sidetrack us from the problem that we face now, which is how to get rid of fighting dogs that are in the country. That is not a matter which now can be advanced by a registration scheme.
The noble Baroness asked whether there was to be a period of grace when the legislation was introduced. Obviously there will be a period of time to allow pit bull terrier owners to bring in their dogs for putting down. The noble Baroness also asked me about the numbers. We do not have exact numbers. We are talking of between 3,000 and 10,000 pit bull terriers on the best estimate. To put that in context, it should be borne in mind that the RSPCA destroys some 40,000 dogs a year. So far as Tosa dogs are concerned, so far as I know there is only one such dog in the country but that is no cause for complacency. They are large and dangerous dogs, and we know from experience of pit bull terriers that the numbers of fighting dogs can multiply very quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised a point about other dogs which will not be covered by the legislation but which may nevertheless cause bad injuries. There is a clear distinction between dogs which are bred to fight and those which, if not adequately controlled, can be dangerous but are not bred for fighting purposes. Responsible organisations, such as the RSPCA and the Kennel Club, who support a ban on the ownership of pit bulls, would not support a ban on Rottweilers which are a recognised breed of dog. We are not convinced that Rottweilers fall into the same category of unpredictable viciousness as the pit bull terrier. But we recognise the concern, and that is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has proposed a power to allow courts to impose a muzzling order on a dog of any type which they judge potentially or actually dangerous.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I have a reply to the question I put about the amount of time that will be available in this House to discuss the legislation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about the promised legislation. All I can say is that it

267
will be introduced after the Whitsun recess. I cannot answer now any of the other questions which the noble Lord has raised.
4.49 p m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the length of time frittered away last year on this subject through indecision and dilatoriness? Does he recall the debates we had on the protec:ion of the environment Bill? Does he recall what this House decided on registration? Does he recall ..what happened in another place on the same subject? Does he recall the crisis that occurred just before the Christmas recess when the Government were trying yet again to resist the views of this House?
Why is it that this shocking record of indecision and shiftiness on dogs should be brought to this kind of culmination? Why are the Government waiting to be pushed? Do the Government realise that I produced a report on dogs in society 16 years ago, which was followed by an inter-departmental committee on the same subject? Nothing has been done about what we said at that time, and now it is panic stations. The Government are up against it. There have been grievous and dreadful incidents. The Government are now going to determine the whole policy towards dogs. Does the noble Lord not think it a great shame that the Government themselves have built up an anti-dog ethos in the community which seriously prejudices our approach to legislation on this matter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there is certainly no anti-dog ethos within the Government. The Government have had to take unpalatable action but we believe that it has been made necessary by the tragic events seen recently. Perhaps I may add to what I said previously to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, with regard to the legislation. We have no plans to rush it through in one day.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will my noble friend congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the Statement which has just been repeated? Will any legislation be extended to include a definition of owner responsibility as regards these dugs and any potentially dangerous dogs? Will he urge my right honourable friend the Home Secretary not to introduce legislation which is either unenforceable or which makes it so expensive that poorer members of the community and elderly persons will not be able to afford to keep dogs?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend makes wise cautionary remarks which I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister not accept that the prospect of paying compensation to the morons who have created this problem will receive very little support from many people? Will he not further accept that the distinction between pit bull terriers and other dogs is fallacious? All large dogs are potentially lethal. The problem lies not with the dogs but wits the breeders and owners of the dogs. Would it not be more efficacious to direct very severe
268
penalties at those people who demonstrate their inability to control the animals they own and any persons connected in any way with activities involving any form of dog fighting?
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord Reay: My Lords, I note the remarks of the noble Lord regarding compensation and the noises of support which he received from other quarters of the House. No estimate has been made of the amount of compensation involved. That is a Question which my right honourable friend is considering. He recognises that some people may have bought the dogs in good faith however one may Question their judgment in doing so.
We are not impressed by the argument that the dogs may be worth a lot of money. Much of that is due solely to their value as fighting dogs—an illegal and thoroughly deplorable activity.
Definition is not easy. Cross-breeds are very difficult to define scientifically or legally. My right honourable friend has consulted experts about definitions and plans to specify in the ban the type of dog commonly known as the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa together with other dogs which appear to have been bred for fighting. That is the essential characteristic which they must have. Those definitions make sense to the layman. There are bound to be cases where there is doubt about a breed of dog but much will depend on the common sense of the police and the courts in enforcing the law. My right honourable friend will be given power by the Bill to change those definitions.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I compliment the Government on the Statement apart from the compensation aspect. I hope that the Government will not be influenced by some of the discussions which I heard on the radio this morning about how sad it will be to destroy such dogs bearing in mind that every year we destroy thousands of innocent dogs which end up in Battersea Dogs' Home. The dogs under discussion should never have been in this country. When did the law change so that people in council flats are permitted to keep, perhaps, three dangerous dogs? When I was on the local authority people in flats were not permitted to keep cats, which are fairly harmless. When did the law change? We must take action. Monetary compensation can never compensate the mother of that child. The child will be scarred and terrified for life.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her unequivocal support for the Government's present course of action. She is right that the animals are unpredictable fighting dogs and potential killers. Three people have been seriously injured. According to their doctors, they are lucky to be alive. The Government believe, therefore, that they must act on that situation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend take on board that the tight definition of "fighting dogs" may not be wholly satisfactory to deal with the substance of the evil; for example, the

269
exclusion of Rottweilers and other dogs? In Germany owners of such dogs are subject to compulsory insurance so that if the dog causes damage medical fees and so on are paid for. This is not the time to go into detail. However, I ask the Government to take on board that the tight definition of a "fighting dog" bred for fighting will not dispose of the danger to children.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I dealt with that when I referred to the action which it will be possible to take in regard to dogs other than fighting dogs to which the ban applies. I agree with my noble friend that the Question of definition is not easy in this sphere. We believe that we have found the right definition in the circumstances.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the Government settle all the details, will they bear in mind the probability that quite a number of owners of pit bull terriers will, before D-day, take their dogs 10 miles away, push them out of the car and lose them? They will thereby leave them free to savage children in another locality. Will the Government consider whether there is a way of reducing the danger which may be caused by that probability.
Lord Reay: My Lords, that would be an act of criminal irresponsibility. For that very reason my right honourable friend is making it a criminal offence to permit a banned dog to stray. Those who act in that way would risk going to prison and would thoroughly deserve to do so.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, did the noble Lord hear a police officer on the radio this morning say that the biggest problem is that if a dog is put down immediately after it has savaged a person, the owner cannot then be charged with any offence? Surely if an owner has been in charge of a dog which has done these terrible things, he should be charged as if the dog had not been put down at a certain time.
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is a matter for the police.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, surely it is a matter for the law.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a matter which will have to be considered when the Bill is before the House.

Inner Cities: Neglect
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear rose to call attention to the social and economic consequences of the continuing neglect of the inner cities, and the need for new policies based on partnership between public, private and voluntary sectors to promote regeneration; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may say how delighted and honoured I am that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has
270
chosen this debate on which to make his maiden speech and how much we all look forward to benefiting from his remarks to us.
Throughout history and across the globe, people have voted with their feet in favour of cities. They are attracted to the bright lights and to the possibilities of interesting living. Indeed, the word "city" links with our idea of civilisation. Throughout time the greatest developments of the human spirit have come from cities. One can think of the names of great cities: Alexandria, Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, Vienna, Paris and even London. Civilisation has developed in those places and people have rejoiced in the benefits which have come from it. It should still be the same today. Cities are intrinsically good places in which to live.
That makes it all the worse that today we are talking about our inner cities as serious problems. No part of a city should be a problem. Yet it is undoubtedly true that that is what inner cities are. We need to do something urgently. I am not denying that over the past 10 years, when we first started talking about the problems of the inner cities, a number of initiatives have been taken and attempts launched to deal with the problems. The attempts have been so numerous that it would be impossible to mention them all this afternoon. In many cases they have not been particularly well co-ordinated. Quite a lot of money has been put into the schemes and a large number of well-meaning people have attempted to improve conditions.
I am not denying that progress has been made in some places: there has been progress. Nonetheless, the outcome of all the work that has been done recently has left us still with an acute problem inside the inner cities. Today, just as 10 years ago—I am not trying to produce exact and comparable figures because they do not exist—unemployment in the inner cities is far higher than in the country as a whole. Homelessness and deplorable standards of housing are far worse in the inner cities than in the country as a whole. Crime rates are far higher. In the great majority of cases educational opportunities for children born in inner cities are far inferior to those for children in the rest of the country. That cannot be a record of which we can be proud if we are claiming that we have attempted to do something about the problem over the last 10 years.
Some of the inner cities have reached such a deplorable state that, as an internationally known expert on the subject put it not long ago, they are places where the Rottweilers go around in pairs. That being so, surely we have to accept that new initiatives are required if we are to break out of this tragic and despicable situation.
The debate is timely, for we read only this morning that the Government are launching, I believe tomorrow, a new inner city initiative. We do not know yet what it will contain. No doubt the articles and the information of which we have been informed have pressed the Government and convinced them that further action is now necessary. We look forward with great expectation and modified hope that what the Government will now bring forward will produce better results than we have had in the past. One must

271
continue to hope. I notice that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench shake their head. But one must never give up hope.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Wait and see.
Bareness Seear: We need to learn from the experience of the past 10 years. It is absolutely essential that any developments in the inner cities and any attempts to improve the position must be based on the understanding that the people resident there have to support the efforts. They have to feel that the developments are what they themselves want and are prepared to support, that their ideas and proposals are seriously considered and that they are directly and personally involved in any changes. Surely that is one of the lessons we have learnt—namely, that anything which is imposed from the outside, even with nominal consultation and some degree of nominal agreement, is not the same as finding ways in which people living in the areas can themselves say what they want done and participate in seeing that it is done.
We also have to recognise that the policy of trickle-down simply has not worked; the idea that, if the rest of the community improves and has a higher standard of living, growth rates get better and prosperity grows, somehow or other out of that will come comparable improvements in the inner city areas. That has not happened. It is part of the over-simplification of the market theory that it can just be left to the market, ignoring the many obstacles that stop the market working, apart from anything else. That policy stops the market having the results that we wish for in the inner cities. Let us abandon any idea that the problems can be left to the policy of trickle-down.
If that is so, it means that there must be organised and accepted ways of channelling more resources into the inner cities to be used in a way which is acceptable and approved by the people in those areas. The need for more resources is inevitable. It cannot be said that it can be left alone and that developments will nevertheless follow if special action is not taken. Special action has to be taken.
It will be said that such action has been taken in the past. Up to a point that is so, but not successfully. We need organised local development agencies in order to supervise and channel the resources that can be made available for the development of the inner cities. They should be along the lines of what is available in Scotland and Wales for development in those larger regions. An organisation of that kind is necessary if the inner cities are to recover.
The organisation must concern itself with the much more successful development of the partnership which we all talk about as being essential and to which we all pay lip service—the partnership between the statutory, private and voluntary sectors. They must work together under the direction of a development agency in order to resurrect the inner cities. They must work closely with organisations that already exist in the inner cities, particularly those which have been set up by he people who live in them. I also suggest
272
neighbourhood councils of one kind or another which can be connected to the work of development agencies.
There has to be a real partnership. That has not existed in the past. If partnership means anything, the partners have to be able to trust each other. All the partners should be consulted, including the private and voluntary sectors, whether they really have trust in the partnership with the public sector at the present time. Often the greatest difficulty experienced by the private and voluntary sectors is in knowing which government department they can go to and on whose word they can rely. A one-stop shop in the government departments would be tremendously helpful. At present one department gives one story, the inquiry is passed on to another and one does not know where one stands in trying to get a scheme going.
Even more important is this. When there is support from a government department and from the statutory sector, it is necessary to know that it will continue for a reasonable period of time, and a reasonable period of time is not just 12 months. No private sector body or voluntary organisation can pursue plans satisfactorily if at the end of 12 months, or even before that, it cannot be sure that the resources will be renewed. That has been the situation again and again. Long-term contracts are needed, backed by government departments on which reliance can be placed. I know that other speakers today will go into more detail about the position of the private sector.
I wish to speak in particular about the voluntary sector in relation to the inner cities. Short-term contracts have wrought havoc with that sector. If one is to be successful in the inner cities one has to use the voluntary sector, just as the Government have recognised that they have to use non-governmental organisations in overseas work. I refer in particular to the parts of the voluntary sector rooted in the inner cities which are doing work of special importance to the inner cities.
One area of particular importance is the provision of training of the kind that is needed for disadvantaged people in inner city areas. In proportion to other parts of the country, inner cities are heavily loaded with people who in one way or another are disadvantaged: disadvantaged members of ethnic minorities; disadvantaged because of physical disabilities; or disadvantaged because of social disabilities. Those people need special help with training because without training they cannot get jobs and as long as they stay in the inner cities they will be a burden on that area rather than helping in its further development.
However, the voluntary sector organisations which have been providing training—NACRO, APEX and the Rathbone Society —have all had their resources so cut back that they have had to decimate (perhaps that is an exaggeration) or in many cases have had to reduce by half, the people whom they employ to do this work. The schemes that they have launched and which have been working satisfactorily have had to close. That is no way to develop the inner cities. If we accept this collaboration, this partnership, it must be

273
on a long-term basis which can be sustained and which will survive and where all the partners have confidence each in the other. That, frankly, does not exist at the present time.
I am especially asking the Government to look at the position of the voluntary organisations and the work that they are doing in the inner cities. Perhaps it is not too late to reverse the damage that has been done by the cut-back in resources to those organisations. If they mean business with the inner cities they must mean business with the voluntary organisations. That is the major line of advance if we are to get anywhere in the regeneration of the inner cities.
I have talked about special schemes which have to be introduced to help revive the inner cities. These ought only to be temporary arrangements. Our main objective must be to develop inner cities so that they again become—and I mean again—places where people want to live: people from all sectors of the community and of all levels of income and interest. Then there will again be various rich communities in those areas which will provide the finance—a great deal. depends on money—and the leadership to make those cities again a delight to live in. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.12 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has drawn attention in her persuasive speech to the serious needs of the inner city. Her command of the facts and her passion in presenting them provide a lesson for any preacher, and I have great admiration for her. As she has already shown, the problems in our inner cities are vast and growing. I feel a passion for this subject since I am a product of the inner city and feel a deep commitment to it. I inherit from my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, a continuing concern to follow up the report Faith in the City which he commissioned. But even more than that, I want to affirm the sheer presence of the Church in the areas we are talking about, the day-by-day ministry of the clergy and their congregations, whose loyalty to their communities and to God bring hope to places which are otherwise depressing.
A day or so after my enthronement at Canterbury just a month ago, one of my family heard the service referred to as the Archbishop's "entombment". I was rather attracted by that description, for Christian ministry must involve cost and death if the hope of resurrection is ever to be preached. But too many people in our inner cities and outer housing estates often feel entombed, trapped in a downward cycle of poverty and deprivation which they seem unable to stop, and which soon leads to life being drained from them. Deprivation leads to lethargy and despair and no Christian can be content with that.
All of us here in this Chamber today share that discontent. In dealing with it I find myself attracted to two words in the Motion of the noble Baroness—partnership and regeneration. Indeed, she has already charted out the direction of my speech. It is right to see
274
any solution to this problem in terms of partnership. In this I promise the full co-operation of my Church. We are there on the ground, sometimes struggling, but not giving up even when the going gets difficult. There has been a shift of resources to help our ministry in recent years through the projects—there are now more than 360 of them—established with the help of the Church Urban Fund.
In these projects central government, local government, ecumenical bodies, voluntary societies and business all co-operate with the local church. These are local initiatives given wider backing to encourage hope in the city. Let me give noble Lords a few examples: there is a drop-in centre for homeless families in North London which cares mainly for Bengali mothers; there has been help in Liverpool for an enterprising church which has opened 10 workshops for small businesses; there is a community kitchen in Rochdale to give heart to an estate bereft of facilities for communal care. One clergyman living on a large housing estate wrote to me:
"We are a small and fairly impoverished congregation ministering in the midst of a large council estate which is slowly but surely going down the hill. The estate has few community resources; the local council has no money to invest in the area …part of our gospel for our community is to say that this is not a hopeless situation and to work with others in the community to prove this. And we are successful. We have recently been able to appoint a youth and community worker, partly funded by the Church Urban Fund. Here is very real and tangible evidence of our concern for our community—indeed the concern of a wider Church of England".
I could go on with other illustrations. None of these many projects does anything but add to our basic commitment to share our faith with others. Indeed, some of them are overtly evangelistic, and all of them exist because of our faith and are a demonstration of it.
All this is good, but none of it can replace the commitment of central government to urban regeneration. There is encouragement in recent government initiatives to alleviate the problem of, for example, single homeless people. Three other examples spring to mind—the "empty property" project which has assisted many other homeless families; the work done by the inner city task forces; and the improvement in people's sense of security which I hope will be brought about by the safer cities initiative. I understand, as the noble Baroness has already said, that tomorrow we will learn of a further initiative in which central government funding will give resources to local authorities towards the most imaginative schemes for urban renewal. I await the details with interest, but this appears to be a move in the right direction of sound and constructive partnership, and that I welcome.
The problems, however, are huge so we have to work together. Recently a colleague informed me of the threatened closure of four important community projects in his district—a Bangladeshi advice centre, an urban farm, a neighbourhood centre and a lively youth club. The loss to that deprived district of these voluntary sector activities is most damaging. It is in just such projects that local pride can be revived. Cut backs can be explained in terms of central government

275
or local government policies, but for the people on the ground cuts are cuts by whatever name and their sense of powerlessness is sadly reinforced.
I am aware that the success of any partnership is inextricably linked with the prosperity of our nation. We have to support enterprise, both economic and social. There is a link between the economic success of our country and the needs of the inner city. However, I want to suggest—and the noble Baroness has already charted this course for me—that in my view the trickle-down theory that the inner cities will benefit from generally increasing prosperity is unsatisfactory. It suggests that the working people of our inner cities are only beneficiaries and not creators of wealth. That is not true. And it has the weakness of suggesting that we do not need a strategy and policy for resourcing our urban priority areas. I submit that we do. The partner ship for which I am calling, and on which I am sure we are all agreed, requires a commitment all round to resource, properly and fairly, local government and voluntary sector initiatives in our inner cities and outer estates.
A second word in the Motion, regeneration, attracts me too because it suggests that we need to work towards a vision for the inner cities. Why should we accept the idea of "the soullessness of the city?" And yet it is so easy to see why such a term comes quickly to our lips because of the depressing surroundings we often meet in the city and the sense of hopelessness and futility we find there. Last week I visited one of our many inner city primary schools, less than a mile from this House. It was a joy to see the bright faces of the children, black and white together. There was such potential and life within them. I was visiting to launch a project called Growing in the City, part of the Church Urban Fund. There might not be many trees or plants in the inner city, but people are certainly growing there—but to what end; what vision is there to inspire them?
Noble Lords may recall that Winston Churchill once referred to our great institutions and buildings as "lengthened shadows of man". He was drawing attention to the spirituality, the sense of dignity and worth given to the spirit of human kind—the sort of thing, I want to suggest, expressed in this fine building, in the traditions of this House and in its history. It may be lard to find poetry, beauty and art in the inner city at the present moment, but the potential is there in our people. We do not have to look far below the graffiti, the squalor and the sense of hopelessness to find courage, dignity and human worth.
It is for that very reason that it is important to stress the need for well directed policies both from the public and the private sectors. The conditions of our urban environment must remain a priority of government policy if the deterioration we see all around us is to be arrested. Any vision will inevitably include the inter-relatedness of our society. We are our brother's and sister's keepers; our society is linked by our persona relationships. We separate at our peril urban, suburban and rural communities because a society like ours can never have any of its parts existing alone without detriment to the rest. Whether we like it or not, those who suffer the trauma of unemployment,
276
homelessness and inadequate facilities are our fellow citizens and they suffer because we have yet to recover a vision for our society which includes them.
Last week, as I arrived at that school in Lambeth, a colleague was taking my robes into a classroom when one of the little children asked him very innocently, "Has God arrived yet, sir?" I am finding such expectations very difficult to meet. But when I heard that, the thought rushed quickly into my mind, "God is already there". Christians always have hope for the city because God is always found in the people.
As I conclude my maiden speech in this House, I want to leave your Lordships with an analogy which I find in our common Bible. The first picture one sees in the Bible is one familiar to us; it is that of humankind in a garden, the epitome of rustic peace, contentment and retirement. Its final picture in the Revelation of St. John is that of a city, the city of God —a city where the spiritual, economic and artistic values of human beings are focused in a single vision. That vision may elude our grasp in this world—it is a vision of the heavenly city—but it may be an encouragement to us all to aim as high as possible. Yes, the challenge is daunting, but partnership is surely the path to regeneration and the way to build a society to which all are privileged to belong and in which all may share its resources.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I rise with diffidence to speak after the most reverend Primate. I am from the other wing of what is called the Judaeo-Christian culture. There are a few differences in our beliefs—they are few but important—but there is a huge number of beliefs which we share. That is why I feel entitled on behalf of the House to congratulate the most reverend Primate on his maiden speech. Even he, with his charm and with his apparent ease of manner, may have been daunted by addressing this House for the first time—most of us in this House were certainly daunted—but he gave no impression of flinching. He spoke with ease, simply and sincerely. I am sure that the whole House can agree with what he said.
I want in particular to agree that the Church has an enormous part to play in the regeneration of the inner city and indeed in regeneration more widely. I was especially glad to welcome his acceptance of the link between the revival of the poorer parts of the country and national prosperity. However, I wish to argue—I hope that the most reverend Primate will allow me to do so—that sometimes an opinion leader has to say things that are not altogether fashionable if they are to achieve what are undoubtedly his sincere purposes.
Among the unfashionable things that need to be said is, for instance, that international competitiveness is necessary for this country—inner city and everywhere else—if we are to have jobs, let alone prosperity and decent public and social services. At the heart of international profitable competitiveness is rising productivity. There is enormous scope for more productivity. That means good management, not just slogging hard work. There is also the need to recognise that, while some single women embark on bringing children into this world rationally after assessing the

277
consequences, some perhaps do not assess the consequences for them. It may be necessary, though unfashionable, for opinion leaders to urge them to take into account the implications for them and their children of embarking prematurely upon the glory of childbirth rather than waiting until conditions are more favourable. The most reverend Primate spoke with sympathy of single parent households, but some of them may need advice before embarking on that condition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke, as always, with sincerity and with knowledge of the subject. I am glad that she recognised the efforts that have been made over the past decade. Of course there is more to be done. The noble Baroness wanted active involvement by residents. Indeed it would be very desirable, as the most reverend Primate emphasised too. But we all remember what happened when Lyndon Johnson, in his great crusade for the cities in America, tried to secure that active participation. Senator Dan Moynihan wrote a book in which he recognised that Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding had resulted. Active participation is an aspiration devoutly to be wished but it is difficult to achieve.
I wish to recommend to your Lordships who are interested in this subject the report of the Economic and Social Research Council, published in 1981 by that very sensible man, Professor Peter Hall. He and his committee did not identify unique sets of problems that distinguished the inner city. He said that the inner city suffers no more poverty, no more unemployment and no larger numbers of single parent families than many other parts of the country. He was telling us that conditions in the inner city very largely reproduce national conditions. If we are to cure the inner city, we may find that we shall have to tackle the same conditions throughout the country. If noble Lords wish to read that section, they will find it on page 132 of the report. I recommend them to read it.
In the report, Professor Hall very healthily reminds us that in the mid-19th century the inner city was also at the top of the agenda. At that time, the inner city was even more appalling than we picture it now. Those of us who have seen the Gustave Doré prints of the time have a vivid picture of what it must have been like. It was overcrowded and full of intense poverty and wretchedness. However, those inner cities were magnets to the world. For example, in the 1840s Irish peasants poured into Liverpool and Manchester—appalling though conditions were—to escape the famine in Ireland. Essex farm labourers swarmed into London after the agricultural depression of the 1870s, and the Jews, who were received by this noble country after fleeing from Russian persecution in the 1890s, poured into East London.
In those days, inner cities were places of opportunity. They were seed beds of enterprise, innovation and self-improvement. They were intensely competitive. Indeed, there were ladders for those who wished to strive for self-improvement. They were centres of hope; they were not centres of despair, even though there was great wretchedness. These days inner cities are much less crowded, they are less
278
wretched and less poor. There are still ladders, but enterprise and innovation have faltered. Moreover, for worse or better—as surely all of us in this House want to see other countries escape from poverty—there are more formidable competitors overseas than there were in the 19th century.
I should point out at this stage that present conditions make things worse. The House knows that a misjudgment in the late 1980s, when the growing boom was not recognised and moderated early enough, led to a re-ignition of inflation and the need for the high interest rates and, alas, the recession which the Government had to introduce in order to abate inflation. Of course, that makes conditions harder; but it is necessary if we are to return to the earlier state of improving prosperity.
The inner city about which we are talking with understandable gloom today was described in the 18th century by the analyst David Donnison, whom I believe Members on all sides of the House can respect, as "the Good City". I am not confusing that with the City of God. Professor Hall's report states that Donnison leads us to understand that now, because of this weakening of enterprise and innovation and despite the decreased overcrowding, poverty and wretchedness, and all our good intentions, we no longer have "the Good City" so far as concerns our inner cities.
Of course, the Good City in the 19th century had perhaps the benefit of the firmer attitudes of parents, schools and churches which were influenced by contemporary culture. I am not saying that such attitudes were always wholly without error. However, they may have played a part in increasing the degree to which people tended to use the ladders which were available to escape from poverty, whether in the cities or outside of them. With our good intentions, we have tried to improve life; but sometimes, to our mortification, we have seen the unintended ill consequences of our good wishes apparently make things worse.
Let us take for example the new towns. I took part in their creation while working at the relevant department. But what did they do? They created new and thriving centres. But how, and from where, did they get their residents? They got them by tempting the most enterprising, vigorous and competent people away from the cities. Of course we meant well; but did we do well? Only the social historians can give us the answer.
Let us take the further example of slum clearance. I was a great slum clearer in my time. I believe that it was someone called Young, in a book about Bethnal Green, who told us that in fact what we had done was to distribute the extended family. Of course, we felt that it was an absolute moral necessity to put damp-proof courses outside people's living conditions. However, did we have to destroy the slums and the communities where granny lived in the next street? Did we do right? As I said before, only the social historians will be able to tell us.
Then there is the 20th-century attitude towards rent control. It was brought in as a temporary measure in 1917 and it is still with us. Once again, it is a matter

279
of good intentions. But what does it do? It stifles supply and inflates demand. I know very well why it was kept on; it was kept on for fear of the reintroduction of Mr. Rachman. I was the unfortunate Minister who had to defend the Government of Harold Macmillan against an attack by the then Harold Wilson, now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. He accused Mr. Macmillan and myself of being the subjects of the two portraits on Mr. Rachman's mantelpiece. It was a painful job at the time. However, the real way to get rid of "Rachmans" is to have lots of landlords; in other words, a choice of landlords for tenants. Because we flinch from changing the law about rent control, we condemn millions of people. Who are those people? They are the least prosperous people as regards any choice of housing. Again, I say that we may, with the best of intentions, have gone along the wrong route in respect of inner cities and elsewhere.
Therefore, what must we do for inner cities? Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, recognised, and as some of my noble friends will no doubt be emphasising shortly, some of the Government's measures have achieved moderate success. We hope that they make good progress in the future. Indeed, we have all read about the new initiatives which are planned. I am sure that the ladders will continue to tempt the more vigorous people away from the inner cities, thus making the job of securing reinvigoration much harder for the Government.
But what is it that the nation needs? Above all, I believe that there are two things which we need. First, we need more sense as regards where jobs and prosperity are to come from; and, secondly, we need a firmer supporting culture so that people do not make more trouble for themselves and their progeny than is necessary. The first is less hard to provide than the second.
We need more entrepreneurs. I use that word because I have searched unsuccessfully for an alternative. Indeed, I have spent the afternoon hunting through dictionaries, in Partridge, in the slang dictionaries as well as Oxford and Chambers, and all the others, to see whether I might use the phrases "barrow boys" and "barrow girls" in your Lordships' House. I did so because that, writ large, is what an entrepreneur needs to be. After all, what is a barrow boy? I do not mean anything disreputable by using that phrase. I simply mean someone with a keen eye for a market. That is what we need if we are to recover our home market as well as the markets abroad. It is only on that condition that we shall have jobs and prosperity and enough taxable resources to provide decent public and social services. As I said, we need entrepreneurs. However, sad to say, the snobbery against trade and entrepreneurship, though less than it was, is still active in this land.
I note that in Bradford, where there are many ethnic minorities, the Roffey Park Management College is seeking to identify what qualities of entrepreneurship can be taught to those from ethnic minorities who have never tried it before. Of course, it is true that some ethnic minorities need no guidance.
280
I am glad to say that the Indians and the Pakistanis are doing this country, and I hope themselves, much good. Others need leadership and guidance.
We need to accept—this may still be difficult for some people, despite what is happening in Eastern Europe—that capitalism, subject to the law and to competition, although of course not perfect—of course it is not perfect—is the least bad way to serve all our purposes that has yet evolved. Capitalism involves the decentralisation of ownership and decision making, entrepreneurship, higher productivity and innovation. The Government understand that, and Mr. Lilley, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, made a magnificent speech on the subject yesterday. We need more training. The Government are trying to provide it. We need better education. The Government are trying to provide it. We need to be internationally, profitably competitive if we are to have jobs, rising earnings and the resources for good public and social services. We need to sort out—this is difficult —the tax traps, the poverty traps and the why-work? traps in the overlap between the welfare archipelago and the tax net.
We need to recognise, as does the Peter Hall Report —I have read all the aftermath, and it does not change the thesis—that the problems of the inner cities these days are the problems of the country as a whole. Let the inner city again be the Good City. Let it not be just the inner city but the whole country. There are widespread social ills: inadequate parenting at all levels of income; inadequate schooling; a lack of jobs and a lack of role models, especially male role models, in many parts of the land. I wish that politicians and opinion leaders spoke more clearly on some of those subjects. The problems are national as well as inner-city. If we solve them nationally, the inner cities will benefit. We cannot solve them for the inner cities alone. If we do not solve them for the nation, we shall all live in inner cities.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I find myself in my usual position of speaking after my noble friend Lady Seear and therefore having part of my speech made irrelevant because someone far more articulate than I has already covered the subject. The most reverend Primate, in an excellent maiden speech, then covered other sections of my speech, to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who dealt with still further aspects of it. I am reduced to emphasising some of the points made and putting a different perspective on them.
The problem with the inner cities, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, pointed out, is that they are a microcosm of our society. There is a concentration of poverty, unemployment and a lack of training in the inner cities. The trickle-down process was mentioned by the most reverend Primate and by my noble friend. It is an odd process. Some traditional working class areas—for want of a better expression—for example, the East End of London, are becoming more prosperous. People are moving into those areas. A nice square that has a Grade II preservation order on it is bought up by outsiders. The inner city is being

281
pushed towards the edges of London. It is being squeezed between the suburbs and the heart of London. I am told that that is happening in other cities as well.
I must express a certain amount of ignorance. I was brought up in the city of Norwich and went to university in the city of Aberdeen. Those cities have fortunately not been hard hit by traditional inner-city problems. London is the only large conurbation of which I have any experience. In times of recession, the inner cities are the hardest hit. The people living there are unfortunately the most vulnerable. They suffer from the lack of training which still dominates our society. That means they cannot obtain jobs. They have no work tradition.
If we are to regenerate those areas, we must concentrate upon the people who live there. After all, a community is made up of individuals. The problems of the individual are ultimately the problems of that society writ large. To achieve regeneration it is essential that the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector work together. That is the only way to deal effectively with individuals. One must deal with them all, but unless one remembers that they are individuals the problem will be fractionalised and pushed somewhere else. The person who makes good will move from the inner city. Those who have not succeeded will be left behind.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, gave the example of the new towns. Those able to do so left the inner cities, but they left other people behind to stew. The noble Lord said that in more eloquent terms, but that is what happens. The Government must look long and hard at how the voluntary organisations that my noble friend mentioned have been affected. Disadvantaged people are prevalent in the inner cities. If they are left to themselves they will form a sub-culture. The voluntary organisations have been hit hard by the new training policy.
I must declare an interest. Until recently, I worked with the Apex Trust. Its funding was slashed so that it had to lose 50 per cent. of its trainees. They are generally former offenders. They have the most problems. They are invariably educational failures the first time round. They have not succeeded in conventional society and have thus turned to an alternative. That alternative is generally the criminal world or the black economy which may lead to criminal activity.
A training organisation such as the Apex Trust tries to help those people look realistically at their position. The human capacity of bluffing oneself into believing that one can get by is amazing. When I first became involved with the organisation I took part in a counselling session for people on pre-release courses. Many of the people in the room were desperately trying to convince themselves that they did not need any help; they were okay. We talked about how they would disclose their convictions when they applied for a job. I remember someone saying that he would say that he lived in France for about three years and that that was why he had not had a job. He was asked a
282
question in French, and he could not answer. That is an example of how people fail to face up to their problems. They must allow others to help them.
There is always the exceptional individual who can manage on his own, but if we had only to deal with the exceptional individuals, there would be no problem in the first place. They are exceptional because they stand out from those around them. We must help the inadequate people. We must encourage them to confront their problems and then ensure that they are given the right training. They will often require far more back-up and support than other trainees. They are much more difficult to train. They have no work culture and do not understand the self-discipline that work requires. Such a person has been institutionalised to the extent of being told when to get up in the morning, when to go to bed, when to take recreation, when to have leisure time and what to do with it, because of the limited choices. It is virtually impossible overnight for him suddenly to say, "I shall start to regiment myself, I shall turn up at certain times and take a job". Even if such people are offered a job, they do not have the skills. Therefore, we must train people in skills and how to employ them.
Due to the nature of the problem, only specialist organisations can untangle the difficulties with anything like a realistic level of success. Someone may think he is doing well if he arrives within half an hour either way of the start of a class. It is virtually impossible to train him in a conventional setting. We must give specialist help to these individuals.
At the moment the TECs are not in a good position to deal with the problem. The Government must take a long, hard look at their funding of the specialist training centres and try to get them to work. I am totally convinced that to people in this situation a regular job with a form of stability is the first step towards bringing them into the mainstream of society. Until such people are there, even at a low level, we cannot start to help them better themselves with a realistic long-term approach.
The Government must make sure that they provide their share of funding for these courses. They must also provide the private sector with all the support they can. It may only be a co-ordinating role but there must be concentrated long-term planning with, for example, at least help at the start of a project which the private and voluntary sectors may well be able to run afterwards. The Government should put in an essential minimum to make the projects work but they are not flexible in dealing with problems. Employers know about the people they are trying to train and the voluntary sector knows what to aim at so that they are a good combination. The Government may have to channel them together. It is no good hoping that eventually they will join up through the invisible hand of the market-place. Sometimes they will, sometimes they will not. We cannot take a chance on it.
Unless the Government accept this long-term co-ordinating role, then, despite the best intentions, the private and voluntary sectors will never achieve anything like the same degree of success as if the Government took their rightful position at the helm.
5.53 pm.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for initiating this debate. It gives us an opportunity to express our views and in my remarks I shall draw attention to the benefits that have recently come to Merseyside and Manchester. It is also a privilege to be involved in a debate during which the most reverend Primate made his splendid maiden speech. I congratulate him; it is marvellous to have him with us, and we look forward to hearing from him on many occasions.
The most reverend Primate referred to the spirit of the people. All great cities are created from the spirit of the people and the goodness and greatness that come from them. Noble Lords have already said that recent history has seen the movement of leaders out of cities into other opportunities which have been established for them, with wealth created in other parts of the country and the world. We must also accept that great cities were founded in the last century because of their good communications and the opportunities which at that time brought wealth to them. Those opportunities have now moved to other areas and the wealth has moved with them. The leaders of the cities also moved and left behind people with fewer opportunities who are less able and have less finance to regenerate the areas. Pressure on local authorizes became greater and greater and resources were more difficult to find.
Noble Lords all referred to the need for the Government to become involved and to bring together all the people necessary for the regeneration of cities. I believe that there has been no better opportunity than the development corporations to bring about those improvements. My own experience has been with the Merseyside Development Corporation and the Manchester Development Corporation. I wish to draw attention to the enormous benefits that have been gained from what has taken place.
Merseyside Development Corporation was established in 1981. Its first important achievement was the Garden Festival. That did a great deal to draw people's attention to the new opportunities on Merseyside to bring in money and to create further jobs, as well as to clear much of the derelict and unsightly areas. The results really happened since then, in the late 1980s and during the past year. As a direct result of what the development corporation did, in 1989 and 1990 £81 million in private investment went into the Merseyside development area. That would not have come about unless there had been sufficient confidence for investors to invest their money.
Even this year, 1991, in a more difficult period when we might not have expected any development, £70 million of private money has been invested in the Merseyside area. That is a relatively small drop from the £80 million invested the previous year. As a result, we have 780 new homes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that one of the important aspects of regeneration is to encourage people to return and live there. If she goes to see the new dockside development, she will find that she can no longer buy an apartment. When the
284
buildings first went up we thought, "These apartments will never sell". Now no one can get one because people saw the opportunity, they thought it was a lovely place to live and the area has been regenerated. It has been a great asset in bringing people back to the city.
In addition, 7,000 training places have been assisted, attracted by the development corporation into the area in the past two years. Over 1,500 new jobs have been created there. These are proper jobs, not ones which will exist only for the short term, but creative jobs where people will be employed in development.
On a more personal note, from time to time I visit the Philharmonic Hall. I was there last Saturday night when a new work which had been commissioned by the Philharmonic and Granada Television was performed. It was about the most awful piece of music that I have heard for a long time. Even so, because it was new, artistic and exciting, the hall was full. Everyone cheered enthusiastically. As the most reverend Primate said, there is a great feeling in these cities of being involved in art, new experiences and being excited about innovations.
As we drove away from the Philharmonic at the end of the performance, feeling that a drink was a great necessity, we found we could not get in anywhere, everywhere was full. The main streets of Liverpool were booming, full of young, well-dressed people, full of excitement. There was no fear, no feeling of threat or that one might get coshed. The centre of Liverpool is a place where anyone can go. Anyone can invest in it with enthusiasm and confidence in the future. This has all come about because of the regeneration that has taken place through the development corporation.
Then we come to Manchester, which is a city that I have known all my life. I have seen sights there of great dereliction; bombed sites have existed since the war. Something needed to be done. The local authority was not carrying out its responsibilities. It had neither the resources nor the ability to bring together all the activities that were needed to make something happen. There had to be a trigger mechanism to stimulate people and give them the confidence to become involved. Manchester Development Corporation has achieved that.
Perhaps I may tell the House some of its achievements: over 670 new homes have been built in the centre of Manchester where people now live. When the corporation started work in 1988, the Government's target was to attract £188 million of private investment in five to seven years. The development corporation attracted £180 million in the first three years. The confidence generated has brought a spin-off to all kinds of areas. The development corporation spent over £4 million on improving the environment. No other body could have provided the money to do that. It has created 2,000 jobs.
Only the other day I went to Salford. I know that there is at least one Member of your Lordships' House present today who has probably been to Salford. However, I do not know of any other noble Lord who often visits Salford. There has been a fantastic change

285
in Salford. It used to be a derelict area of broken-down warehouses and disappointed people. Now it is bursting with new energy, new businesses and people wanting to do all kinds of exciting things. I have just become involved with a group of businessmen who are not just concerned with making money but want to put something back into the area. They wish to provide facilities for people with disabled children, particularly one-parent families. They are now trying to raise £250,000 to enable Dr. Barnardo's to buy a house so that parents with disabled children can go there and meet others in a similar situation. The parents can rest while someone else looks after their children. New opportunities have been created in that area and they have resulted from that trigger mechanism of the Government setting up new initiatives in the area.
I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to a phenomenon that in my opinion could not have occurred without the intervention of the development corporation. There is a site on the west side of Manchester which used to contain the gas works. The site used to contain the gas works in one part and bombed out, derelict buildings in another part. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, knows that site well. The site has remained in a derelict state since the war. No one has been able to tackle it and no one really knew what to do about it. The development corporation heard that the British Council was thinking of relocating out of London. The development corporation persuaded the British Council to relocate to this site. The development corporation helped finance the clearing of the site and facilitated the planning and other regulations that must be fulfilled before the site can be developed. The city council could have taken years to process the planning application but with the intervention of the development corporation the necessary work was done in a matter of months.
The development corporation encouraged the people who work for the British Council to relocate from London to Manchester. We now have a splendid new office building standing in nearly nine acres of ground and a development opportunity worth some £27 million. That has been created on a spot that was formerly a derelict site. Some 350 people who used to work in London and add to the congestion there have moved to Manchester. That must be a benefit to everyone concerned although it may take those people some time to reach the heights of the resident people. However, they will acquire those heights in time no doubt. We have converted what was once a derelict, unhappy place into a site that will boom and grow and will lead to further regeneration.
If we are to regenerate large areas and bring God back into such places, we must realise that God sometimes needs mammon to make a success of such areas. The development corporations have resuscitated potential, people's ingenuity and opportunities in formerly derelict areas. That has also brought God back to those areas.
6.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for giving us an opportunity to debate this Motion. We are particularly grateful for the emphasis placed on partnership. I wish to speak to that aspect primarily. I apologise most sincerely to the noble Baroness that I was not present at the start of her speech. She is far too efficient to get caught up in a traffic jam of taxis, but I am afraid that happened to me. However, I was present to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend the most reverend Primate. I was delighted to hear that maiden speech. However, if I am too complimentary about it, the danger is that he will accuse me of keeping on the right side of one who is in one sense my boss, or of trying to present the picture that the Church of England is united. That is too much for your Lordships to believe.
I wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and others in congratulating the Government on many of the initiatives now being undertaken. I had the opportunity of meeting the Minister responsible for inner cities in my part of the world. We walked round two of the most depressed areas of the city of Manchester and also of Salford. What impressed many of the people the Minister met was that he genuinely listened to them. That shows a change in opinion from 1979 when many people in inner city areas had the impression that the Government were not listening to them. I am glad to see that people now feel differently. I hope that that will continue.
One of my inner city clergymen paid the Government a remarkable tribute when he said that he thought central government were listening to what people had to say more than the city council was. That is the first time that has been said in a long time. We are grateful for some of the things that are happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, drew attention to the remarkable regeneration being achieved by development corporations. I endorse much, but not all, of what he said. I was delighted with the warm tribute the noble Lord paid to Salford, where I live, and the picture he painted of a vibrant community. However, I am afraid that that is only one side of the picture and I shall have to paint the other side in due course.
I dissent from one or two things the noble Lord said about local authorities in the area. The local authorities have not only suffered from a lack of resources but from the lack of a sense of partnership with central government in helping to give them the management skills they need, particularly in crucial areas such as housing. Instead, central government have attempted to cut local authorities out of the process. I believe that that has been a tragic mistake and I am glad to say that it appears that that mistake is being remedied now. We want to see a partnership between central and local government, development corporations and voluntary bodies. We also want a partnership with the people living in the area. If there is one thing that must be stressed above all, it is the need to listen to the people who live in the inner cities.
Regeneration is taking place, but so often the benefits do not trickle down to the people living in some of the most depressed areas of our inner cities.

287
Your Lordships will have to forgive me if I speak primarily about Manchester and Salford or the Lancashire towns in the diocese for which I am responsible. However, I believe my remarks have a general relevance as they are echoed in speeches made about other areas. We are grateful for the remarkable development of Manchester airport, which means so much to the whole of the North West and to Manchester and Salford in particular. We are glad that the Metro-link is going ahead as that will make it easier for people from inner city areas to travel to obtain employment.
There has been regeneration also in east Manchester under a steering group led by the chamber of commerce. That steering group is doing excellent work. AII these signs of regeneration are encouraging, but the problems are immense. Those problems are gravely exacerbated by unemployment. The trouble is that many in the inner cities are simply not sharing in the prosperity which has come to some other parts. In April this year, 30,000 Manchester residents were registered as unemployed and claiming benefit. That represents some 14 per cent. of those who are economically active in the city. However, that kind of overall figure does not give a full impression of what is happening because in certain areas the concentration of unemployment is inevitably much higher. Moss Side and Cheetham Hill are two areas of Manchester that have achieved regrettable notoriety in recent weeks due to the activities of drug gangs. Guns are carried in those areas and dangerous situations are developing.
It is impossible to believe that there is no connection between the way in which the grey economy—believe we are supposed to refer to it as the grey economy and not the black economy has grown up in such areas and the very high incidence of unemployment and poverty. In Manchester, 83,000 people received income support last year.
There are imaginative efforts at regeneration in certain parts of our city. The problem is how they are to be related to other people living in those parts of the inner city where there is so much vandalism, such a high proportion of crime and a situation of which many people in Britain have no idea at all, even though the problems are widespread.
I spoke to the headmistress of one of our inner city schools. She told me that a very high-powered car had been stolen and driven away from the centre of Manchester. It ended up on waste land outside the school. She phoned the police. By the time the police got there the car was burnt out. The youngster who had driven it away was aged 11 and the youngster who had set fire to it was eight. That is outside the comprehension of many people in other parts of our country. It needs to be understood.
Therefore we have to recognise that all the pictures given of what is happening in these areas are inevitably imperfect, including the picture that I am giving now. The situation is patchy. There are signs of hope, regeneration and the kind of vibrant life which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, described. However, there are other signs which are much less happy.
288
Perhaps I may quote from one of our inner city clergy. I am sorry if my speech appears somewhat church centred, but your Lordships will understand that the professional people living in inner cities are the Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy, and also some clergy from other churches. Hardly anyone else among the professionals lives in those areas. That is one of the features of inner city life.
This is what was said about the Ordsall Salford Quays development, of which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has painted a good picture:
"The newest office blocks of Salford Quays now loom over Ordsall, inescapable on the horizon at the head of Dock 9 and down by Trafford Bridge. When the Quays development started, Ordsall folk asked first of all, 'What's in it for us?' It has not meant many jobs; it has meant extortionate, London-level prices for beer … By now many Ordsall people prefer to ignore the Quays, to regard it as an alien intrusion, unfriendly, unwelcoming, 'not for us'. It is a different world, representing different values and lifestyles. You know what a need there is for a Church to he a mediator, a reconciler, in this context, bringing people together."
That is what we try to do.
It is very important for those who are engaged in the regeneration of these areas, with all their professional expertise and background, to appreciate that there can be an enormous gap between that regeneration and the people who live there, some of whom feel imprisoned in those areas. The need to listen to those people is immense. That applies to all of us—to central government, to local authorities, the Churches, the police, the press and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, made one of the most interesting contributions to our debate, as always. I was interested in what he said about the need to speak—he did not use this word but it is perhaps a prophetic word—about lifestyles to people living in the inner cities. Questions of illegitimacy, high levels of smoking, diet and other aspects come into it. The trouble is that people are caught in a cycle. Those who are best equipped to speak to them are not necessarily the people who live in comfortable Britain, who speak from a distance. They will not be heard.
We have to have the greatest sympathy with the difficult job which the police are called to do, with crimes and vandalism pressing upon them. There is a difficult dilemma here. The local people want the police to do their job. They need protection; they need security; they need to be removed from a situation in which they feel prisoners in their houses, especially the elderly, the housebound and children, who are becoming increasingly fearful. The trouble is that when the police adopt high profile methods of policing, that simply increases the rift that often exists between the police and the community, especially young people and young blacks. That is a factor which requires great understanding by the police.
I believe that senior policemen are aware of that, but they have difficulty in implementing policies which listen and consult. There is that awkward dilemma which faces us. Incidentally, I am sure that all of us would wish Mr. David Wilmot well on his appointment as Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, the largest police force outside London, in succession to Sir James Anderton.

289
The press also need to listen. It has been interesting to hear one or two people from the inner cities say that one of their biggest problems is the press. Why? Because the press are always on the lookout for sensational stories. Stories of the good things happening in inner cities simply do not make news. There was a typical example of that the other day when in inner city Moss Side—and your Lordships know how much that has been in the news—there was a joyful event at the Church of the Ascension which celebrated its 25th anniversary. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York came, the Lord Mayor was there and there were people from every section of the life of the city. What appeared in the Manchester Evening News, our leading newspaper? Two column inches headed, "VIPs at Viraj church". More than half the report was about Viraj Mendis, who had lived there for two years. There was not a word about the positive side of what happened on such an occasion. If there were time I could give your Lordships other examples, but I shall refrain from doing so.
A balance is what is needed. I know that the press have a difficult job to do. They are there to report what happens. When there are grim and frightening episodes in the city, of course they have a duty to report them. However, we are asking for a far better balance.
Housing is critical. I shall quote again from an inner city clergyman in Salford:
"For the last fortnight I have had a family of husband and wife and five children camping out in our parish room here. I discovered them sleeping in a car in a district nearby. The local authority housing department judged that they had made themselves homeless and despite the fact of the mother's pregnancy, was unwilling to offer accommodation. For fourteen days … we pursued vacant properties unsuccessfully. Finally from Church Funds we paid … for a vacant property to let and the family moved in last Saturday."
He added that there is nothing unusual in that but that it is made all the more unacceptable by the fact that in that district there are a large number of vacant flats and maisonettes.
The clergyman concerned admits the poor management record of many local authorities in the housing field. However, the point is that we now need housing for poor families. They need money to heat and light their homes and feed and clothe their children. Rather than eliminating the local authority as a provider of low cost housing, we need to ensure that local authorities have properly trained housing staff who see their work as a major social service concerned not only with property but people. That, I believe, is a lesson which perhaps central government have still to learn. I see the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, shaking his head. I shall have an argument with him over a drink afterwards.
The last point that I have time to make to your Lordships now is simply this. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has spoken of the need for a supporting culture. How warmly I agree with that. That is why those of us from the Churches give such high importance to the maintenance of congregational life in face of great difficulty, preaching values and teaching them in these inner city situations. However,
290
we are out of touch with large numbers of the people who live there. So we need that supporting culture of social morality in inner city areas.
One of the difficulties is that so many of the natural leaders have departed from these areas over the years. That is one critical difference between the situation today and what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, described in the 19th century, when they were seen as places of opportunity. There were many more natural leaders living among those communities. We need to develop inner cities in such a way that people are prepared to stay there, whether or not they have a bit of go about them.
I conclude by saying that we must welcome many of the good things which are happening but realise that this is a very patchy picture and all of us have a long way to go.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I return to these Benches after five years with considerable pleasure for many reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity to take part in this debate. I must take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Cross-Benchers and their convenor for the hospitality that they gave me when, as a vicar of two parishes, I reckoned that I should probably sit on the Cross Benches, particularly given that those two parishes persistently voted Liberal in local government affairs and that I was not able to come to the House at all for five years. Looking after two parishes in the commuting area does not allow you to come to the House of Lords when there are late-night debates and votes that you wish to attend.
However, after five years serving those parishes. I have returned to talk about a subject which has always been one of my interests and with regard to which I have tried to make an input; namely, the field of poverty. I share that interest with my parishioners. One may think that they are not particularly interested or affected in leafy Kew. But my churches were full of people with guilty consciences because they had things that they wanted to do and they did not know how to do them. When it came to the point, they did what they could. Even in Richmond we have problems of homelessness. There is an organisation there which is largely backed by the churches and looks after the single homeless. Just three weeks before I left, the laity of one of the churches that I served—I mention particularly the laity because, having two churches, I had to go on from one service to another and had to leave them to make the decision—made the nearly unanimous decision to offer hospitality to the tramp or homeless man, whatever one likes to call him, who sought a home in our church porch. We are not one of those churches that can make special arrangements because the demand is not sufficient. However, someone had come to stay; he had been there the year before; and he had come back again. There were problems. Archdeacons are not very keen on that kind of thing, particularly with an interregnum coming up. However, when the parish got down to discussing what they should do, they decided that the only Christian action was to offer hospitality.

291
One problem which arose, which I do not think has been mentioned this evening, related to an interesting part of the substructure of the area that we are discussing; namely, the provision of lavatories. That was the major problem that we had to face. We now see those no doubt admirable new loos in which you have to insert 10 pence. But what happens if you do not have 10 pence? What happens if you are old and incontinent? There is a great shortage in the substructure necessary to support the poor, the needy and the homeless.
The churches are doing a great deal at the voluntary level. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark I understand why he has chosen not to speak; it would have meant a debate dominated by clergymen—is one of the people who has done most in the Hot. se in that respect, and the House will miss him when he shortly retires.
In the voluntary sector, Church Action on Poverty, of which I have been a member for seven or eight years, has this year produced a new initiative, Breaking the Chains of Poverty. CAP does magnificent work, but it is very short of money and cannot see how it will continue. Although there are strict rules about asking questions of maiden speakers, I understand that there are no rules about bringing to maiden speakers' attention the needs of organisations. Church Action on Poverty is in desperate need if it is to continue its valuable work. I am sure that the most reverend Primate will take that aboard.
I wish now to move from the local and voluntary level to the statutory level. I have come back to these Benches in order to wage campaigns as to how this country should be governed, not just to mouth platitudes. As a great many people have said, one of the urgent things to do at the statutory level is to revive a sense of urban pride. In a recent paper on London. Ralf Dahrendorf made some suggestions on that subject. I am delighted to see that the Labour Party has just made a declaration about the return of a Greater London Council in some form or other. I look forward to studying the details, but I am certain that such a step is needed so that local pride and responsibility can be expressed by people who speak for London as a whole.
At a lower level, pride and responsibility come from being involved in small, local areas. The more I look back over my life in politics, the more it seems to me that all the reforms that we have made in local government have been totally wrong, ending with the abolition of the GLC but starting with the amalgamation of the old boroughs, into the new treble-sized boroughs. In the old, smaller boroughs, with their smaller responsibilities and loyalties, one was able to get things done and encourage people to respond. We should perhaps think about that. We must certainly think about the restoration of council housing n some form or another, although perhaps not in the old form. We must certainly encourage co-operatives and ways in which people can look after their own houses, perhaps even build their own houses. To have taken the ability to build houses away
292
from local government was one of the most wicked and disastrous things done in politics in the last few years.
Finally, we cannot get away from the fact that money must be injected although it must not be wasted or frittered away. There must be safeguards. In these days of being kept short. we are learning how to be frugal and to use money in better ways. But time and time again one comes across an initiative which is dying or in danger of being throttled because of lack of money. I give a small example. One of the problems in the diocese of London is that of dealing with the refugees, including Kurds, who are coming in from different parts of the world in small numbers at a time when local councils are cutting back on expenditure and when the teaching of English as a second language is becoming a problem. These people and their children, if they settle here—and they probably have nowhere else to go—will grow up not as part of our society but as strangers speaking strange languages. Money must be put in. The rich must help the poor. No one suggests for a second that this is not a rich country these days. Money must be channelled towards helping the poor.
There has been a certain upbeat attitude in this debate. In some ways that is good because it means optimism and determination. I am afraid however that I do not share that feeling. Cities are and should be great things—I certainly support the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about that—but a cancer seems to affect them when they become over large. The solutions are not easy. They are long-term. But unless the problems are tackled head-on in a major way we are doomed to disaster. New York, Calcutta—the great cities of the world—are set fast on the way to disasters such as we have not yet seen. There is no reason why London should follow their path. To avoid it will require determination, love, co-operation and generosity. Unless we have those things, London will go that way too.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for introducing this important debate this afternoon. I also offer my sincere congratulations to the most reverend Primate on his excellent maiden speech which was fascinating to listen to. This is an afternoon for congratulations so may I also congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench, whose promotion I have just seen on the ticker-tape outside.
I have to declare an interest. I work for a company based in the West Midlands which is actively involved in the regeneration of the Birmingham heartlands in the Black Country. Throughout the world inner city areas suffer from many problems, as do such areas in this country. As my noble friend Lord Joseph said, the problems have been there for many years and although in many cases matters would seem to be improving, there is still a long way to go. A great amount of help has been forthcoming from the Government. I believe that they are to be thoroughly congratulated on doing an excellent job.

293
However, years of neglect have ensured that the job of regeneration is now much more difficult. It takes a very brave developer indeed to have a go, as it were, at present. My speech is centred on the subject of developing the regeneration of the inner cities. Costs of regeneration have risen steadily over the past few years. Sadly it is very often the case that it is not economically viable for a developer to become involved in such regeneration. Couple with that the problems of static and falling values of property and lack of interest from the end-user and one is faced with a very difficult situation.
In the early 1980s the Government created a number of enterprise zones in rundown urban areas. I believe that it was a superb and thoroughly worthwhile move which in most cases has been highly successful. The lack of planning controls, provision of rate-free periods and other financial incentives have ensured the creation of new jobs in those areas, new working environments and the clearance and use of previously derelict land. I suggest to my noble friend that we need more enterprise zones.
One of the main incentives of developing on enterprise zone land has been the 100 per cent. industrial building allowance scheme, which is presumably very expensive to the Exchequer, but as an incentive to creating jobs is a very certain winner. As I mentioned, the inner city areas with which I am concerned are in the Black Country and the West Midlands. That region suffered very badly indeed from the recession of the early 1980s. I am probably teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but historically the Black Country economy was chiefly based on engineering products and the production of steel and allied goods, manufactured in the main by small firms. Many of those businesses went to the wall in the 1980s. Many jobs were lost and the consequences were empty factories and other buildings, large areas of derelict land and, I hate to say, 27 per cent. unemployment when it was good.
In 1984 the Government created two enterprise zones in the Dudley area—one at Dudley and one at Brierley Hill—which were and still are being developed by the company for which I work. They are based on the site of an old steel works which, when it went out of business in the early 1980s—I believe in 1981—suddenly threw 10,000 people onto the dole queues. It was disastrous for that area. When the enterprise zone status comes to an end on this particular site (or two sites) in 1994, the projects developed on those sites will have created in excess of 12,000 jobs, adding substantially to the local economy. Owing to the risk taken by these type of partnerships with these kind of developers—I might add in this particular case when nobody else was keen to become involved—and through the foresight of the Government, this area has been vastly upgraded and indeed transformed. It is a major success story.
Moving slightly further afield, an excellent job is being done in the Sandwell area in the Black Country by the Black Country Development Corporation. Earlier I was fascinated to hear my noble friend Lord Wade give his opinion of development corporations.
294
He mentioned that very few noble Lords had probably been to Salford. I happen to be one of those who have been there. Salford Quays is a superb area, quite different from what it was five or six years ago. The BCDC was set up in 1987. It has transformed a previously rundown area and is successfully bringing in new business together with much needed jobs. But it is not easy and nobody would pretend that it could be. I am delighted that Miss Jean Denton who is the deputy chairman of the BCDC will shortly join your Lordships' House. She will bring with her a vast wealth of experience in many fields, not least that of the inner cities. It is in fact sad that she has not yet taken her seat because she would have been someone very welcome to listen to in this debate. So there are success stories in the inner cities, although times at present are difficult.
Turning briefly to other points, there is an infrastructure problem in some of the areas of urban renewal, especially roads. Although the Government have earmarked nearly £1 billion for major local road schemes and developments, such as the Birmingham heartlands spine road, I understand that some other schemes are suffering delays and in particular, the one of which I have knowledge; namely, the Black Country spine road. The delays are partly due to increasing cost which nobody seems able to pin down to one particular amount of money. Sadly, there is often a considerable gap of time as well from the inception to the completion of such road schemes. These particular areas of urban renewal cannot afford to wait. Waiting and delay means less incentive for companies, businesses and indeed individual householders or potential householders to relocate to those areas. Without a proper and efficient infrastructure these areas are simply not able to compete with other areas that are perhaps slightly wealthier and better served. This afternoon I ask my noble friend if possible to make every effort to ensure that those schemes are speeded up.
Secondly, there is a feeling that out-of-town shopping centres are detrimental and not to be encouraged. I believe that the way of thinking is that in the future they should not be encouraged because they threaten the vitality and viability of many inner city areas. That is not true. It might be true in some cases but certainly not in the vast majority of cases. The developments provide jobs. That is what we are talking about—the creation of wealth and the creation of jobs. They boost the local economy by attracting from a wide area shoppers who would not normally spend their hard earned cash in that area. These are clean, safe and pleasant places in which to shop.
Certainly in the enterprise zone at Dudley—I do not have to declare an interest in this because we have sold it—the Merry Hill Centre has created some 5,000 jobs and has transformed a previously ugly and derelict area into something of quality, of which the region is justifiably proud.
Thirdly, I strongly suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that a great incentive to the private sector—we are talking about creating partnerships between the public and private sectors and indeed the voluntary sector—would be the availability of 100 per

295
cent. initial building allowances. I believe that it is very important indeed to attract the private sector. But it has to be allowed to make a profit and companies must be seen by their shareholders to be doing something that is viably economic. I believe that they should be taking part in urban renewal. If they are prepared to accept the risks involved—they are considerable—then the provision of something like 100 per cent. IBAs should be their reward.
As my noble friend Lord Wade said, the National Garden festival programme has been a major success. It has breathed new life into areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Gateshead. The festival park at Stoke-on-Trent with which I am acquainted is now a vibrant and successful place. The enthusiasm of the Government, Stoke City Council, and indeed the private sector, has played a major role. Long may those initiatives continue.
Finally, I unequivocally support and applaud the initiatives being taken by the Government and other bodies in helping inner city areas to revitalise and renew. Funding is the cornerstone. Although £4 billion of Government support will be available for action For cities' initiatives in 1990–91, I believe that more is needed, together with faster provision of infrastructure and less red tape. Perhaps planning control; could be relaxed. In my neck of the woods undue delay over planning applications has resulted in developers losing money through high interest rates. Sometimes they pull out altogether. That is not a happy situation for anyone. Perhaps I may urge the Government to consider carefully before committing the lion's share of those funds to the South East. There is in fact a corner of this green and pleasant land called the Black Country which is alive and kicking; and it deserves increasing support.
6.41 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I say anything else, I should like to congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on an excellent maiden speech. The more often we can hear him in the future the happier we shall be.
I welcome back to our Benches the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do so with some hesitation. He has attended on these Benches long before me. He may well feel that he ought to be welcoming me instead. His speech illustrated, as did that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the excellent good health of the Church on behalf of which the most reverend Primate speaks. Its contribution to this debate has been distinguished.
It is a memorable occasion in the history of the House in another way. It marks the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, from the post of Government Chief Whip. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord. The lines which come into my mind are those of Belloc:
"Those regal Dons!
With hearts of gold and lungs of bronze,
Who stout and bang and roar and bawl
The Absolute across the hall".
I am sure that the noble Lord—I know that he loves Belloc even as I do—will take the point.
296
It is also the occasion of the promotion to Minister of State of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I welcome that very warmly indeed. The noble Baroness and I have enjoyed many debates and will enjoy many more to come. I congratulate her warmly.
In this debate, I confess to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, that I speak as a Londoner. I cannot help it. However, even the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will agree that Lancashire cannot have it all its own way.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, why not?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am an inner Londoner too; and I am very definitely not tired of life. Considering the mood of London I am sometimes reminded of 1963, although there does not seem to be quite so much faith in the alternatives as there then was. I apologise for introducing a party note into the debate. I shall keep it as brief as I can. It seems to me that party philosophies are a handicap in the debate when considering what needs to be done. London does not seem to run according to free market principles; it needs those of crowd control. One aspect that illustrates that more clearly than anything else is London Transport. That was described by yesterday's Evening Standard as an international disgrace. I do not believe that it was an overstatement.
I am not in general an admirer of graffiti. However, I cannot help remembering one example at Kentish Town tube station. The escalator was of course out of order. London Transport deeply regretted that and assured everyone that every effort was being made to repair it as quickly as possible. Written underneath —and one could almost hear the Hampstead voice —were the words, "I find that difficult to believe". I think that we all do. If one considers international comparisons, it emerges that one cannot run an efficient system of urban public transport without subsidy. London has less than any other major city in the world of which I am aware.
I also agree very strongly with my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley about urban pride. I was interested to notice in this morning's paper that London was unable to put in a bid for a site for the Olympic Games in the year 2000 because the bid is not legal unless it is signed by the city council; and we do not have one. There seems a lack of a sense of the magnificence of a capital city. The Evening Standard complained that we have no one to speak for us in the way that M. Chirac speaks for Paris. I believe that we lose out through that lack.
There is a continual problem of unawareness of London costs. The paper drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on behalf of the University of London seems to have implications which stretch well beyond the universities. London costs are much greater than any of our present funding systems allow for. At my son's school a new headmaster was appointed about 18 months ago. He did not turn up. About six months later it was announced that he had been forced to decline the post because he could not afford a house within reach of the school. If that is happening to the headmaster, no wonder there is a shortage of teachers lower down the scale. I am perpetually being told by my dentist that in inner London dentists simply

297
cannot make a living on the current dental contract. It is the same problem. London costs, especially those of premises, are grossly undercalculated.
There is a real problem of failure to recognise London as a unit. I shall not forget in a hurry the speech of my noble friend Lord Ezra in a debate on London Transport about 18 months ago. He said that if one wishes to get through a proposal for organising transport in London, one has to consult 39 authorities. One might believe that it was a programme devised by John Buchan.
On the other hand, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said about the need for competitive prosperity and a keen eye for a market. We shall not make inner cities live without work. We shall not have work without an effective market. If we believe, as it appears do most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, that there is an urgent need for ideas to come from the bottom upwards as well as from the top downwards, that means that there must be scope in city centres for small businesses. They respond much more quickly to the immediate needs and interests of an area. Since they are smaller, they can be planned more quickly; they have a smaller turning circle.
Last week I was the guest of the National Federation for Self-Employed and Small Businesses. Although I have spoken on the subject previously, I was surprised by the depth of feeling about the uniform business rate. When one considers what is happening to premises in central London, to shops in South Molton Street and Bond Street, I cannot understand how we can have prosperity in our city centres until the uniform business rate has gone.
However, the best illustration of the difficulty caused by party philosophies is housing. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said about rent control. I agree with him. I shall listen to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will say about housing. I shall not be surprised if I agree with that too. The basic problem of housing has been that for many years the minimum rent at which the landlord can make a profit was higher than the maximum rent the tenant can afford to pay and still have enough to live on. Each party has been aware of half that story and has made perfectly valid points. Neither has listened to the other. Nothing has been done about closing the gap.
In a private capacity I wish to put forward a suggestion about how that should be done. The landlord should be allowed a tax deduction for the money that he spends on repairing his house. It is in the public interest that houses should be repaired. If they are not we must build more, which will cost even more money.
One of the matters that sticks in my mind is the conclusion of the Milner Holland Report published in 1965. When I read it I thought that it could have been written yesterday, with its emphasis that the need was for a common approach to the problem and for a fully considered development of policy based on an understanding of the whole housing situation and purged of irrelevant prejudice against landlords,
298
tenants or any other groups of the population. The housing problems confronting London as they confronted other great cities would not be resolved by market forces nor by the provision of more housing alone. They were of a long-term, perhaps permanent, nature. The report's conclusion dwells on the need for a partnership between the public and private sectors. That might have been incorporated almost without alteration in the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Seear. The report was a non-party voice and my party agrees with it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, drew attention to the need for local authorities to provide housing for rent. The trouble with a free market in housing is that in free markets £1 is equal to £1 and not one person to one person. In providing low-cost housing, the free market will always be in danger of being an inefficient instrument. Whether the traditional council house is the right answer is a different question.
There is concern about all the traditional problems; for instance, the inability to control repairs, anxiety about redecoration and the keeping of dogs. I am aware that that is a controversial subject to mention today and I need not go further. In such a system there is a tendency for the planning to come from the top downwards and not from the bottom upwards. We on these Benches do not feel happy about that situation. The Labour Party has a weakness for thinking from the top downwards. A caricature example of that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Do not quote it!
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry but I shall. I was told about it at dinner only last night. The secretary of a local tenants' association, who is a friend of ours, notified the local councillor that she was calling a meeting which she thought he might wish to attend. He replied, "You can't organise a meeting here. I'm the elected representative!". That is not the spirit that we wish to see. Calling in voluntary groups, as was said by the most reverend Primate, is most important. In that context we should learn something from the confusion there has been this year about the London Boroughs Grants Scheme. There was a cap on the scheme but no one has ever thought whether some local authority spending needs a floor as well. The most that was being argued for, the highest estimate put forward, was for a standstill budget. Some people would not agree even to that. I do not see how with that kind of spirit one can have the kind of partnership that is needed. If people are not prepared to spend any money on a scheme, it will not work. Things have a true cost and if you do not pay that you may as well spend nothing.
6.54 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a privilege to be able to speak on this desperately important subject. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on introducing the debate and on the way in which she did so. The only comment with which I am bound to disagree related to her optimism about the Statement likely to be made tomorrow. I am not a betting man, but I should not like to put much

299
money on the chance that the amount of extra funding due to he declared will come from new money rather than from a relaunch of the urban programme. When I compare the amount of money likely to be available with, for example, the £330 million spent this year on London Dock lands alone, I believe that it will not be as impressive as she hopes.
I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her elevation to the rank of Minister of State. I am glad to see that at last the Government have recognised the ability that has been obvious to Members on these Benches since she joined the Government Front Bench. I wish that it would bring with it changes in policy, but I hope at least that her more authoritative position will lead to the elimination of some of the worst absurdities of Department of the Environment policies.
It is a privilege to welcome from these Benches the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is a natural. A reading sometimes given at funerals describe s the deceased as having gone into the next room. The most reverend Primate has come into our room a id he appears to be willing to talk with us rather than at us. He is most welcome and we look forward to hearing from him again.
I wish to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and begin by telling a story against myself. In the mid-1970s I was appointed by the Greater London Council as vice-chairman of the Spitalfields project in Tower Hamlets. The theory behind 1;he project was this. The confusion in local government as between the Greater London Council, the Inner London Education Authority and Tower Hamlets Borough Council (then Labour controlled) had led to some of the multiple deprivation then evident n Spitalfields. It was believed that if we got together there would somehow be an improvement in the conditions of life for those in the Spitalfields area. It was, and I am afraid that it still is, one of the most deprived areas in London and therefore in the country.
Instead of having meetings with 20 officers, there were 60 officers. Various worthwhile projects were put forward by the joint committee. It pioneered the idea of having directly elected representatives from the community able to vote, sitting alongside the elected councillors. It achieved a number of worthwhile objectives. For instance, it started an adventure playground, dramatically increased the provision for child care and provided the funds for the conversion of the great synagogue into a mosque, which was needed much more by the community. However, after several years of the experiment it was clear from our public meetings that we were only scratching the surface of the problems. What those people needed and what: they were entitled to was better homes at prices that they could afford and jobs paying wages that would enable them to live in decency. They had neither of those. Such initiatives in a limited area, with limited resources, cannot make a sufficient difference to enable us to do anything effective about the inner cities.
I am not against partnership. That was an early example, which was no bad thing. However, it only
300
scratched the surface of the serious economic problems of our inner cities which no amount of new organisations or initiatives from the Government or anybody else can do much more than touch at the fringe.
The theme of what I want to say concerns what we were told in Spitalfields. It is about homes, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, might have expected, and about jobs. It seems to me that over a considerable period we have been pursuing housing policies for the whole nation which have had a peculiarly damaging effect upon the inner cities. I am talking not only about the provision of new housing. It is common knowledge that the starts and completions of new housing in this country are very much lower than they could be with our physical resources, and indeed than they were at the peak of house building after the war and in more recent years. What houses are being built are not being built for those most in need, and, above all, for those in the inner cities. That means that progressively it is becoming impossible for those who have to work in inner city areas to live there at a price that they can afford.
The example of the headmaster which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave is a very good one, but there are thousands and thousands of others. Unless we restore, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, rightly said, a positive programme of public housing, by which I do not mean council housing in the old way, but public housing, which includes the co-operatives and the housing associations, we shall not have a balanced community in our inner cities where people can live as well as work, because that is a key to a city which is a good city.
A good city is a city which has neighbourhoods; which is not empty at night and full of commuters in the day, or indeed empty during the day, because people have to work elsewhere, and full of people who come back only to watch television at night time. Our housing policy is drastically damaging the prospects of regeneration of the quality of life in our inner cities.
I want to say something too about jobs. The people of Spitalfields, many of them being recent immigrants from Bangladesh, have done a very good job for themselves, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, rightly said, he hopes for the country as well, in finding jobs. Many of those jobs are in terrible physical conditions and probably at very poor rates of pay. But nevertheless I do not want to criticise the spirit of enterprise which is particularly evident in immigrant communities in our inner cities. That spirit has been a feature of our immigrant communities ever since—looking back at Spitalfields—the Huguenots came over in the 17th century, and probably even earlier than that.
But the provision of jobs by entrepreneurs is again only scratching the surface of the major problem. We are living in a country where unemployment has gone up by nearly 200,000 in the past two months and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly satisfied with that. We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who says that this is an acceptable price to pay for bringing down inflation. If that is an acceptable price to pay —and I do not accept for a moment that high

301
unemployment, whether acceptable or not, is a necessary concomitant of low inflation—and if the increase in unemployment which has been happening and which is bound to continue is to be allowed as a matter of government policy, all the talk about initiatives in the inner cities is so much hot air, because we shall be depriving the people in those communities of what they most need.
What I fear about government policy over the past 12 years —and I can criticise it because I have criticised it in my own behaviour in the 1970s—is that it is a series of policy gestures rather than a series of policies. We have things like the enterprise zones, the housing action trusts and the urban development corporations. I am not saying that they have not done good work in many places, and I listened with interest to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and others about urban development corporations. But what they are doing, particularly with the enterprise zones, is seeking to highlight the very limited amount of money which the Government are making available for the inner cities by concentrating it in very small areas.
The other lesson that we learnt about Spitalfields was that, if we had done something effective about homes and jobs and not simply scratched the surface of the problems, there would rightly have been an outcry from the next bit of Tower Hamlets, the next bit of Hackney, the next bit of Southwark or the next bit of Newham. They would have asked, "Why is it that those areas are being favoured when we are not?"
I am afraid that the lesson of enterprise zones, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said, is that you take a very small area, you encourage investment and all that happens is that the investment is drained from the area immediately next-door. What then happens is that, because there are no rates, the rents go up close to the level which they would otherwise have been, and the benefit is to the landlords and not to the economy of the area as a whole. The noble Earl may disagree with that in his own case, but that is the experience of enterprise zones all over. So it is a whole succession of policy gestures which I fear are contrary to any real hope of investment in the inner cities.
The present Secretary of State, in his first incarnation, was a great one for policy gestures; a great one for dressing up, landing in helicopters and striding around parts of the inner cities. Some of it was clearly a great revelation for him and I admire him for it. But if he is to come back in his second incarnation and continue with this substitution of policy gestures for policy, then he will be disappointing—I would say even betraying—the hopes of those who are looking for some more effective action.
The subject of this debate is also concerned with partnership, and I agree with everything that has been said about partnership. I particularly want to draw attention to the role of local authorities in partnership. Partnership, after all, is not just between organisations
302
—voluntary organisations, central government, employers, the business community and so on. It it is also a partnership of people, and it is a partnership of people represented by local authorities.
I want to emphasise the role that local authorities can have and should have in the regeneration of the inner cities. I am not just talking of local authorities participating in partnership work, although I could. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will know of the Cariocca project in Manchester, where, with the black community, there has been investment by the local authority and with Department of the Environment money in work space for black people. There is the example in Hackney of collaboration with city employers in recruitment; the example in Coventry with co-operation between the council and the clothing manufacturers of the city; the example in Barnsley of business innovation centres, in collaboration with the chamber of commerce and with the European Community. There are many examples of where local authorities can participate in partnerships. But much more important is the role of local authorities and what they should have to contribute in terms of their housing policies; in terms of what they can provide by planning, by the sensible use of land that is available; in terms of the infrastructure that is required, the education, the social services and so on which are necessary for the revival of the inner cities.
What is tragic is the extent to which the role of local authorities has been devalued over the past 12 years as an act of deliberate policy by this Government. Over and over again we have seen powers taken away from local authorities so that they can no longer act, and we have seen resources taken away from them when the Government do not have the guts to take away powers literally.
A classic example was the attempt in the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act to affect local authorities' powers to engage in economic development. The way in which this was presented was that it was now becoming a specific responsibility of local government rather than being forced onto the old Section 137 of the Local Government Act. The practice was that the Government took powers for the first time to say, "If we do, not approve of the economic development that you are undertaking, you cannot do it at all". I suspect that when the money is given tomorrow to local authorities to promote regeneration of the inner cities it will be said, "You can have money but only for projects which the Secretary of State in Marsham Street approves or. In other words, there is no local autonomy whatever left.
It is a noble tradition of the Conservative Party to criticise the two nations which have existed in this country long before the time of Disraeli. What I fear about the policies of this Government is that they are increasing the differences between the two nations. That is particularly to the detriment of our inner cities. In the past 12 years, which has not been a period of economic advancement but rather a vast consumer spending binge for which we shall have to pay in due course, the rich have got richer and the poor have got

303
poorer. That has happened especially in the inner cities. That is why we need a change of government in order to make things better.
7.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I join with all noble Lords in giving the most reverend Primate a hearty welcome to our Benches. His speech was quite inspiring and we welcome the spiritual dimension in this House.
The most reverend Primate referred to the soullessness of our inner cities. Because we are not prepared to accept such a premise, the Government have positively addressed the problems of the inner cities. I hope that what I say this evening on behalf of the Government will encourage noble Lords. Perhaps I may thank all noble Lords who have been kind enough to congratulate me on my promotion.
I welcome the opportunity presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to debate this important issue. We were faced today with a substantial subject and I have listened very closely and with a great deal of interest to the comments of all noble Lords. Anxiety has been shown for the problems facing inner city areas and the people who live and work in them. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to reinforce the Government's wholehearted determination to tackle those inner city problems and to outline some of the real progress that is being made.
I fully endorse the emphasis the noble Baroness's Motion puts on the need for:
"partnership between public, private and voluntary sectors to promote regeneration".
That has always been a key factor in the Government's approach to urban regeneration. But I challenge her charge of the,
"continued neglect of the inner cities".
That ignores the very real progress that has been made in many areas. The 1980s were a remarkable decade of achievement in the Government's programme of urban regeneration.
In the past 12 years, this Government have introduced a wide range of measures designed to tackle the needs of the run-down areas of our older towns and cities. We have tackled that head-on, with imagination and flexibility. Inner city policies permeate down through all departments. Our programmes—urban development corporations, city action teams, city grant, inner city task forces and garden festivals among others—reinforce our partnership approach to urban regeneration. I sat on the board of a development corporation in Peterborough. The work carried out by that organisation benefited not only newcomers to Peterborough but substantially benefited the indigenous population, a point made by my noble friend Lord Wade.
Working with local government, the private and voluntary sectors, inner city areas have attracted billions of pounds of private sector investment and thousands of jobs have been created. The transformation of the inner city landscape has been very exciting to watch.
Under the action for cities initiative, the Government are investing some £4 billion per year in
304
the inner cities. There are main programmes such as education, health, housing, transport and so on; but there are many Government incentives specifically administered in the urban areas. Moreover, they are not all DoE programmes.
The Department of Education and Science, for example, provides grant support for open learning centres and to increase the supply of trained youth leaders, and has pioneered city technology colleges. The Department of Employment is pushing ahead with its expanding programme of training and enterprise councils and the employment service provides increased help to unemployed inner city residents through jobclubs, job interview guarantees, and employment training. The Government's proposals for education and training—through developing vocational qualifications, the introduction of diploma awards and training credits—will provide a sound foundation and give increased flexibility for all young people over the age of 16 to take advantage of the training and education opportunities available.
The Home Office has a number of safer cities projects running, and grants have been given to tackle ethnic minority needs in education, social services, enterprise support and other areas; the Department of Trade and Industry has 16 inner city task forces—also with sponsor Ministers—working with local people improving life and work in inner cities.
My own department has a full range of urban programmes, including estate action for run-down council housing; derelict land grant; enterprise and simplified planning zones; as well as the urban programme, city grant and urban development corporations. My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton was kind enough to outline some of the benefits of that work. Investment is now running at over £10 billion.
We must recognise and not forget the important role of the Church in these matters and the work of the Church urban fund. That dovetails not only with Government projects but also with local, community and voluntary projects.
All those programmes are designed to promote an active and genuine partnership between all those with an interest in the welfare of their areas. The list of players is impressive from local government, the private and voluntary sectors and the local people.
On the rather cynical remarks made about local government, when I was a member of a board of a development corporation, I saw excellent cooperation between local government and the development corporation. All vested interests in politics were submerged. We had a mission which was taken up by all the players, who included local politicians of all persuasions. The response on the ground has been marvellous; the co-operative action of all the various interests has produced some impressive results. Perhaps I may give some examples.
At the Wavertree Technology Park on Merseyside 60 acres of severe dereliction have been transformed into a highly successful modern hi-tech business park. That partnership between central and local government, and the private sector, in which the Government injected over £6 million in grants, helped to achieve

305
£30 million of private development and investment, bringing 1,500 jobs. Some of the firms there now say that they would rather recruit in Liverpool than anywhere else. They find the workforce reliable and efficient. That is not the familiar and damaging image of Merseyside. Again, my noble friend Lord Wade made that point.
Some of your Lordships may be familiar with the Cruddas Park/Loadman Street initiative in Newcastle, which will transform a run-down area of housing. This project was initiated by The Newcastle Initiative, a team of local business leaders working together with the local major public sector bodies to pursue the revitalisation of the city and its region, and business in the community. The objective of the project is to improve the Cruddas Park and Loadman Street estates socially and economically by working with the community, the private sector and the appropriate private agencies. We should like to see co-ordinated action of this sort in more areas, including the involvement of the private sector.
Teesside, also in the North East, was until recently, an area which was run-down; and perceived by some as without hope. But just look at that area today. It is alive with activity as developers move in to take advantage of the conditions we, through the UDC, have created. A particular project on the old Stockton race course—now to be a site of mixed development —used £27 million of public money to lever in £80 million private sector investment. Confidence remains good.
The Birmingham heartlands initiative, familiar to some of your Lordships I am sure, is a good example of partnership: the city council, private companies and central government coming together to regenerate East Birmingham. It shows that partnership can take different forms and that the Government will back those who join public and private sector together in a strategy for regeneration.
The lace market in Nottingham has been the site of much government and private sector investment in recent years. My department has assisted in its regeneration through both the urban programme and the city grant regimes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that these are just gestures. They are not gestures, but real achievements. They have transformed landscapes and benefited real people. Under the city grant six schemes have been approved with £3 million of government funding attracting over £13 million of private sector investment. New business and employment opportunities have been created as a result of this co-operation between the Government and the private sector which is leading to the revival in fortunes of this major provincial city.
The urban development corporations' impact on large run-down areas, such as London Docklands, has already been substantial. The Government are investing some £470 million through the 11 UDCs this year. In general, each UDC works with business interests in securing land for development, providing infrastructure and creating a climate in which enterprise can flourish. The most impressive fact about the UDCs is the amount of private investment
306
that they have secured for inner city regeneration. Public sector money amounting to £1.5 billion invested in UDCs since their creation has generated over £10 billion of private investment.
The role of the private sector—firms of all sizes —in inner city regeneration is vital. And I am glad to say that industry and commerce are increasingly becoming involved in the development of their cities. Many firms are supporting local enterprise agencies and seconding personnel to work in the community. They are providing training for unemployed people, work experience for pupils and support for schools and industry compacts. Business leadership teams have been set up in a number of areas. Using their management and business skills, these leaders are working with the public authorities in shaping and inspiring the regeneration of their areas.
Last but not least is the role of the voluntary sector in the partnership equation. The voluntary sector is a vital element in the regeneration package, and has been so for many years. The sector has a unique combination of features which makes it well suited to playing an integral part in inner city revival. Voluntary action is often the first time that many people have a chance to influence the sort of place they live and work in, or the sort of employment skills to which they have access, or their local environment. There are many examples: in building or converting workshops to suit the needs of small local businessmen; in combining training for employment with providing much-needed local services; or environmental improvements.
A number of noble Lords have raised the Question of housing policy in the inner cities. I must commend to the House the work done by my honourable friend Sir George Young, the Minister for Housing in another place. Our ultimate objectives for housing in the inner cities are the same as they are throughout the country: that is, to ensure that decent housing is within the reach of all families, and to promote choice for owner-occupiers and tenants alike.
One difference between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is that we believe that local authorities are not the only providers of local housing. Local authorities are spending around £2 billion a year on the renovation of their own stock, which is nearly double the level of 10 years ago in real terms. Many authorities are also working with housing associations, private landlords and developers to increase the supply of low-cost housing.
We have increased the public resources available to housing associations for developing subsidised housing from £1.1 billion last year to over £2 billion by 1993 and changed their grant arrangement to enable them to attract private investment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not believe that local council housing is the only way of providing housing. I object that the Government do not believe that it has any part at all to play.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the statement just made by the noble Lord. I shall repeat it because it is very important. Local authorities are spending £2 billion a year on renovating their own

307
stock. They are still building houses and their grant has increased. The level of grant is nearly double that of 10 years ago in real terms. Many authorities are also working with housing associations.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is it not true that Liverpool Corporation wanted to build 3,000 houses for rent, but that the Government's financial strictures gave rise to all of Merseyside's financial problems?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the specific point made by the noble Lord detracts from the main point that I am making; namely, that it is a combination of local authority provision, housing association provision, private sector provision and the voluntary sector. They are all involved in the provision of housing. We are talking about the number of houses that are built irrespective of who makes the basic provision.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, if I detracted from the noble Baroness's main point, then I apologise. I was merely asking a question. Does the Minister not know that Liverpool Corporation embarked on a programme of building 3,000 houses, which were badly needed, but that Government restrictions put the corporation in a situation where financial problems arose which became almost insurmountable?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very specific point about Liverpool. I do not have time to go into the specific detail. Liverpool is not an authority known for low spending.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, that is not a very nice answer. Will the Minister write to me when she has details of the problem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course I shall write to the noble Lord. Together, these measures will permit a sustained increase in output by housing associations from 27,000 last year to around 40,000 by 1993–94, Deregulation of the private rented sector is also helping to make more properties available for rent, eating pressures across the market as a whole.
Of course, many of the worst housing problems are concentrated in the inner cities. We are addressing the problem through a series of measures. We are targeting capital resources and housing revenue account subsidy more effectively on the authorities with the greatest needs, including inner city areas. Three-quarters of local authorities' capital spending power derives from allocations based on assessed need, compared with one-third under the old system. A system of targeted management and maintenance allowances was introduced for this year. The ring-fencing of the housing revenue account—stopping cross-subsidy from local taxpayers—has also put pressure on local authority housing managers to improve their management and level of service and efficiency.
In addition, estate action schemes, worth £268 million in 1991–92, are revitalising run-down council estates, many in inner city areas. Housing action trusts can focus resources and expertise on some run-down areas of predominantly local authority housing where
308
the problems are beyond the capabilities of the authority. The first trust, announced last month, is to be in Hull. A proposal for Waltham Forest is under active consideration.
The need to reduce homelessness underlies all our housing policies. An extra £300 million is available over two years to local authorities and housing associations in London and the South East for measures to reduce the use of bed and breakfast accommodation. This is, of course, in addition to mainstream housing capital investment approaching £4 billion this year. The programme aims to provide about 16,000 new lettings for homeless families through bringing empty properties back into use and cash incentives schemes to help existing tenants to buy a property in the private sector.
We are also spending more than £100 million over three years to provide more accommodation for homeless people in London, and to support voluntary organisations throughout England who offer homeless, and potentially homeless, people advice and practical help. Our current initiative is already having considerable impact. The number of young and not so young people sleeping rough in the main areas of central London have halved from a figure of 1,000 in January to fewer than 500 at present.
I could not possibly do justice to the debate by addressing all the individual points raised by noble Lords, but I shall attempt to address some of the main points that have been raised. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was quite rightly concerned about Manchester. He made sure that we understood not just the positive but the downside of some of the problems in that area. Perhaps I may reassure him about Moss Side. The Government are well seized of the difficulties in that area. The right reverend Prelate probably knows that a great deal of activity has been initiated by the Home Office, my own department and the Department of Education and Science. My understanding is that the safe cities' programme is addressing some of the problems relating to drugs in that area.
I understand that over 1,300 crime prevention measures have been initiated and some of the signs are promising. However, the problems are horrendous for that particular part of Manchester, and I refer now to Salford Quays, which I have visited. I accept much of what the right reverend Prelate said, but he referred to a gap. The development has been a marvellously exciting project. Manchester—and Salford in particular—would be a poorer place without that development. It would not be as equipped as it is now to face some of the problems of the recession. It is our firm belief that economic buoyancy is an essential prerequisite for the well-being and health of people in the area.
The right reverend Prelate referred to a family camping out in a church in Salford and to the problems of that family. I cannot comment as I do not know the details; but if the local authority made the judgment and determined that the family was intentionally homeless, I have to assume that the

309
family must have left some accommodation voluntarily. We must make sure that our advice is more appropriate to help young people and families in that situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was rightly concerned about training needs, particularly those of special interest groups. Again, I do not have a specific answer to that question. The statements made in the House earlier this week, together with the way in which the TECs are now co-ordinating, not just across education and the public sector, but with the voluntary organisations, means that it is their responsibility to co-ordinate appropriate solutions for the training of people with special needs. However, I shall address that point in writing to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the statutory level and said that his particular interest was the revival of suburban and, I think he said, urban pride. That has been a particular preoccupation with my Secretary of State since he took office. He has a reputation, going back more than a decade, of being concerned about bringing back pride, especially to our inner cities. I do not believe that the mother of all GLCs—which I believe is the new proposal to resurrect London government—is a solution to that particular problem.
My noble friend Lord Joseph is always a stimulating speaker. I should like to spend a great deal more time answering his points but, sadly, I do not have the time. He made some very special points about the moral and spiritual well being of the nation and the ways in which appropriate role models could be encouraged and activated to become involved in practical ways to resolve some of the problems in the community. He and I both know of an organisation called Crossroads where mature people who have had families and who, happily, have been free of social problems are bringing those talents and that experience to bear on families who can use their advice and help. There is scope for another debate on much of what my noble friend said.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to a local tenant who wished to call a meeting but who was met with a rather resistant and inexplicable attitude from a local councillor. That was my experience when I visited some council flats in Southwark. I was depressed at the enormous unspent energies of the people who lived in the flats and who wanted to become involved. They said, "Our councillors do not want us to become involved". Again, I believe there is much scope for improvement there.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that targeting resources deprived non-targeted areas of resources. Resources are finite, and if they are spread too thinly then clearly they do not have as much effect. If there is to be any sustainable help, the Government believe that we must target and tackle the worst areas in a way that has an impact, and under a rolling programme which addresses all the problems of those areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the need for one-stop shops. I can be encouraging there. Government city action teams in our major cities
310
provide such a service. Their role is to co-ordinate Government departments and programmes at local level. In Whitehall we also have the action for cities co-ordination unit, which is based in my department and which serves as a focal point for those wishing to understand the programmes available. We have a presence in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Doncaster, Granby, Hartlepool, Leeds, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Spitalfields, North Peckham, North Kensington —I could go on. The point is an important one. We wanted to find a way of bringing all those elements together, and that is an attempt to do just that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that the inner cities have not enjoyed the recent prosperity seen in other parts of the country. Again, I do not believe that that is entirely true. For example, on Teesside in the North East, the UDC would claim that its area has backed the market and that demand has not fallen off during the recession. Indeed it has continued to grow stronger. The economy is cyclical and it differs as between regions. However, economic buoyancy benefits everybody.
I am happy to say to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury that the Black Country is alive and kicking. Like him, I too will welcome Jean Denton to these Benches. She is a good friend. She will be a welcome addition to the House.
In response to the specific point about the Black Country spine road, I have to say that a six kilometre route through the heart of the UDA would link the M.5 to the M.6. It was developed by Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton Councils, and funded by a 100 per cent. Department of Transport grant. There has been an escalation of costs from £140 million in 1989 to £245 million in 1990. Therein lies the problem. However, it is being grappled with. We are aware of the concern and we are actively pursuing a way forward with the DoE and the Department of Transport.
Let me assure the House that we are not claiming that the battle has been won. The conditions today in some parts of our cities—and they are not all in the inner cities—are still unacceptable. A major challenge we face in the 1990s is to bring new hope to those pockets of deprivation that still remain after the successes of the 1980s.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that what he wants to see in future is locally-led solutions, based on a local vision of the way forward for a city or town. Authorities should be encouraged to bring forward plans for redevelopment of areas where there are particular problems or opportunities, drawn up in consultation with the private sector and with local communities. The best and most imaginative of those plans should be rewarded by a commitment of Government resources. The Government are at present looking at ways of encouraging developments along these lines as part of their stock-take of inner cities policies, and a Statement is imminent.
My Lords, there is much to be done—we are not complacent. This Government's achievements are

311
considerable—we have brought about huge physical change, new economic activity and renewed confidence within the depressed areas such as Docklands, Manchester, the garden festival sites and other areas. Despite what some noble Lords have said today, for the first time in decades conditions in our cities are getting better. Recent years have demonstrated that any area—whatever the condition of dereliction—can be revived. We must never be without hope. We have the techniques to do it; there is nothing permanent about decline. We now have a strong foundation of successful policies to build on. An essential ingredient will be to unite the local authorities, local industry and commerce, the academic institutions, the voluntary sector and the individual citizen in common cause to bring alive and enrich our inner cities.
I end with reference to the most reverend Primate who referred to the essential elements of the vision spiritual, economic and artistic. We shall not duck that challenge. We shall, in a spirit of partnership, take it head-on with vigour and with imagination.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, my first job is to thank all the speakers who have taken part in what has been a useful and worthwhile debate. It has been good to have speakers from the Conservative Benches. On some previous occasions when we have had a Liberal Democrat inspired debate they have been conspicuous by their absence. It is sad that on this occasion, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it was Labour speakers who were conspicuous by their absence. That was surprising in view of the nature of the subject and surprising too because the debate has shown that there is a great deal of agreement about the seriousness of the problem and about what needs to be done. If only we could get beyond the wrangling of parties we could bring about a great deal of determined and agreed planning.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I think the lady doth protest too much. I was timing her speech and I was waiting for her to tell us that not everything in the garden is lovely. At the end of her speech she admitted that there is still a little way to go. Perhaps the difference between us is that we think that that way is rather longer, harder and more expensive than she is able at this stage to admit. We shall know by tomorrow. Despite the words of warning from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I still hope that tomorrow will bring a gleam of new hope.
The emphasis has been on partnership, which is right. I am sorry that I did not get a better response from the noble Baroness about the plight of the voluntary organisations. Perhaps she does not realise how strongly they feel nor how let down they feel. I should like to make another plug for the importance of continuity. The plans that are put forward and agreed -may not be perfect but it may be better to continue; with a plan that is less than perfect than to chop and change and alter and thus make people feel that they cannot think ahead because they do not know what tomorrow will bring.
That is all I want to say about the debate. It remains for me to make one or two more agreeable comments.
312
First and foremost, perhaps I may say again how fortunate we have been to hear the maiden speech of the most reverend Primate and to say how helpful and understanding he was in what he said. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her promotion. I shall avoid the party point that I might have made. It is always good to see a woman gain promotion. There is still some vestige of truth in the old saying that a woman has to be half as good again as a man in order to reach the same position. I am not making any comment on her male colleagues when I say that. However, I think it can be said in this case. The noble Baroness works very hard. Perhaps I may say to her that she will have to be extremely careful that her colleagues do not turn her into a beast of burden. I notice that whenever there is a job to be done the noble Baroness is trotted out to do it. Women put up with too much, Lady Blatch!
Finally, it is a great pleasure to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I still do not understand why he thought that because he had two parishes he could not sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I really do think that the Churches should not be ashamed to declare their political affiliations. No one has ever been worried about the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, sits determinedly on the Labour Benches. I have seen one or two Anglicans sitting on the Tory Benches. However, a late repentance is better than none. We are glad to see the noble Lord back. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill
7.44 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill seeks to replace certain provisions in Section 5(2) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 with a new and modern set of powers enabling the Secretary of State for Transport to implement the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials by road. Present powers do not allow this in full. Although the Bill is modest in scope, it is nevertheless important. I am glad to say that it enjoys wide support in the industry and in another place where it was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Kensington, Mr. Fishburn.
The International Atomic Energy Agency—a specialist agency of the United Nations—of which the United Kingdom is a leading member was set up in 1959 to advise on all aspects of the civil nuclear industry. The agency's recommended regulations set out the minimum standards with which packages and packaging used to transport radioactive material must comply. It is important to appreciate the general philosophy underlying the IAEA regulations. The philosophy is to build safety into packages used in the transportation of radioactive material, a philosophy which the IAEA and its member states have operated effectively for the past 30 years or so. In other words,

313
the design, make up, fabrication, maintenance and storage of packages, and not merely the transport element alone, are subject to the IAEA regulations; hence the necessity of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers.
The IAEA regulations are subject to a continuous review process, leading to a comprehensive revision every 10 years. The last full revision was in 1985. Member states of the agency are under an obligation to implement the regulations by way of domestic legislation as soon as this is possible and practicable. The provisions of the Bill are designed to ensure that the regulations made under it reflect the provisions laid down in the latest edition of the IAEA recommended regulations which are already being adopted worldwide. It is important therefore that the United Kingdom is seen by the international community to adopt the provisions as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.
Under Clause 1 the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to help in implementing the Bill and enforcing any regulations made under it. Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations covering all aspects of the transport by road of radioactive materials and embraces the areas to which I referred a moment ago. It will be an offence to contravene any regulations made under the clause.
Clause 3 sets out the circumstances in which an inspector or an examiner appointed under Section 68(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 may stop a vehicle being used to transport radioactive packages and the circumstances in which an inspector may prohibit the transport of a radioactive package or the use of a component in the packaging of a radioactive material. The clause also deals with the purpose, duration, form and content of prohibitions. These powers are at present unavailable to the Department of Transport's enforcement staff although they are possessed by other enforcement agencies working in the field of radioactive material, such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in the Department of the Environment. Contravention of a prohibition notice issued under this clause, or failure to comply with directions given in conjunction with such a notice, would be an offence.
Where an inspector believes that a person is failing or is likely to fail to comply with regulations concerning the manufacture or maintenance of packaging components, he will be able, under the provisions of Clause 4, to issue an enforcement notice. The notice will specify the failure or likely failure and the steps to be taken to remedy it. Again, this is something other enforcement agencies have available to them; so no new ground is broken. Failure to comply with a notice will be an offence.
Clause 5 gives powers of entry and sets out the circumstances in which inspectors may enter vehicles and premises, and examiners may enter vehicles, with or without consent. It also specifies when an inspector or an examiner may seize evidence. The obstruction of an inspector or an examiner in exercising any power conferred by this clause, or a warrant issued under it, will constitute an offence. The clause contains another
314
important provision. I refer to the fact that any inspector or examiner who discloses information obtained while exercising the power conferred by the clause, other than in the performance of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
Clause 6 sets out the penalties for offences and allows for a prosecution to be conducted in either a magistrates' court or a Crown Court. That is dependent upon the severity of the offence. The clause also allows for the prosecution of officials of a corporate body where that body has committed an offence by the act or neglect of those officials. With those provisions, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that, when made, the regulations can be effectively enforced.
Clause 7 deals with expenses to be allocated by Parliament. Clause 8 provides for corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. Clause 9 deals with the Short Title, repeals, which are set out in the schedule to the Bill, and the commencement of the Bill.
As I said, the Bill will bring the Secretary of State's powers in relation to the transport of radioactive material by road into line with those already available in other areas of the radioactive materials industry. In so doing, it will enable him to comply with international obligations. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.52 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his exposition of the Bill, which was most helpful. I know that he will forgive me if, rather than deal with the useful comments he made, I refer to certain important issues by way of background to the Bill.
On 15th May I wrote to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—who is the sponsor of the Bill—in order to give them prior notice of many significant points that I wished to raise in today's debate. I have subsequently followed that up by forwarding a number of supplementary questions to which I shall refer later. I should say at once that I do not oppose the Bill; indeed, I welcome it. However, although the Minister responded to my letter, I must say that I am not wholly satisfied with the replies that I have received. There are additional matters of concern to which I shall allude later.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which the United Kingdom is a member, are required to transpose into their domestic legislation the recommended regulations made by the agency for the safe transport of radioactive material. Previously that has been done by general regulations in the form of statutory instruments, but the circumstances which have given rise to the rapid expansion in the industrial and medical uses of radioactive material and the corresponding increase in the volume of transport renders that procedure inadequate. Hence this Bill.

315
However, the trouble is that the Government's timetable for adhering to this requirement has slipped very badly. We were under an obligation to legislate on the issue last year, but the Government failed to meet that deadline. Moreover, the Government have acknowledged that fact. What they have done is to persuade a Member in another place to introduce a Bill which in truth is most clearly a government Bill; it implements an international obligation. That is the business of government and not the business of Back-Benchers.
I suppose that the Government may contemplate using the Bill as a precedent for implementing other international obligations. Perhaps they will seek the services of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to transpose European Community directives. I hope that he: will resist those blandishments. I believe that he has already gone beyond the call of duty. However, I do not blame him for that.
The Government have argued that they are put into an invidious position and that because of their "heavy legislative programme" it has not been possible to find space for such a modest but important Bill. But in the other place they are frequently going home early; indeed it happens every week. They have plenty of time. Government business is not in any way filling the agenda there, or, for that matter, in this place. Of course it is true that there are many transport Bills. I know that as well as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, does. However, that is no answer. There is ample time in both Houses of Parliament to take on such a Bill. Moreover, it would not take a great deal of government time to deal with it.
Quite apart from its importance, I believe that it is absolutely wrong—I say this as a former Member of the other place; I was for some time a Back-Bencher —that the Government should trespass upon valuable Private Members' Bill time in order to promote legislation. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedures and it should not have happened. I hope that it will not happen again.
I should like to make it clear that those criticisms are not aimed at the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—indeed, his prime responsibility relates to aviation—or, least of all, at the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who volunteered to sponsor the Bill in this House. He is a very good Member of this House.
Because this is really a government Bill, I expect the Minister to depart from the traditional low profile position which government Ministers adopt—as, indeed, do Members of this Front Bench—when dealing with Private Members' Bills. Consequently, because it is a government Bill, I propose to address the House in my position as Opposition spokesman on transport. I shall, therefore, expect the Minister to respond to the debate as if he were dealing with the Second Reading of a government Bill.
The kernel of the Bill is safety. Under that heading, I should like to put forward a number of questions for the Minister and also for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about which they have received prior notice. Is the Minister satisfied that transport by rail, sea and air is adequately covered elsewhere in
316
legislation? In another place the Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope, asserted that provisions already exist in other legislation which permit the Secretary of State to control the transport of radioactive material through other modes.
What then are the provisions which apply? Are they as comprehensive as those set out in this Bill, bearing in mind the fact that it is probable that there will be a considerable increase in nuclear and contaminated substances in the next few years? There is little doubt that air movements will increase, as indeed will those by rail and sea, most especially with the development of spent reactor fuel processing plants at Sellafield and the development of deep storage facilities for nuclear waste which are planned by NIREX.
Why should this important legislation be dealt with on such a piecemeal basis rather than dealing with transport of radioactive material on an integrated basis? I think it is bad that we should have to look to separate pieces of legislation on such a safety matter. I believe, therefore, that it would be appropriate to have a comprehensive Act dealing with all the aspects involved.
I have referred to shipments of nuclear waste. Those have trebled over the past three years. Further increases can safely be forecast over the next decade. Most of the waste from Europe comes from Germany —from German nuclear power stations—since Germany has no plans to build its own nuclear waste reprocessing industry, largely because of public pressure, which has deflected that government from doing so. It will be interesting to see whether the German Government comply with the policies of the European Community to the effect that waste reprocessing should be done, at least by major industrial states, within their own territory rather than exporting waste elsewhere for reprocessing.
The situation has given rise to considerable anxiety, in that in many instances hazardous cargoes of that kind are carried in conventional ro-ro ferries. I believe that that is wrong. I believe that the Government should insist that irradiated nuclear fuel should be carried in purpose-built ships. There is ample precedent for that. Imports of waste from Japan and Italy to Sellafield are brought into Barrow in BNFL's own specially built ships, which are double skinned and also have bulkheads. The main structural weakness of ro-ro vessels operating in the Channel is that they do not have bulkheads.
Despite the fact that their members' livelihoods are at stake, seafaring unions have expressed considerable concern, as have environmental groups, about this practice. They fear the consequences of an accident in the congested waters of the Channel. They know that these ro-ro ferries are especially vulnerable and that tragic experience has shown that they are unlikely to be able to stay afloat after being holed or when seriously affected by fire.
Now BNFL says that the flasks used can withstand serious fire and have never been ruptured in tests in which they have burned for 30 minutes at 800 degrees centigrade. Unfortunately, that will not do since, according to the International Maritime

317
Organisation, the average length of major fires is at sea 28 hours and in port 23 hours, and temperatures of as much as 1,100 degrees centigrade can be reached.
Quite apart from the fact that major industrial powers should deal with their own waste and that this country should not be taking risks with our people's lives and our environment, what is the Government's answer to the point that I have raised?
My next point is: is the Minister satisfied that the resources available to enforce this legislation are adequate? The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill states:
"There are unlikely to be any significant financial or public sector manpower effects as a result of the Bill. It seeks only to replace existing arrangements with those which are more comprehensive and appropriate in the modern requirements of the radioactive materials road transport industry."
That is a contradiction in terms. The regulations will be more comprehensive and appropriate to modern requirements, and therefore they are to be changed. Consequently, I should like to know how many inspectors and traffic examiners are currently employed and whether it is proposed that there should be some increase in personnel to carry out those important additional duties.
In my letter to the Minister, I raised two other issues, one of which concerned the adequacy of legislation to deal with the suitability of drivers of heavy goods vehicles carrying hazardous loads, with whether proper monitoring of their suitability, both physical and as to their driving records, was scrupulously undertaken and with the basis on which that was done. The Minister's reply satisfies me on that score. In addition, the Minister has informed me that, so as to comply with EC Directive 89/684 on vocational driver training, the Government are drawing up regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on the provision of training for drivers of all classes of dangerous goods, including radioactive material. I am satisfied that those regulations will be comprehensive, in that drivers will be required to undergo a training course related to the particular class or classes of dangerous goods that they will be carrying, and that they will also be subjected to specific examination. Moreover, it is also welcome that the new regime will provide for refresher courses to be undertaken every five years to maintain the validity of the certificate issued. Those regulations are to replace the relevant parts of existing regulations dealing with training for drivers of dangerous goods vehicles. I commend the Government for having dealt with the matter in this way, but I should like to know when we may expect the regulations to be finalised.
My next point relates to consultation. As I indicated earlier, it is clear that there is to be a substantial increase in the transportation of radioactive materials in the years ahead. In what forum will the complex policy matters which will undoubtedly burgeon be discussed and resolved? Do the Government perceive that there will be an opportunity given for those in local government who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment to have any input into policy thinking on the issue, and, if so, on what basis will that take place?
318
As regards implementation, I should like to know from the Minister something about the timetable for the implementation of the legislation. What consultations will take place over the content of the regulations and when will that be? When is it likely that the regulations will be brought forward?
In my letter to the Minister I asked why Clause 8, which relates to Northern Ireland, envisaged the use of the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure. His reply was that, first, the Government believe that parity throughout the UK is essential (the provisions of the order will correspond with those in the Bill); and, secondly, that it is necessary for the provisions to apply to Northern Ireland as soon as possible after the Great Britain Act comes into effect. I readily agree with that, but why should we use the negative procedure relating to the Bill in its generality rather than the affirmative procedure? There may be a perfectly good explanation in terms of the matter being technical and possibly even urgent, but the Minister must put forward his own explanation.
I have three other questions of which I gave notice to the Minister today. The first relates to Crown immunity. Presumably the MoD's role in transporting radioactive materials will carry on. How will that be affected by the Bill and the international obligations that it is supposed to fulfil? Secondly, does the Minister have any intention of providing for prior notification for the emergency planning bodies and services, especially for nuclear fuel flasks? Thirdly, and in the same context, we might consider —I put it to the Minister that it might be worthy of consideration—some form of central register to deal with such movements.
I have taken time to deal with those matters, because it is not right that the Bill should be taken on the nod. Essentially it is not a controversial Bill, but it is not a Bill that should have been brought forward in this way. I hope that the questions I have posed are germane to the issues raised in the Bill—I believe them to be—and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. In the light of that reply, I shall decide whether to put down amendments to the Bill in Committee. We may be able to avoid that, but that will depend upon the nature of the Minister's replies.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to state the Government's view on the Bill. Its aim is to bring the Secretary of State for Transport's powers to make regulations governing the transport of radioactive material by road, and his ability to enforce those regulations, up to date. The Bill will, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, enable the Secretary of State to comply with the United Kingdo— obligations, as a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency, by allowing the implementation of its recommended regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material in the United Kingdom. The Government believe that the Bill fulfils an extremely important purpose: it therefore enjoys our full support.

319
The Bill is intended to cover only the road transport of radioactive materials for civil uses, a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked. Provisions already exist to control the transport of radioactive material by other modes. Those other provisions are specific to the mode of transport and cannot therefore be used for regulating transport by road; nor will they be affected by this Bill. I am satisfied that they are sufficiently comprehensive to cover all eventualities.
Currently the transport by road of radioactive material is controlled by regulations made under provisions contained in the Radioactive Substances Act 1948. Since that Act was passed the use of radioactive materials has grown enormously, especially for medical and industrial purposes, and with increasingly sophisticated applications the current regulation-making provisions have become outdated.
There is no reason to suppose that growth in the transport of radioactive materials will not continue and it is essential that the Secretary of State has at his disposal powers available to control it effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was kind enough to give me notice of some points he wished to raise. I hope that I shall be able to deal with them to his satisfaction and that of other noble Lords. I believe that I have already covered the point about the separate modes of transport and how the other modes are already covered by their own rules and regulations. The noble Lord specifically asked me about roll-on roll-off ferries. That matter is not covered by the Bill which only deals with road transport; therefore, it is outside the scope of the Bill.
Sea transport is already covered by legislation: the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990. These implement the provisions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code which regulates international sea transport of dangerous goods, including radioactive materials. I have to say to the noble Lord that we have no plans to ban, nor do I believe that there are plans to ban, transport by roll-on roll-off ferries.
The noble Lord asked what resources there were for enforcement of the Bill. The Department of Transport already carries out most of what is in the Bill through its 215 traffic examiners and the members of the Radioactive Materials Transport Division. There will be 10 inspectors, supported by the 215 traffic examiners. At present this figure is considered to be the correct level. But, as in all these matters, it is kept under review.
The noble Lord asked about consultations, whether there would be any opportunity to consult, and who would be consulted on the regulations. Although there are no requirements in the Bill to consult on the regulations, draft regulations based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's Safety Series No. 6 Regulations ions for the safe transport of radioactive materials, 1985 edition, as amended in 1990, will be circulated to all interested parties for comment.
The parties to be consulted will include the nuclear industry, the radiopharmaceutical industry, the transport industry, local authorities, hospitals and
320
industrial users of radioactive material and environmental groups. The list is not exhaustive and does not preclude other organisations or individuals from commenting on the proposals.
The noble Lord asked why the regulations were being made under negative resolution rather than affirmative resolution. It is difficult to answer that question. On the whole I believe that the more regulations one can bring in under the negative resolution procedure the better because we hope that it takes up less parliamentary time. That is the primary object of having delegated legislation. As the noble Lord is aware, it is possible to pray against negative resolution orders, so there can be every opportunity for a debate on the subject.
The noble Lord suggested that local authorities should be informed of movements of radioactive materials through their areas. I go back now to the inquiry by the Select Committee on the environment in July 1985. In evidence to that Select Committee, the Department of Transport expressed the view that there would be no purpose in such notification. It should be borne in mind that the department's view given in evidence was that there would be no useful purpose in such a notification. The Select Committee agreed. The degree of protection provided by the packaging is such that the danger of a really serious accident, in terms of its consequences and the release of the contents, is so low that action would rarely be required.
The number of movements of radioactive material on a daily basis is quite considerable. An average figure for movements of radioactive material within the United Kingdom would be in excess of 500,000 every year, mostly medical isotopes and sources for use in industry. Movements of irradiated nuclear fuel only account for a small percentage of that figure. Pre-notification would mean that local authorities would receive large amounts of information, most of which would be of no use to them whatever. That would be administratively burdensome and costly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? I accept the point that he has just made, but I am concerned about nuclear fuel flasks which represent a relatively small number, as I understand it. However, conceivably, they could give rise to difficulties, despite the strength of the packaging. I ask that emergency services and so on should be informed beforehand. Is that unreasonable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, notice already has to be given of spent nuclear fuel flasks on the whole under the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979 which deals with the movement of abnormal and indivisible loads. Under these regulations, the police and highway and bridge authorities—which in most cases will be the local authorities—must be notified of movements of abnormal and indivisible loads at least two clear days before they take place, and details of the route, type of vehicle and a description of the load must be given. So in most cases the type of cargo to which the noble Lord referred will already have been notified under that legislation.

321
The noble Lord suggested that there should be a register of transporters. We have no proposals to register transporters. Current holders and users of radioactive material must already register under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. As most users are transporters, the majority are already covered. If it should be considered necessary, then my advice is that the powers in the Bill could cover that.
The noble Lord asked about Crown immunity and the Ministry of Defence. The Crown is not bound by any statutory provision except by express words or necessary implication. Whether the Act binds the Crown by implication would be a question for the courts, but the Bill makes no reference to the Crown. It does not cover weapons anyway. It is not intended that weapons should be covered by any regulations made under it. They would be specifically excluded, as at present. The International Atomic Energy Agency whose recommended regulations will be used as a basis for these regulations was set up to look after the peaceful application of atomic energy and radioactive material. Weapons have never been included in its recommendations on transport.
I hope that that covers the points raised by the noble Lord. If he is dissatisfied or not fully satisfied with any of the answers I have given, I shall be only too happy to try to provide further information.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has skipped over one of the main charges that I made as to the appropriateness of dealing with the legislation in this way. Is he prepared, on reflection, to say that future legislation involving the performance of international obligations will not be carried out through the Private Member's Bill procedure? I urge him to recognise that it is not appropriate; it is wrong. It is wrong for Members in another place and it is not the appropriate procedure for governments to undertake when dealing with important international obligations. Will the noble Lord respond to that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise if I did not do so. I thought that my reply in the letter that I wrote to the noble Lord covered the point. I cannot give the undertaking which the noble Lord requires. It is up to Members of another place whether they choose to take Bills through the House. My honourable friend the Member for Kensington chose to take this Bill through, and I do not see what is wrong with that.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the welcome he gave to the principle of the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for having apprised me of some of the points that he intended to raise. As I look through my notes, it appears that there is little for me to say at this point as my noble friend the Minister has covered every point. The noble Lord opposite will recognise that it is not for me—particularly not in your Lordships' House—to pass any judgment or comment on the procedures that are adopted in another place. However, I have no doubt that the point the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made on that matter will be noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned a number of issues. I do not blame him for doing so. It is one of the great joys of your Lordships' House that one can sometimes stray into areas that are not expressly covered by the Bill before the House. My great concern involves such matters as the packaging of radioactive materials that are transported by road. I am not so concerned about nuclear and military matters. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not refer to those matters.
I underline what my noble friend the Minister has said. There are about half a million movements by road of radioactive material, both medical and industrial. Knowledge on the transportation of that material can be passed from person to person by recognised pathways. There is no necessity to do anything more about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the negative and affirmative procedures. I hope I may add to what my noble friend the Minister said on that point. The regulations relating to the 1948 Act were dealt with by the negative procedure—admittedly the regulations were not perhaps as complex as those that are forthcoming—and have caused no undue concern to shippers, receivers or transporters.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for answering all the detailed questions that were raised. The noble Lord opposite may rest assured that over the next two or three days—or at least after the bank holiday—I shall study this evening's debate to see whether any points that have been raised have not been answered. If any points remain unanswered, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall provide him with an answer and, as is customary, place a copy of the answer in the Library. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.