Lords Sitting of 15 April 1993

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

Assisted Area Status: Criteria
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the unemployment levels in the London Borough of Brent, whether they will allow certain parts of London to be given assisted area status.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the consultation paper for the assisted areas map review made clear that the new map will be based on existing travel-to-work areas. However, London is an exceptionally large travel-to-work area and a number of respondents have argued that parts of London should be separately designated. The Government are now considering those and other suggestions in the review.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware, however, that the unemployment rate in Brent is now nearly 18 per cent., and that the rate in other London boroughs is comparable? Does she agree that it should be possible to reach a decision about assisted area status for parts of London, bearing in mind that it is more than six months since the consultation period ended? Can she tell us when that decision will be reached?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend that although the consultation period ended six months ago, any change in factors is being taken into account during this period. The review was held up until after the coal review. It has now been dealt with and we shall send the proposal through to Europe for consideration in the future.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as the Minister must be aware, serious consideration has to be given before regional aid in assisted area status must be granted because of the cash involved. Does she agree that those who are unemployed in this area are not coal miners, steel workers or agricultural labourers, and that they have never produced a tonne of coal, steel or food for the nation? What exactly did they do? And what qualifications have they for work now?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's commitment to his own area. We on our side believe that every person who is unemployed has the right to be helped where possible.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say, in regard to special area needs, what is involved in one of the boroughs that has unemployment?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the main criteria for the assisted area map are based on unemployment figures. Subsequent to that, special area needs are taken into account. But the main criteria are unemployment figures and therefore every borough with those figures is taken into consideration.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not clear—at any rate in London—that owing to the operation of the standard spending assessment there are already two specially assisted areas in London; to wit, Wandsworth and Westminster?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord gives me an opportunity to point out how much specialisation there is in London. There are seven city challenge areas; there are three task force areas; there is a development corporation; there are nine training and enterprise councils; and much urban programme and city grant money. There are indeed differences.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to figures quoted by the Kilburn Times, in Carlton ward, Kilburn, 37 per cent. of the population is dependent on means-tested social security benefit? If that is not enough to justify assisted area status, what is?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I fear that I have to say to the noble Earl that in almost every travel-to-work area there are specific spots of great deprivation and unemployment. The area map is based on the self-containment of labour, so that the overall picture of that area can be looked at, will be looked at, and is being looked at very seriously.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the noble Baroness remember that in the old days we used to say that we could solve our unemployment problem if we could only equalise unemployment rates across the country? Does she agree the Government have achieved that, but unfortunately they have got it the wrong way round, in that they have pushed the rate in the successful areas up to that in the rest of the country's very high unemployment rate areas and that is why we have the problem of Brent and other parts of London? Can she explain to us, given all the measures the Government are taking, why they believe such measures are worth taking, given the scale of unemployment that remains? What are all the quangos actually achieving?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord should come up with the alternative that we should do nothing. The quangos, as he puts it, and all the other bodies, work specifically—I speak of one of which I have experience, the development corporation—to bring energy, resource and focus to a specific problem and support the area in doing it. Regional selective assistance grants are based on supporting the opportunities to bring jobs to the area. They are doing that, and are attracting inward investment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness thinks that my question was intended to

1177
suggest that we should do nothing. I ask her, as opposed to one of her former right honourable friends, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, to consider whether unemployment is best dealt with at the micro-economic level. Is she aware that many of us still believe that the only way to restore full employment in this country is by an expansionary fiscal and monetary policy? Much as I value all the micro-economic policies that she employs, are they not a drop in the ocean compared with what the nation requires?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we believe that the canvas is necessary. The control of inflation and the growth of competition in our manufacturing industry are key factors. Within that policy, we believe that micro-economic solutions are needed for specific areas.

Cancer Treatment: Resources
3.13 p.m.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the reported nationwide shortage of 320 doctors specialising in diagnosis and treatment of cancer has been alleviated by the measures set out in Baroness Cumberlege's Written Answer of 6th July 1992 [Official Report, col. WA 63].
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, many doctors in different specialties will be involved in the care and treatment of cancer but it is not possible to specify exactly how many. However, between September 1990 and September 1991 the total number of doctors working in NHS hospitals increased by 1,174 and the number of hospital consultants increased by 314.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Can she inform the House how the deficiency in doctors trained in the treatment and diagnosis of cancer now stands?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government do not have any knowledge that there is a deficiency in that particular speciality. However, over the years we have consistently funded extra consultant posts—200 in 1991–92 and 150 in 1992–93. For the current year we have allocated a further £12.2 million for new consultant posts. It is expected that that money will be able to purchase 125 new consultant posts.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when patients have tests for cancer they should get the results as soon as possible and, if those results are positive, they should receive adequate support while waiting for treatment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the Government's intention. The new screening programmes which have taken place are now becoming well
1178
established. We had some initial difficulties, especially with the breast screening scheme when it was first introduced.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister comment on press reports that some hospitals have not been able to treat cancer patients because they have not received adequate funds under the new scheme? Are the Government doing something about improving hospital management so that while the capacity is there shortage of money will not be a problem?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are no waiting lists at all for cancer patients. However, it is up to local health authorities in their purchasing contracts to decide where they want to spend their money. If difficulties arise, it is up to them to put them right.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems of staffing hospitals is that there are far too many junior staff and far too few consultant staff? Does she further agree that the problem can be remedied by changing all the senior registrar posts into consultant posts? That would not in fact increase the total expenditure.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend, who is an expert in this sphere, will know that certain work is being undertaken at the moment. The very radical suggestions that he supports may take a little time to come to fruition.

Manufacturing Industry: Support
3.18 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent reports concerning United Kingdom manufacturing industry and industry in general, they are considering any further remedial initiatives.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government's commitment to manufacturing industry is at the heart of our policies. That is why, for example, the Budget cut the burden on business by £1 billion and why export credit premia will be 7.5 per cent. lower on average in 1993–94.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I am glad to see that the Government have done a U-turn away from the service industries in an effort to solve the problem of unemployment. Is she aware of the exchanges that took place in another place two or three weeks ago when the President of the Board of Trade was forced to admit that a leaked report from his department—the competitiveness unit report—showed that British manufacturing industry was now so uncompetitive compared with its rivals that it would take decades to correct the imbalance? Does she agree that we should look for some further measures to stimulate industry and the economy in addition to what is already being done to deal with the situation?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, let me first reassure the noble Lord that there is no U-turn. We believe that both manufacturing and service industries have important parts to play in the country's recovery. Perhaps I may suggest that he refers to leaked documents rather less selectively and point out that the leak that occurred also drew attention to the fact that since 1980 manufacturing productivity in the UK has improved at a faster rate than in Germany, France, Italy or the United States.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the best ways of continuing that happy process which she has just described is to reduce the burden of taxation, particularly income tax and VAT, which tends to discourage the promotion of industry and demands very rigid economy in public expenditure?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, this Government's policy has always been to keep taxation at minimum levels to encourage entrepreneurship. It seems to be working. The figures announced yesterday for manufacturing production were 1.2 per cent. up on the previous three months.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that since we left the exchange rate mechanism our exports have become very much more competitive as they are now cheaper abroad? Are not our exports in fact improving rapidly? Will she give me and the House an assurance that under no circumstances will we go back into the exchange rate mechanism?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, in the first instance I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that indeed we see benefit in exports. I hope that in the near future we shall see benefit in people sourcing from the UK goods which were previously sourced overseas. However, I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect me to make announcements on the Treasury's behalf.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while acknowledging the fiscal help given to the manufacturing sector of the economy, it would help investment, particularly in the manufacturing industry, for capital allowances to be on a straight line reduction rather than on a reducing line? That would be bound to help investment. I remind my noble friend that at the moment on capital allowances it takes about nine years to write off the value of an asset.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we believe that we should support the ability of manufacturing industry to operate within its own scenario, making its own decisions.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no such abstract entity as "industry in general"? There are only specific industries. We need to have a list of those who are failing to pay for their imports of raw material and those who are failing
1180
to pay for imported food for their employees. Until we have that information we cannot know what we are talking about.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, while agree with the noble Earl that the balance of payments is based on two parts of an equation—imports and exports—it is important to know where the growth is in exports. Perhaps I can again draw attention to yesterday's figures which show that the largest rises were in the chemical industry-2.7 per cent. up on three months—and in the engineering industries where the situation is particularly pleasing with a 1 per cent. increase.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while there has been recent welcome news on improvements in industrial production, to which the noble Baroness referred, nevertheless would she agree that the fundamental problem affecting British manufacturing industry is the lack of sufficient capacity? It is a long-term problem and it is not something that has arisen today; it has been arising over many years. Will not the Government give some attention to the matter? Will they share their thoughts on the subject by either issuing a consultative document, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, frequently proposed, or in some other way? We shall then be able to get to grips with the fundamental problem affecting our manufacturing industry.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that one of the major problems is lack of capacity and that the growth of capacity must be a focus. As I have explained many times in the past to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and to my noble friend Lord Peyton, we believe that it is important that the Department of Trade and Industry should get as close as possible to industry, with which it is working, and reflect its need to increase performance as fast as possible rather than publish overall documents. The capacity that we require concerns not only plant but also skilled people.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was disappointed with the answer given by the noble Baroness on the exchange rate mechanism. I thought that the Government were going to a great deal of trouble over Maastricht for all kinds of purposes, one of which was that we become part of the exchange rate mechanism. I hope that the noble Baroness will not forget that.
I understood that the so-called leaked report was rather uninteresting and that in the other place her right honourable friend said that it did not contain anything new. Will the Minister tell her right honourable friend that as an economist I have an interest in the subject and that several other noble Lords are probably equally interested? It may contain nothing new but we should still like to see it, if only to refresh our memories about the state of British manufacturing industry. It is difficult to know what the Government wish to hide. It would be interesting to see the document. Can the Minister at least suggest to her right honourable friend that we may like to see it even though it is only a leaked copy?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, well knows that advice to Ministers is not normally published. The President of the Board of Trade restructured the Department of Trade and Industry last year to reflect closer relationships with sectors of industry and to institute a competitiveness department, whose job it is to inform us of our place with regard to competitors, as indeed would any manufacturing industry. It is an ongoing situation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the noble Baroness clarify the position because I am now a little lost? Is it a document that gives official advice to Ministers? I thought that it was a research document. That is why I find the situation puzzling. I do not want to know about advice to Ministers. However, I should like to know essentially what the view is in regard to the state of the manufacturing industry. Can the Minister have another look at the matter or at least ask her right honourable friend to do so?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may bring the noble Lord, Lord Peston, back to the Question. The Question concerns the state of the manufacturing industry and straightforwardly on that I am happy to say that it is good and improving.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most disturbing comment she has made this afternoon is to say that there is no U-turn? Given the fact that over the past 14 years of Conservative rule manufacturing industry has enjoyed—if that is the right word—a growth of less than 0.5 per cent. per year, the lowest in the G7, and we have seen our share of world manufactured trade fall, does she consider that policy to be a success?
Baroness Denton: My Lords, the U-turn to which I referred was the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in regard to our policy on service industry. I want to make it quite clear that we still believe that the service sector is of great importance to this country. The fact that we have outstanding productivity performance in our manufacturing industry answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in reply to my supplementary question the Minister accused me of being selective in what I quoted from the report, and then proceeded to be more selective herself by completely ignoring the point that I made. In my question I asked the Minister whether she was aware that the report said that we were totally uncompetitive and that it would take decades to correct the imbalance. The report comes from her department. Is it right or is it wrong? If it is right, what are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I did not wish to ignore the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I thought that I indicated that his initial quotation was a superficial first cover in the leak and that the leak went on to point out that the state of manufacturing was such that we were moving faster than most of our European competitors and the United States.

Mr. Mordechai Vanunu
3.28 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have ascertained or will ascertain whether Mr. Mordechai Vanunu, who has been kept in solitary confinement by the Israeli Government for six years, is in receipt of medical attention and whether they have any information on his physical and mental condition and expectation of release.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we understand from the Israelis that Mr. Vanunu is subject to regular medical examinations and that he has had no major health problems. Mr. Vanunu has served six of his 18-year sentence. Under normal Israeli procedures the question of early release only arises when a prisoner has served two-thirds of his sentence.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, is the noble Baroness aware that the European Parliament called for the release of Mr. Vanunu? Will she this afternoon associate the Government with that request?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have become used to the European Parliament calling for all sorts of things. It does not necessarily mean that it is right. It is a matter for the Israeli judicial authorities. We know that they had a recent internal review and there have been improvements in the conditions under which Mr. Vanunu is held. I do not believe it is for us to prescribe how another country's judiciary should sentence its convicted nationals or, indeed, deal with them.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while fully understanding what my noble friend has just said and irrespective of the question of early release, could it not be argued that six years' solitary confinement comes within the definition of inhuman and degrading treatment?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what my noble and learned friend has just said. It is a very serious situation. I fully agree that there are grounds for humanitarian concern because it is a long period of solitary confinement. Just that point was raised informally with the Israelis last week. I understand that a petition lodged by Mr. Vanunu seeking an end to his solitary confinement will be heard soon.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, Mordechai Vanunu, despite some of his views, has been highly respected in Israel, in Middle East countries and indeed in Europe and the Americas. In view of the almost barbarous treatment of Mr. Vanunu, would it not be in the interests of everyone, including those who are opposed to what we believe, that he should receive much better treatment than he has received up to now?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord has said. We have, as a result of learning of this internal review recently carried out, noted that while Mr. Vanunu still at this moment remains in solitary confinement his cell has been enlarged—I am told that it has even been redecorated —and he has been given additional access to facilities. His extensive visiting rights have not always been taken up, but because there are grounds for concern I reiterate the point that I have just made to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Israel is a country at war, as evinced most recently when Saddam Hussein attacked it with missiles? Is it not probable that a country at war will take very severe measures against any of its nationals who appear to breach military secrets? Have the Israeli Government asked Her Majesty's Government anything about their treatment in wartime of convicted spies and traitors?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right that anyone revealing sensitive military secrets in any country runs the risk of harsh punishment in that country. The answer to his final question is certainly no. The most important thing is that this is dealt with in a humane fashion. I hope that what I have said this afternoon, particularly to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, indicates that we are seeking that this should be done, although I must point out to the House that we have, as a British Government, no formal locus to intervene.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given the widespread concern about Mr. Vanunu's treatment in prison, particularly the fact that he has been in solitary confinement for so long, can the noble Baroness confirm whether he has been allowed visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other similar humanitarian organisations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I see no reason why he should not be allowed such visits. He has extensive visiting rights. As I said in answer to an earlier question, those have not always been taken up. However, I will check on the matter with the International Committee of the Red Cross because I do not have chapter and verse with which I can reply to the noble Baroness accurately from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, all elected assemblies can make mistakes and the European Parliament is, I am sure, no exception. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government do at least pay attention to and consider resolutions passed by the European Parliament, like the other 11 governments do?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. It is of course right that we note very carefully what the European Parliament says. My noble friend will remember from the period when I went regularly to the European Parliament to answer its questions that we take a good deal of notice
1184
of what it says. However, we do not always seek to do what it says we should do and nor do we always agree with it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is Mr. Vanunu's knowledge of military secrets the justification for this prolonged solitary confinement'? Is that argument not seriously eroded by the lapse of time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this really is a matter of what happened at the time, which was the revelation of sensitive military secrets. It is not for us to judge in retrospect that a decision reached by a court in Israel should be changed. I accept, as I stated earlier, that there is concern over such a long period of solitary confinement. That is why we hope that the petition lodged will have a better outcome than so far.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, although it is of course true that the Government have no special locus in this matter, is it not legitimate for those who are interested to take some comfort in the excellent knowledge of it displayed by the noble Baroness, given the fact that Mr. Vanunu was lured out of this country by subterfuge, apparently on the part of agents of the Israeli Government, and was then kidnapped in the capital of a Community country; namely, Italy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can add very little to what I have already said. There was no evidence that any UK law was broken at the time of Mr. Vanunu's departure from this country. I am not responsible, and nor are Her Majesty's Government, for what goes on in other European countries such as Italy but it is quite clear that anyone who engages in the revelation of secrets is bound to run the risk not only of discovery but also of being taken before the courts of that country and severely punished. It is a matter of note that many Israeli people were highly critical of Mr. Vanunu's action at the time and the Israeli authorities have said that one of the reasons why he has been held in solitary confinement up to now has been for his own protection.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lord, is the noble Baroness aware that she has given us some very good answers this afternoon? May I express the hope that, arising from what she has said, it will be unnecessary to raise this matter again?

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Dainton, Lord Flowers and Baroness Platt of Writtle be appointed to serve as members of the board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Forensic Science: Select Committee Report
3.37 p.m.
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Forensic Science (5th Report, 1992–93, HL Paper 24).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, every right thinking person has a hatred of injustice. Institutionalised injustice is even more repugnant. To many, whose main source of information are the mass media, it must have seemed that this was the case in some recent well-publicised miscarriages of justice, like the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, Judith Ward and John Preece cases and, moreover—this is the important point—that there was something seriously wrong with the forensic science services supported by public funds which were involved in those cases.
Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology was not immune to this widespread feeling and therefore decided to set up a subcommittee to inquire into forensic science and to consider whether there were lessons to be learnt in matters of organisation of the services, of maintenance of the highest professional standards and competence of those who work in these services, and how their findings might be clearly presented to a court of justice.
It is no exaggeration to say that at the outset of our inquiry members of the committee had very considerable doubts about the quality of publicly provided forensic science work, not least because in 1989 the Home Affairs Committee of another place had commented very adversely on the forensic science service which was then part of the Science and Technology Group of the Home Office Police Department, and the largest single forensic science organisation in the United Kingdom. That committee reported that for a variety of reasons morale was at rock bottom, that staff were being lost and that the service was unable to meet police demands.
The old Baconian maxim "If a man shall be content to begin in doubts he shall end in certainties" was a justification for our initial critical approach. It also reinforced our determination to make a thorough inquiry and was the mainspring of the pertinacity with which, according to some of our witnesses speaking outside the committee room, we conducted their interrogation. We also decided to produce what might be called an anatomy of the provision of forensic science services in the whole of the United Kingdom. The outcome is to be found in Appendix 3 of the report and was based on a questionnaire devised and analysed by Dr. Ian Harrison, our specialist adviser, to whom we are greatly indebted.
That appendix details expenditure which is running now at about £42 million per annum, which, incidentally, is only about 0.5 per cent. of the cost of the criminal justice system. There are slightly less than 1,000 staff. The appendix tells how the staff and money are used and how the staff workload and
1186
numbers have been changing in the 1980s. Because of the great variety of ownership of laboratories where forensic science is carried out, we visited two laboratories owned by the police—that is, the Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory and the Strathclyde police force forensic science laboratory. We also visited the Birmingham laboratory of the forensic science service which is one of the new Next Steps agencies; the Defence Research Agency forensic explosives division, and, as an example of a well-regarded foreign establishment, the Bundeskriminalamt—the Federal German Republic central forensic laboratories in Wiesbaden.
We also sought advice and opinion from overseas experts of the quality of British forensic science. Perhaps I may also add that since the report was published many helpful comments have been proffered by some of the laboratories, by the police, and by others too numerous for me to specify. Those views, for which I am indeed grateful, have coloured some of my comments this afternoon.
I cannot possibly do justice to all the evidence and conclusions in this short introductory speech. I hope that by their contributions, my colleagues on the committee will compensate for my shortcomings as they so often did during our inquiry and that they will fill in the numerous lacunae. Perhaps I may concentrate on the main thrust of our recommendations. The first point to acknowledge is that not only is British forensic science held in high regard by overseas experts, but it is also highly cost-effective. The simple fact that where the police are able to involve forensic science the clear-up rate of investigated crimes is twice the national average makes the point eloquently enough. In fact, it is more cost-effective than fingerprinting; not a point of which many people are aware.
That being so, it is obvious that in a period of rising crime it would be irresponsible to limit resources and so prevent forensic science making the contribution of which it is so obviously capable. In that context, I draw attention to the defendants who qualify for legal aid and who would be disadvantaged as the means limit decreases while the forensic science service, to which they theoretically now have access, increase its charges.
The next message is also one of reassurance. There has been a sea-change for the better in the forensic science service itself which is manifest in higher staff morale, better recruiting and management, as well as improved quality and control. We think that the chance of recurrence of lapses of the kind that occurred almost two decades ago are therefore very much reduced. Perhaps at this point I may remind your Lordships of a fact that seems to me is not fully recognised by the public; namely, that some of those lapses were detected by the control system then in operation in the forensic science service and that it was the forensic scientists themselves who showed that police evidence had been tampered with in, for instance, the well-known Silcott (sometimes known as the Tottenham Three) and the Birmingham Six cases, leading, as those discoveries did, to the acquittal of wrongly-convicted persons. In addition, of course,

1187
there are those cases which never come to court, and therefore not to public notice, because of forensic science findings which deter the police from introducing proceedings.
Nevertheless, despite those two, as it were, accolades there is still much to be done. The crucial issue is how to maintain the quality of work done at the highest possible level and that ultimately depends on two things: first, the technical competence, judgment and professional integrity of individual forensic scientists and, secondly, on the efficiency, tone and management of the laboratories within which they work. In relation to the maintenance of individual fitness to practise, we therefore lay very great emphasis on our recommendations on codes of practice and ethics; on job training; on the use of national vocational qualifications (or, in Scotland, the Scottish vocational qualifications) when those become fully available and which must provide, in our view, for regular reassessment of individuals—because each of us, as they say in the supermarkets, has his own sell-by date.
We regard it as essential that there should be a system of individual registration for each and every working forensic scientist. Registration would increase public confidence, assist the judicial process, encourage reputable private sector scientists, protect the public from what we call "cowboy operators" and complement those national vocational qualifications and what I shall refer to in a moment as the NAMAS system of laboratory accreditation.
We suggest how a small committee or government board could oversee that registration. That is referred to specifically although I have not time to go into its composition. As regards the second factor on the quality of a particular laboratory treated collectively, we recognise that that depends on the rigorous application of quality assurance systems where we support the common practice, as it now is, of inter-laboratory unseen testing. We see scope in due time for the publication of the results of such quality control tests by those laboratories who wish to do so—it is not a matter on which we would insist, because we are not particularly addicted to league tables in anything—and also on the accreditation of laboratories by an independent authority such as the National Measurement Accreditation Service, shorthanded in the trade as NAMAS, and which is now a part of the National Physical Laboratory.
All these conclusions seem to us to be self-evident. We have seen few signs of opposition to them from our witnesses, many of whose institutions were already moving along in these directions. Nevertheless, there are other actions which need to be taken if the judicial system is to derive the full benefit of what high quality forensic science has to offer. The first is that all necessary relevant samples from the scene of the crime should be collected. The recommendations in paragraph 3.32 of the report are designed to ensure that laboratories must show that they have an adequate degree of control of this process for if the input is faulty then the conclusions must also be faulty. Sometimes, of course, it is unavoidable that laboratory staff are not involved in the process of
1188
sampling. Then the actual people who collect the samples surely must be properly equipped and trained and the quality of their work subject to audit.
I now turn to the financial arrangements because existing United Kingdom forensic science laboratories fall into three distinct categories in their financial arrangements. There are, first, those like the Defence Research Agency Forensic Explosives Division which are not cash limited in any way. Secondly, there are those owned by police forces which give their laboratories a budget; for example in the Metropolis and in Scotland. Thirdly, there is also the Next Steps agency, the forensic science service, and a division of the laboratory of the Government Chemist called the forensic and customs division. Both charge for their services, and that is their source of revenue. The two last named bodies are content with those arrangements and the Director of the Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory, which is funded differently, fully appreciates the advantages which his two colleague institutions gain by direct charging. We accept that position.
However, we do see some difficulties connected with direct charging. In the first place, there is a growing competitive private sector, whose practising scientists, we consider, should be subject to registration but they will be unlikely to do any research and development work so their costs may well be lower. Secondly, in a period of rising crime, and therefore a period of rising demand for forensic science, the police authorities with limited financial resources may wish to apply restraints to the budgets of their laboratories. That would be counterproductive and, furthermore, despite the obvious risks, the police may be tempted to do what some of them do on occasions—that is, more forensic science work for themselves. In parenthesis, perhaps I should say that that has obvious dangers, but our recommendation in paragraph 4.14 would provide some kind of safeguard against inadequate quality when that has to be done. The police will certainly want to keep a tight rein on any R&D expenditure by their laboratories.
We therefore feel that the R&D work being undertaken now, which of course underpins the quality of future forensic science practice, may be at risk and that there is therefore a case for establishing a small central fund from which grants for research and development projects could be made to applicants of whatever affiliation; the criteria of selection for an award being simply excellence and the potential utility of the project. Such a scheme already operates very well for forensic pathology in this country and for forensic science in the Commonwealth of Australia. Furthermore, we also consider that an independently funded university-based R&D centre would ensure that strategic research in this field does not go by default. The existence of such a centre would also put down a marker for forensic science as a proper field of study for university work (it can scarcely be described as that now); it would enhance the attraction of able graduates to the profession and it could also be a source of independent advice to Ministers and to the courts in cases where forensic science evidence is

1189
crucial. We recognise that the last point is a matter on which the currently sitting Royal Commission on Criminal Justice may well have views.
In conclusion, I must remind your Lordships that at the end of the day, however good the actual forensic science work may be, its value to the court is that its nature and significance are fully comprehended especially by jurors who have to conclude whatever it is they conclude "beyond reasonable doubt"—that famous phrase. Here there are several matters over which the committee is uneasy. These are detailed separately in chapter 5. One is a recommendation that the law relating to the significance of evidence based on DNA profiling be clarified. The other comments are largely suggestions for consideration by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice whose report your Lordships will doubtless wish to debate when it is issued later this year. These comments relate to the desirability of pre-trial conferences; of pre-trial review by the judge when necessary; a mechanism for ensuring that the expert forensic science witness holds back nothing which is relevant, but which has not already been elicited by examination and cross-examination, and which he of his own knowledge thinks could make his testimony clearer. Lastly, we suggest that lawyers in training should be made aware of the power and limits of forensic science—and there are limits as well as powers. This is the simple and necessary counterpart of forensic scientists learning something about court procedures.
At this point I am tempted to conclude with those famous words, "I rest my case", but instead I should like to thank publicly the committee's Clerk, Mr. Andrew Makower, whose clarity of mind and prose was invaluable to, and the envy of, many members of the committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Forensic Science (5th Report, 1992–93, HL Paper 24).—(Lord Dainton.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, on behalf of the Select Committee on Science and Technology as a whole, for agreeing to chair the sub-committee which inquired into the present state of forensic science in this country. We were all relieved and delighted that he found himself able to lead us to such an agreeable conclusion. I congratulate him also on the admirable way in which he introduced the subject today.
Forensic science is a complicated subject, its boundaries dictated by its multifarious applications rather than by its intrinsic character. It is a mixture of biology, chemistry, physics, information technology and statistics, backed up, of course, by a great deal of specialised experience of dealing with crime. In the past, there have been grievous failings of organisation and of persons, partly perhaps because of its multi-disciplinary character, but the essential message of our report is that the country may now have confidence in its forensic science service. It is of high quality, and it may be relied upon. We hope that our
1190
report may assist the process of reform in which the service is now engaged and that reform will become a permanent feature of the service.
I should like to amplify just two points made by the noble Lord. The first concerns the nature of scientific evidence. At the outset we reached a concordat with the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice that we would not venture across the threshold of the courtroom door. We would concern ourselves with the laboratory bench rather than the witness box. I am glad to say that the Royal Commission seemed in no way displeased that we occasionally transgressed. The point is that the useful product of forensic science is evidence for the courts; so the laboratory bench and the witness box are not entirely separable in practice.
Nobody expects a scientific witness to be entitled to contravene in court the accepted rules of evidence. But the rules of evidence and the rules of scientific inference do not always sit happily together. It is clear that lawyers by and large do not understand the probabilistic nature of scientific findings. As the Government Chemist told us,
"The problems of getting across concepts of risk and uncertainty to courts, or indeed to the public at large, are very complicated and difficult".
At the end of the day, to quote words that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has already used, the jury has to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt". How can that be achieved in a case which hangs upon scientific evidence if neither the jurors nor the lawyers addressing them, including the judge perhaps, have any idea what scientific judgments consist of or how they are reached? It is a shocking indictment of our educational system.
I am glad to acknowledge that I know a few lawyers whose ability to grasp the essential nature of scientific discourse astonishes me as much as my ignorance of matters legal must dismay them—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is one of the most outstanding—but the evidence presented to the sub-committee leads me to suppose that they must comprise a very small minority. I have heard lawyers talk about "the balance of probabilities", but they seem to have something quite different in mind from me, something rather subjective. To a scientist, probability is objective: it is a number, calculated with a precision that may also be calculated.
For example, DNA profiling, or genetic fingerprinting as it is sometimes known, is a technique—a British technique at that, and immensely powerful—recently introduced into forensic science and taken up with great enthusiasm all over the world. It allows body samples from the scene of the crime and from a suspect to be compared in minute detail at the molecular level. If the samples do not match exactly, the suspect is eliminated. Forensic science has made an unheralded contribution to justice before the case has even come to court. If the samples match, there is still a certain probability that they come from different individuals. The molecular geneticist is able to calculate what that probability is and within what confidence limits that probability can be stated on the basis of the laboratory results.
Perhaps there is a probability of one in 10,000 that the samples come from different individuals. Does

1191
that put the matter beyond reasonable doubt, or not? There tends to be quite unreasonable argument about that. If only two or three people could have left the sample at the scene of the crime and none was an identical twin of the suspect, a scientist would say that it was beyond reasonable doubt. If several thousand could have done so, then it was not beyond reasonable doubt because in the simplest case one has to multiply the probability that another individual displays the same molecular pattern by the number of people possibly involved. That takes it into the very doubtful range. In either case, the scientist could make his statement more precise if the court so desired, but I have tried to describe the essence of the inference that must be drawn from the scientific evidence—entirely hypothetical in this instance.
It is of course right to question the measurements that were made and the inferences drawn from them. Recent cases at the Old Bailey, however, suggest that some judges regard the rules of scientific inference themselves as being open to argument. If they are, I venture to suggest that those rules will be neither refuted nor refined in the courts. That is truly a matter for the laboratory, not judicial, bench.
With regard to genetic fingerprinting itself, we recommended that the law should be clarified as soon as possible in close consultation with appropriate scientists, and we shall be interested to hear the Government's reaction to that. But more generally, we proposed to the Royal Commission, on whose toes we had so gently trodden, that certain steps be introduced into court procedure to lessen the disparity between the rules of evidence and the rules of scientific inference.
Specifically, we first recommended—the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned this—pre-trial conferences between counsel and their own forensic witnesses and, under the eye of the judge, between expert witnesses on both sides, to try to resolve, or at least define, essential disagreements about the interpretation of the scientific evidence. Nowadays, that is commonplace in inquiry tribunals. Bearing in mind the possibility that learned counsel may not always understand the forensic evidence, we recommended, secondly, that an expert witness should be invited by the judge to make a concluding statement before leaving the witness box in order to fulfil the terms of the oath sworn by the witness to tell the whole truth. We recommended, thirdly, that visual aids should be permitted, as appears to be increasingly the case in Scotland, because most scientists feel grossly disabled without them. The bludgeon that did the deed most foul is exhibited visually. Why not the scientific evidence also? Every teacher knows that a simple picture is worth a thousand learned words. And, lastly, we recommended that forensic science should feature in a lawyer's training, much as legal procedure is required in the training of a forensic scientist.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, upon which I wish to comment briefly, is the need for a certain capacity for research and development in forensic science. It is perfectly true that the service can and does draw heavily upon
1192
research conducted elsewhere. DNA profiling, for instance, was invented at the University of Leicester. As a result, much of its own R&D, although of good quality, tends towards development rather than research. We believed that it is important that the service should itself have the capacity to pursue original research into areas which seem to its practitioners most likely to lead to new forensic applications.
There are nowadays great pressures on the forensic science services which may lead them to cut back on research in favour of service. They have to pay their way. Industry in recession exhibits similar tendencies. We should therefore like to see a certain capacity for research ring-fenced in the budgets for the forensic science services; perhaps a small central fund which could be distributed to forensic laboratories according to the merit of proposals made to it. We do not say much about it in our report, but it is a serious point. We should like to know the Government's attitude to it.
That is not, however, sufficient. We should also like to see the creation of a small but independent research institute for forensic science at a suitable university. Personally, I believe that it should be at a university at which forensic pathology is also strongly represented. There is much in common between the two, at least in motivation. It is possible that the Government have been advised that that is the least persuasive of our recommendations. In my experience, establishment laboratories always advise thus. After all, if the forensic services themselves can both perform and sponsor research, why should there be a need for anyone else to have independent initiative? And, in particular, why should their budgets be reduced and their jobs lost in order to pay for it?
I hope that the Government believe in competition as much as I do. Competition in research, at any rate, is essential. It is an indispensable element of the progress of any branch of science. Nevertheless, it requires sponsorship, and in this case it is difficult to see who else but the Government would provide for it. The presence of a forensic research institute at a reputable university has implications far beyond its remit to pursue independent research. It carries with it the unmistakable message that forensic science is a subject worthy of the attention of some of the finest scientific minds. Justice deserves no less.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the foreword written by our most expert and efficient chairman the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, sums up, as he also emphasised in his speech this afternoon, the unique nature of the study by the Select Committee. When we started we were very aware of the faults exhibited in the past by the forensic science service. As we define:
"The task of forensic science is to serve the interests of justice",
and we were aware of significant failures in that respect during a period of years. We were, therefore, expecting that the emphasis in our recommendations would lie in strengthening safeguards so that those

1193
miscarriages of justice should not occur again. In the light of the increase in violent crime that formed in our minds a rather dismal prospect.
It is always a pleasant surprise to find that one's worst fears are not realised and that the situation is much better than expected. As we took evidence and visited the various laboratories of the forensic science service it became clear that people with strength of character determined to effect improvements were in charge and that the service had taken itself in hand to do all that it could to prevent a repetition of past failures.
The past few years have seen great changes in the service in many respects. The Home Office forensic science service has become an executive agency funded by charging both the police and other users, including the defendants. In the development of a more market-oriented approach a private sector is developing in competition. The Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory is still operated under the auspices of the police but can now also carry out defence work and charge for it. It gave evidence that it was "demand led and resource limited" and would welcome greater independence, which it felt would lead to better service delivery and value for money. That view is not shared by the Metropolitan Police force. We have not come down on one side or the other as the situation is finely balanced, but have recommended that the Home Secretary, and the Secretary of State in the parallel Scottish service, should review the situation.
The recruitment and retention of forensic scientists does not seem to be a problem according to the evidence which we received. Potential forensic scientists need a variety of initial disciplines when they first enter the service. Chemistry, physics, biology, photography and so forth at various levels of qualification may constitute individual entry qualifications at the beginning. Some may come with actual forensic science qualifications from Strathclyde or London universities but those are by no means the only or the desired entry routes.
Clearly, as well as theoretical knowledge, practical experience in the forensic service under the supervision of experienced officers during a period of years must be essential to provide the broad knowledge necessary for an expert witness giving evidence in court under cross-examination. Those witnesses need to have been capable of in-depth self-criticism during the whole period of their investigation of a particular case and able to withdraw from a tempting conclusion where contradictory evidence begins to build up. That demands a strong sense of personal integrity as well.
We were very impressed by the emphasis on quality assurance, on the insistence on audit and corroboration by other forensic scientists and by the clear lead given from the top of the service in staff proficiency testing, the provision of in-service training and the up-dating of staff so that they can take advantage of progress in scientific diagnosis and interaction between different disciplines. Clearly, too, the more market-oriented approach, which includes advising
1194
the defence as well as the prosecution, leads to a more objective service and reduces any tendency towards seeking a prosecution above everything. Perhaps the latter approach had been the cause of some of the earlier miscarriages of justice, and has lead to today's very much greater emphasis on objectivity, impartiality and self-criticism.
That part of our investigation is perhaps the most important in our aim of seeing forensic science serving justice above everything and has led to a whole cluster of recommendations. We welcome the involvement of NAMAS in accrediting testing and look to its being involved in the sampling process as well. We recommend the registration of all forensic scientists at professional and technician levels in the same way as my own profession of engineering, which will certify the acquisition of both academic and practical knowledge and experience during a period of years. That must cover the public service and private practice and the police officers involved in acquiring and interpreting evidence so that there is no temptation to use cheaper, unqualified or less objective sources of investigation. Clearly NVQs will assist the registration in assessment of competence. All this insistence on high standards, validation, audit of methods of investigation and standards of interpretation will lead to a better quality of service which will stand up more strongly in court to the credit of the forensic science service as a whole, which it must have in future years to show a clear and excellent public image.
Another of our recommendations is concerned with the need for lawyers to be given a more scientific basis in their training, as was mentioned by other noble Lords today, so that they are better able to tease out both the weaknesses and the strengths of scientific evidence. Science and technology become more and more complex as the years go by. The interaction of different specialisms and judgment of degrees of uncertainty become more important. Lawyers need to understand in greater depth so that their questions can target the problems and uncertainties more accurately.
We also make recommendations on pre-trial conferences and review so that uncertainties and hypotheses can be explored beforehand and expert witnesses can be alerted to the need for the requisite in-depth information and not surprised in the witness box. They may also need to make a final statement of their own to clarify an area of evidence in which they have not been questioned in sufficient depth so that they may clearly have fulfilled their oaths.
As a former chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission I am always interested in seeing that professional women with scarce skills should have the opportunity of pursuing their careers to positions of responsibility and combining them with happy and responsible family life. I met some of these highly talented women whose skills are much appreciated by their male colleagues. Their skills represent costly public and private investment and must be retained to the benefit of the service. Flexible working arrangements are already in place in some cases but our committee recommends their further sympathetic

1195
consideration by senior management so that these talented women are retained in the service throughout their careers.
I should like to finish by thanking our chairman for his hard work and determination to achieve recommendations which, if put into action, will contribute to an even better forensic science service in the future, building further on the excellent foundations which it has created during the past few years.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I too was a member of the committee looking at the forensic science service and I greatly enjoyed the experience under the admirable chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. Like other members of the committee, I too began the inquiry some 12 months ago on the assumption that the forensic science service was in considerable difficulties. First, I assumed that the highly publicised cases of poor science or incompetence would have produced a service in disarray or demoralised. Secondly, it had been widely reported that the move to agency status was producing distortions and reductions in the provision of forensic science support for the police service due to cash limited budgets. I also assumed that a centralised agency based on commercial principles would be less accessible to the defence, especially as the costs might be prohibitively high. In fact, as has already been said, we found a highly motivated and increasingly efficient organisation which applies rigorous standards of science.
Nevertheless, there was in my view some complacency in the service about its image and a reluctance to accept that that might have been tarnished by the actions of some individual forensic scientists. In the service they know that the sloppiness and errors are many years in the past, but perhaps they should do more to convey that reality to the media and the public at large.
There are two particular areas which I should like to address. First, there is a problem for the defence in having adequate access to forensic science facilities. Secondly—and this has already been addressed by other members of the committee—there is a related problem; namely, a philosophical clash between science and our adversarial system of law.
The initial problem for the defence is that most forensic evidence is collected at the scene of the crime on behalf of the prosecution at the time that the crime is reported to the police. However, a suspect may not be arrested for many hours, days or weeks and, even then, he may not be legally represented initially. Therefore, there is a long time lag in which the defence must try to catch up on the need to collect forensic evidence. At that late stage, the defence can rarely collect anything additional in the way of scientific evidence.
The forensic science service will carry out additional tests for the defence but it will be at a cost which may be beyond the reach of legal aid and those
1196
tests can generally only be conducted on samples of blood or fibre already collected on behalf of the prosecution.
Science should be neutral and objective, but within our adversarial system of justice scientists are called as witnesses by either the prosecution or the defence. Therefore, they are inevitably seen as partial to one side or the other. That is poor science and it does little to serve the cause of justice.
That leads on to the second issue which is the philosophical clash, which has already been eloquently addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, between science, which deals in tentative conclusions based on probabilities, and a judicial system which claims to deal in certainties and guilt or innocence. Since science proceeds on a basis of probabilities, in the mind of the layman there will always be some degree of uncertainty as regards the evidence presented by scientists in court. That can be readily exploited by defence lawyers who can make the forensic scientist appear to prevaricate or to be in doubt about his or her findings because of a reluctance to give a completely categorical answer.
Moreover, the adversarial system forces both prosecution and defence to attack each other's witnesses, highlighting minor points of difference between them rather than stressing large areas of common ground. Particularly in jury trials, that may so confuse the issues that the whole of the scientific evidence is placed in doubt. I believe that in many respects we are not well served by our adversarial judicial system which, like our parliamentary system, exaggerates conflicts and dogma at the expense of reality. That is a matter for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which will report soon.
As has already been said by other members of the committee, the report makes various recommendations which we hope may reduce the conflict and misunderstanding as regards scientific evidence. First, we suggest that barristers should meet with their own scientific witnesses before the trial to ensure that they understand the scientific evidence. Secondly, we suggest that where scientific evidence is likely to be disputed, counsel and scientists from both sides should meet before the trial to agree common ground and to resolve or reduce differences of opinion. That would be a radical departure for English law, but the more that scientific evidence can be extracted from the gladiatorial atmosphere of the court room, the more likely it is that forensic scientists will be able to maintain scientific impartiality.
Professional standards are inevitably threatened when witnesses are subjected to hostile cross-examination which force them to be over-categorical or less certain than they deserve. Neither outcome is good for science or the criminal justice system.
To reduce those possible consequences of forceful cross-examination, we recommend further that an expert witness should be allowed to make a concluding statement before leaving the witness box to clear up any possible misunderstanding of what he or she has said. Our two final recommendations about the role of the forensic scientist as a witness attempt to close that cultural gap between law and science. Thus,

1197
we recommend, first, that forensic scientists should be allowed to use visual aids to explain their points more clearly. That is a facility which would often be welcome in this House. Secondly, we recommend that forensic science should feature in the training of all solicitors and barristers.
In summary, this was a fascinating study during which we received a reassuring response to our initial anxieties, but which led us on to examine other problems which are more deeply rooted in our judicial system and, consequently, much harder to resolve.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it was a privilege to have been able to serve on the Select Committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Dainton and so ably served by our specialist adviser and Clerk. Forensic medicine and forensic science, sister professions in this country, have a very long and proud record. Indeed, many years ago, long before I even became a medical student, the name of Sir Bernard Spilsbury was well known to me. In my study of medicine names like those of Keith Simpson, Francis Camps and others were constantly, through the evidence that they gave in court in forensic cases, brought to our attention.
Despite the cloud that was cast over the forensic science service in this country a few years ago, there is no doubt that the science stands high in international regard. Indeed, many of the major developments in forensic science have been based upon research carried out in the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Flowers mentioned Professor Alec Jeffreys from the University of Leicester and his introduction of DNA fingerprinting and profiling.
The responsibilities of forensic medicine and science overlap at many points. For example, police surgeons are concerned particularly with the examination of the living. They examine victims of alleged assault, child abuse and rape and are even involved sometimes in examining, with permission, the alleged assailant. Once diligent amateurs, they have become increasingly skilled and are now well trained professionals. The same applies to those doctors in pathology who are on the Home Office approved list as forensic pathologists. Of course, they are more concerned with examination of dead bodies and with fluids and tissues derived from cadavers, but in the sciences of serology and toxicology, examinations of the living and the dead overlap.
Each of those branches of the medical profession working in forensic medicine could not carry out their responsibilities or fulfil their duties without a very clear overlap with the forensic scientist. The doctors concerned provide samples of blood, body fluids, skin and tissues for study by forensic scientists. As has been said and as is clearly set out in the report, an enormous range of physical, chemical, molecular, biological and other techniques are used. Of course, one must not forget the many other disciplines which exercise the minds of the forensic scientists; namely, the study of
1198
weapons, ballistics, document examination, photography, examination of handwriting and analysis and a great many more.
As has been said, the errors of the 1970s clouded the reputation of forensic science in this country. We were entirely satisfied in our inquiries that that is a thing of the past and that the quality of the service provided both by the forensic science service, now the agency, and by the police laboratories in the metropolitan areas and Scotland is uniformly high, with quality assurance and audit of procedures widely and increasingly practised.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and other noble Lords have made clear, we had some anxieties. First, it is clear that those with science degrees entering the forensic science service, whether in the agency or the police laboratories, receive some in-house training, but there is no system as yet of compulsory registration. And there is no statutory requirement that such a scientist should be required to undertake a statutory programme of training before being able to give evidence in court. In other words, we favour strongly the proposal not only that there should be registration of forensic scientists but that that should be preceded by a period of pre-registration training of those scientists entering the service. That is obviously a task which we believe should be properly looked at by the Home Office introducing a method of registration not dissimilar to that which it uses in recognising forensic pathologists. It is one of the recommendations about which the sub-committee felt most strongly.
Secondly, it was clear that the forensic science service as an agency is functioning well. There was no evidence in the information that we received from our witnesses to suggest that short cuts were being taken for financial reasons. However, an anxiety was expressed by our police witnesses and others that, with budgetary restraints, there was at least a possibility that investigations which the police and others thought very necessary or important might not be handed on to the forensic science service for financial reasons. At present, that is just a prospect which we believe could arise. There was no evidence to show that it has yet arisen. Nevertheless, it was argued that there should be careful monitoring of the situation to make certain that good science is not restricted by budgetary restraints.
We heard evidence that the Metropolitan Police and Scottish laboratories were giving an outstandingly good service and that they are now carrying out some work for the defence to a far greater extent than was done in the past as, indeed, they are for the prosecution. All the evidence we heard suggested that they were even handed in not favouring either side and that, as should be the case, the results of their investigations were handled with total scientific objectivity.
Another important reason why we feel that the registration process in forensic science is a crucial requirement for the future is the growing private sector, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred. It is vitally important that those in the private sector, many of whom will obviously work

1199
more for the defence than for the prosecution, should be seen to he well trained and that the standards of practice and science which they deploy should be as good as those in the agency and in the police laboratories.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said, we make no final recommendation about whether it is right for the police to continue to fund the metropolitan laboratories and those in Scotland. On the face of it, as they are an arm of the police there is at least a possibility that they might be seen in some quarters as being the arm of the prosecution rather than the defence. The possibility that those laboratories might ultimately achieve agency status and independence from the police is one that I think we considered but upon which we made no formal recommendation, although we believe that it is an issue that the Home Office should certainly examine.
I do not wish to repeat the eloquent arguments so well presented by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, about the interface with the law and the statistical analysis of evidence. We all recognise that lawyers are very familiar in civil cases with the balance of probabilities and in criminal cases with the decision that a fact must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It therefore came as a surprise to some of us to learn that, despite the remarkable accuracy of DNA fingerprinting, this type of work and the results of such studies relating to identification of individuals had been challenged in certain court cases of late when it seemed to us, at least as scientists, that those facts were beyond all reasonable doubt on a purely statistical basis.
Many doctors appearing in court as expert witnesses have been compelled to learn legal concepts. Indeed, medical students are now required in their training to learn about the legal and ethical responsibilities of the medical profession. We were also greatly reassured to learn that forensic scientists all receive in-house training and some training in legal concepts in the course of their work. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said that some barristers and judges had demonstrated a quite remarkable ability to grasp difficult scientific and medical concepts. But we believe that there is evidence to suggest that some barristers have not, as yet, been able to acquire the scientific knowledge to enable them to deploy it appropriately and to analyse it in the presentation of the cases in which they are involved. It therefore becomes even more important that forensic scientists, all too often required to answer "yes" or "no" to a question in court which does not really lend itself to being answered by a direct positive or negative, should have the opportunity to make a closing statement in which they can at least amplify and expand upon the scientific evidence and concepts that they are trying to put across.
I cannot say how much I agree with the proposals that have been made about having pre-trial conferences, especially if there is a dispute about the forensic evidence, where the scientists on both sides can meet with counsel and perhaps at times even in front of a judge in an attempt to achieve a resolution of scientific evidence before the case ever comes to
1200
court. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, we also feel that there is a great need for research funds to be set aside and to have something like the small grants scheme for research in forensic science comparable to that, for example, in the Department of Health with its small grants for research which can be applied for in open competition.
The idea of having an institute in a university which would be research based but which might also provide independent arbitrators where there is a dispute on forensic issues is one which greatly appeals to us. Many years ago when I worked in Newcastle, I recall being invited by the National Coal Board (as it then was) and by the National Union of Mineworkers to make a report on a case where civil damages were being claimed because of alleged neurological damage caused by injury. I was asked to give a report which would be binding on both parties. I believe that there is a case for that kind of pre-trial study to be used more often.
Having read the report and having heard the speeches made today, I believe that your Lordships will agree that Her Majesty's Government and the public can be reassured that, while in every service and in every city errors will always be inevitable, the quality of British forensic science now stands high both nationally and in international terms and that the major miscarriages of justice that occurred in the past are very unlikely to be repeated.
Our view is that no radical revision in the service is needed. But we have certainly recommended some fine tuning and made a number of proposals for change which are relatively modest, certainly inexpensive, but nevertheless important and significant. I trust that they will commend themselves to Her Majesty's Government.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, as the first speaker in the debate who is not a member of the sub-committee which produced the report that we are discussing, perhaps I should begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for providing the House with the opportunity to consider a topic which is particularly important at present. I congratulate him and his colleagues on producing such a challenging and informative report.
By way of introduction, I point out, first, that my comments relate mainly to the arrangements in England and Wales as my knowledge of Scotland and Northern Ireland is rather sparse. Secondly, bearing in mind the review of the police service now being conducted within the Home Office, it is perhaps interesting to note that the forensic science service which is at the heart of the debate came out of a review of policing in England and Wales which took place some 60 years ago. It took the form of a departmental committee and sat for just over five years. When one considers that its task was confined to inquiring solely into the organisation and procedure of the police for the purpose of detection of crime, perhaps one could be forgiven for thinking that it must have been somewhat more comprehensive than the current one.

1201
Be that as it may, building on action which had already been taken by the Home Office as a result of an earlier inquiry, the 1930s committee recommended the establishment of a number of laboratories set up on a regional basis, each serving a group of police forces, of which at that time there were no fewer than 183. Many were far too small, of course, to sustain a laboratory of their own. The laboratories were to be run by the Home Office independently of the police but they were funded jointly by the Home Office and the relevant police authorities. At the same time they were to work in direct association with each force that they served. Their function was to apply science as an aid to the police in the investigation of crime generally. That applied quite as much to day-to-day offences such as house breaking, burglary and theft as to murders, robbery and sexual offences. They helped the police to develop new lines of inquiry as a result of the examination of what were perhaps previously unrecognised clues and traces left at the scene of crime.
This formula was adopted by the Home Office and the staffs in the new laboratories became valued members of the police investigative teams. That relationship is clearly described in the comments of the Metropolitan Police at paragraph 4.18 of the Select Committee's report. Very little was said at that time, however, about forensic science evidence. In the absence of direct witnesses of an offence, prosecutions continued to be based very largely on confession evidence. Fundamentally that is still the organisation that we have today, save that the laboratories, the number of which in England and Wales has not changed, are larger and better equipped and are run as an executive agency within the Home Office rather than directly by the department. They are funded directly by the users as opposed to a per capita charge under the previous arrangement.
The potential demand for their services, however, is quite different. The 1930s committee considered that eventually the laboratories would be involved in the investigation of up to 4 per cent. of all reported crime, giving an anticipated case load at that time of 10,000 or so per annum. By 1991, however, the annual crime figure had risen from 266,265 offences to 5,276,000 offences, giving a case load for the laboratories of 211,048 per annum if the committee's predictions had proved accurate. In fact the case load in 1991 was 35,909, excluding 29,869 driving under the influence cases and 12,839 drugs cases which did not appear at all in the original calculations. This amounts to only 0.6 per cent. of all recorded crime. For example, of the 1,219,000 offences of burglary which were reported in 1991, all of which have a potential for scientific evidence, the laboratories assisted in only 4,700 cases.
More importantly, the increasing unwillingness of members of the public to present themselves as witnesses; the now often proven weakness of visual identification evidence and the growing suspicion of confession evidence have led to forensic science evidence becoming much more important. Should the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommend that all confession evidence should be corroborated,
1202
as is being suggested, forensic science evidence may well become even more important. Added to this, the laboratories now hold themselves out to do work equally for the defence as for the police and prosecution service. However, a recent Home Office research study produced for the Royal Commission seems to indicate that at least for the time being defence lawyers are likely to prefer the growing private market place.
Your Lordships may agree that all this indicates a large suppressed demand which the existing laboratories could not possibly meet. Paragraph 2.13 of the Select Committee's report graphically illustrates the selection which is already being made at the Metropolitan Police laboratory and earlier paragraphs discuss the delays which now occur on occasions in processing exhibits through the laboratory system. If this analysis is correct, it would seem to raise a number of questions. First, should additional laboratories be set up, or should the 42,708 drink and drug cases be hived-off elsewhere so leaving the laboratories to concentrate on their original task of dealing with crime?
Secondly, now that we have only 43 forces instead of 183—it is being suggested that that number might become still smaller—should some of the larger ones be allowed to emulate the Metropolitan Police which has its own laboratory? If not, how can the Home Secretary justify different arrangements for his force as opposed to the other 42?
Thirdly, in any case should it now be accepted that, should they wish to do so, individual forces might at least be allowed to undertake elimination work such as that described in paragraph 4.9(c) of the report? This again would reduce the work of the laboratories but would also save the high cost of transporting everything, sometimes quite fruitlessly and often over long distances, from the scene of the crime to the laboratory bench with the attendant problems of continuity and safeguarding from contamination. Such a step would also enable forces to have scientific advice available at local level as clearly laboratory staff are only able to visit the scenes of very serious crimes such as explosions and murders. One would never expect them to visit the scene of a house break-in. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the current Home Office review of forensic science—I understand that such a review is being conducted—is considering any of these points.
I appreciate that the implications of the points that I have made are considerable as they would affect funding. That is a matter of considerable difficulty and it has already been addressed by previous speakers. However, it seems that were we to increase funding for forensic science, at the present moment at any rate, other aspects of policing would have to be cut back. My points also have considerable implications for quality assurance. I would certainly support the committee's recommendations regarding laboratory accreditation and individual registration of all forensic scientists.
The matter of sampling was referred to by the committee at paragraph 3.32 of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, specifically drew attention to

1203
that matter in his speech today. Currently this is undertaken by force scenes of crime officers under the control of the chief constable. I see no logical alternative either now or in the future to that arrangement. Their training, however, is now comprehensive and is nationally organised. It can lead to a diploma in scientific support skills issued by Durham University. I believe that that diploma is more relevant to the scenes of crime officers than the NVQs which are thought to be more relevant to laboratory technicians. It should therefore not be difficult to monitor the skills, the equipment used and the activities of those who take samples at scenes of crime.
Clearly we shall hear much more about this topic in the months ahead. It is right that we should acknowledge the valuable contribution to the debate made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his colleagues. Whatever changes may be introduced however, I would hope that they would not make the work of the police and the prosecution services more difficult. It goes without saying, of course, that the acquittal of a guilty person is just as much a miscarriage of justice as the conviction of an innocent one.
4.49 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join with all other noble Lords who have spoken, and I am sure with all Members of your Lordships' House, in expressing admiration and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his colleagues for the work they have done in producing this report. The noble Lord referred in his opening speech to the thorough review which had been undertaken and the pertinacity with which it had been undertaken. I echo those remarks. It must have been particularly difficult in view of the fact that there is no such thing as forensic science. There are a large number of different scientific or technical disciplines which are related to forensic matters, but they do not form a study which is called forensic science. There are forensic physicists, forensic chemists, forensic biologists, forensic photographers, forensic information technologists, and so on. There is no such thing as a forensic scientist. That must make a difference to the way in which we consider the views of the committee.
I agree with a large number of the conclusions and recommendations of the committee. However, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walton, refer to them as being largely modest and inexpensive. I hope that it is not the job of committees in your Lordships' House to confine themselves to modest and inexpensive recommendations.
I support the thrust of the committee's concern with training and registration and with quality assurance and standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, rightly said, it is not merely a question of training scientists in understanding the law. It is also a question of training lawyers in understanding science, because the disciplines are very different in outlook as well as in the content of the training which is undertaken.
1204
In particular, I wish to express my support for the thrust of the committee's recommendation in favour of individual registration of those engaged in the forensic sciences—which is probably the simplest way to refer to the subject without over-simplification—in addition to the laboratory accreditation which is undertaken by NAMAS. However, accreditation should not be confined to the individuals who work in laboratories. It must apply to everybody who takes part in the whole process of forensic scientific activity from the time of the crime right up to the time of the verdict. Therefore, I suggest that it should include scene-of-the-crime officers in police forces as well as those employed by laboratories, whether public or private laboratories.
From the depths of his experience the noble Lord, Lord Knights, suggested that the diplomas which are awarded by the University of Durham on a national basis within the police force would be more appropriate than NVQs or SVQs for that purpose. I am not sure that I agree with him. I believe that NVQs and SVQs will prove more flexible and less restricted to laboratory activities than the noble Lord seemed to think. Nevertheless, the point is a valid one. Unless there is control right from the very beginning through to the very end registration will not be meaningful.
Registration will not mean examination in a particular scientific discipline. As has been made clear, the variety of scientific disciplines makes that impossible. Registration means a common adherence to codes of practice. That is certainly the case in my own business of market and survey research in which we come from all sorts of academic, scientific and non-scientific disciplines. What we have in common is adherence to a code of practice and codes of conduct which govern our activities. We can be expelled from our trade—I shall not dignify it by the name of profession—if we fail to adhere to those codes of practice. I hope that that is what is intended here.
I very much agree with the suggestion that there should be a ring-fenced capacity for research and development. When the bulk of activity in the forensic sciences is undertaken by either an executive agency which is paid for largely by the police forces or, as in Scotland, Northern Ireland and London, by the police force directly, it is impossible for the forensic scientists to undertake the research and development activity unless they are specifically enjoined to do so or enjoined to contribute to such work being done in other places such as academic institutions.
I agree very strongly with the committee's recommendations aimed at reducing misunderstandings between forensic scientists and lawyers and the courts as a whole. I agree in particular with the suggestion that there should be greater use of pre-trial conferences and visual aids. For that to become effective, defence counsel would have to be appointed earlier than they are in many criminal cases. Recent research for the Royal Commission showed that 30 per cent. of defence counsel were appointed only the night before the trial took place. That raises the issue of the division within the legal profession between solicitors and barristers and the right of the Crown Prosecution Service and solicitors to plead in the

1205
Crown Courts. That is beyond the subject of the debate today but, clearly, unless that matter is also put right the possibility of pre-trial conferences is severely reduced.
Although it is not an explicit recommendation of the committee, I also believe that there should be some form of independent watch-dog, as was recommended by a number of witnesses to the committee, along the lines of the General Medical Council or the Police Complaints Authority, to take the most obvious and nearest examples.
Yet I have doubts about the report and it is only right that I should express them. I realise now that my doubts arise from the concordat which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, described as having been reached at an early stage in the committee's proceedings between the committee and the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The noble Lord said that it had been agreed between the two that the Royal Commission would not venture into the laboratory and the committee would not venture into the court room. However, if we are concerned with the quality and effectiveness of forensic sciences as a whole we must surely be concerned not only with the quality of the work in the laboratories but also with the way in which that work is used. That is the area where the committee's report fails to meet the high standards which it set for itself and which it achieved in its consideration of laboratory quality.
If I did not do so at the beginning I should like to make it clear now that I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the committee's conclusion that the problems which were identified in the 1970s with the quality of work in forensic science laboratories have largely been addressed both by management and by the individual forensic scientists concerned. I have no reason to doubt that the committee carried out a thorough investigation and felt justified in being satisfied with its conclusions.
When we turn to the use of forensic scientists we must be concerned not just with training but with the whole process from the time of the crime to the time of the verdict. We must be concerned with the relationship between forensic scientists and those who pay for their work. Again, I have no doubt whatsoever that the work of the forensic scientists is fully justified on a value-for-money basis. The report states that total expenditure on forensic science in this country is of the order of £42 million. I have seen in another report that the cost of a day in the Crown Court (and this figure must exclude lawyers) is £7,000. That means that if the forensic science services save only 5,000 Crown Court days per year they already pay for themselves. I am sure that they are saving a great deal more than that and are providing many more intangible benefits to the quality of justice in this country.
However, we must doubt whether the change to agency status, and to the charging system which has been implied by agency status, solves the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, made this clear when he emphasised the problem of suppressed demand for forensic science services. If we consider those services
1206
which are still provided on a per capita basis, such as the Metropolitan Police laboratory and the laboratories in Scotland and Northern Ireland, there is severe under-provision of services. There are severe delays in the provision of forensic science evidence. Yet when we consider the forensic science service, the executive agency, it appears—I emphasise that word—that the problem has been overcome and that it is now able to provide a much more immediate service. That cannot be a reflection of reality. In truth that must mean that the charging system of the forensic science service is suppressing demand; and that it is doing so because police forces have to pay not only for each hour of a forensic scientist's time but also for each item submitted for examination.
We ought to reflect on that factor. A number of expert witnesses to the committee made this point clear. There must be the temptation to reduce the number of exhibits presented for scientific examination. If we accept that the essence of science is the possibility of the examination of alternative hypotheses—and I shall not get into Popperian qualifications on that—clearly the charging system of an executive agency damages the possibility of that examination being undertaken.
It must be the concordat which led to the curious restraints that the committee set on its work. It must be because of the concordat that the committee never refers to the fact that Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, produced in 1991 a report on science and the administration of justice. It must be that factor which led to the, to me, astounding fact that Justice did not give evidence to the committee. If it was asked, I cannot understand why it did not agree to do so; or, if it was not asked, why not. I should have thought that the eminent lawyers and others who took part in the Justice report would have had useful things to say.
I suppose that it is an accident of timing that the research study for the Home Office for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which is highly relevant to the work of the committee, was not produced in time to be reflected in the committee's considerations. However, if the House will permit me, I ought to read the most important paragraph from the Summary and Conclusions of that research study. It states:
"Forensic experts are in a subordinate or reactive position relative to the prosecution agencies who instruct them. Essentially, they are asked to conduct tests which will support or refute an investigative hypothesis. Scientists depend upon prosecution agencies to supply them with exhibits for analysis and information to guide their scientific investigations. In some cases the submission of items to the laboratory has been too selective, and recent changes in the arrangements for payment for forensic science services could induce greater selectivity. The danger is that forensic science evidence will reflect this selective approach to submission by the police, rather than giving a fair impression of the strength of the case against the defendant. Some FSS scientists attempt to mitigate these difficulties by attending scenes of crime and by requesting additional exhibits as they consider appropriate. But their customer/contractor relationship with the police limits their freedom to define the ambit of their investigations".
That paragraph largely expresses the worries that I have. Whatever improvements there have been in the quality of work in forensic science laboratories, we

1207
have to consider the fundamental issue of the relationship between forensic scientists and their customers—the customer/contractor relationship. Severe problems may still remain in the use of science in our judicial system. It is welcome to know that laboratory standards have improved. However, the institutional framework in which those laboratory standards work has not been improved by agency status. It would have been enormously helpful if the committee had not felt it necessary to refrain from making recommendations on that point.
5.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for the opportunity to debate his committee's report on forensic science. It is a specific subject with which not everyone inside your Lordships' House or outside it is familiar. However, the committee has turned the spotlight on to what one might call in broad terms this peculiar and important subject. Certainly the members of the committee, as they have shown today by their contributions, will now be very much more familiar with the subject than they were at the beginning of their researches.
The Government welcome the report. We are grateful to the committee for the thoroughness with which it has gone into the subject. I am sure that that is apparent to all those who have listened to today's debate. I thought that the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was a little hard. I do not see how the committee could have gone much further than it did since the Royal Commission is at present sitting. Of course it is always difficult to get the balance right. I believe that the committee did so.
The report is a valuable document in its own right, but it will be undoubtedly of great assistance to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice to which many of the recommendations are directed. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, referred to the fact that they had believed that the forensic science service was in a parlous state for a variety of historical reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to it as a cloud that was hanging over the forensic science service. I was glad that they did not find it to be the case when they began their investigations. At least whatever cloud did exist has now gone.
I was glad that my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle said that she found that people with strength of character and determination were in charge. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, stated that she found a highly efficient service which applied rigorous standards of science. Those were generous comments. If I may say so, they accord with my own view.
The Government are delighted that the committee has highlighted the fact that the quality of forensic science is high and is rising, and has recognised that forensic science has a great deal to offer to the criminal justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has reinforced that view today. The Government were also pleased that the committee considered that forensic
1208
science is highly cost effective—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised that point too—and that it is crucial both to investigation and to the judicial process.
With all his experience as a distinguished member of the police service in former times, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, gave the figures relating to the small part of recorded crime which involves the use of the forensic science service. That factor is true, but the cases in which the forensic science service is involved tend to be the worst ones. It is also true to say that in earlier years many less serious cases were also dealt with by forensic laboratories which do not undertake such cases now.
On defence work, to which the noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred, the cases for the defence which are done by the forensic science service increased by no less than 40 per cent. between the periods 1991–92 and 1992–93—which is a very considerable jump. The fact that three of the providers of forensic science—the forensic science service, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the Defence Research Agency—are already executive agencies has done much to improve the value for money which the services give. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not agree; I think we have to accept that we disagree on the point. I believe that it has proved to be a very considerable step towards even greater value for money.
Those organisations have made great strides in endeavouring to provide a high quality of management. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, that high quality of management is extremely important, as is high quality of work. The committee's recommendations, particularly where they encourage accreditation and the development of national vocational qualifications, reinforce that view. The committee recommends that the use of the forensic science service should be allowed, and encouraged, to grow. I fully endorse that and I am sure that the forensic science service organisations are in a position to do so.
Of course, the police play an important role in all this—as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, will know only too well—especially when they have to decide whether or not to use forensic science in the processes of investigation. As the police become increasingly responsible for the management of their own budgets, they will have the proper freedom to make full use of forensic science where they deem it appropriate.
National vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications will play a large part in the setting of standards for forensic science evidence in court. That challenge will have to be met by any private sector organisation which wishes to achieve public recognition for the standards of its work.
Public sector organisations—and that includes the forensic science service—will have to respond to changes in demand; and forensic science will have to find its own level within the range of investigative processes which are now open to the police. The way in which forensic science is used in court, and the number of agencies which conduct work for the defence, is also of considerable importance.

1209
I welcome the committee's comments on national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications, to which my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle referred. We shall draw them to the attention of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications which will undoubtedly be interested in the committee's views.
I am grateful to the committee for recognising the particular career needs of women forensic scientists—a matter also referred to by my noble friend Lady Platt. I can assure your Lordships that forensic science organisations are aware of the importance of this. All laboratories operate equal opportunities policies, and flexible working arrangements cater for the different needs of different people.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, recognised that the emphasis on research and development is on the development of new techniques and advances in technology, and their application in the fields of forensic science. The Government are concerned, as is the committee, that research and development should continue to be a vital part of the life of forensic science. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was also concerned about that matter. And the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, reminded us that many innovations in forensic science research have been carried out within the United Kingdom—a fact which gives us cause for some pride.
But research must continue to meet operational needs and my fear would be that, if we set up a research centre of forensic science on the lines which the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, suggests, it could lack the flavour and practical application which are so important and which are found only in operational laboratories—for example, in the research programmes at the forensic science service, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, some of which research is done in conjunction with universities.
But I refer, also, to the many hours of bench research which is carried out by caseworkers. Research, which is conducted within a laboratory and by practical caseworkers, means that the specific and particular needs of forensic science can be fully addressed, at the same time incorporating the results of more fundamental and wider research which has been undertaken elsewhere. Perhaps one of the best examples is the development and application of that remarkable system to which various noble Lords have referred; namely, the DNA technique. The noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, referred to it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I find it an astonishing technique. Not only does it help to provide very impressive and difficult-to-contradict evidence in an endeavour to convict the criminal. More importantly —a fact which is often omitted from consideration—it also helps to eliminate the innocent, and therefore avoids time being wasted on inquiries about subjects who are not guilty. Those techniques were pioneered by Professor Alec Jeffrys at the Lister Institute at the University of Leicester. But much of the subsequent development and application
1210
has been carried out by forensic science organisations, some of which have been in collaboration with universities and industry. The committee's recommendations on DNA evidence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred, will be specifically considered by the Royal Commission.
The Government continue to think that research is best led by operational forensic science organisations. The noble Lord's committee feels that the Home Office should fund that research centre to the tune of a modest £1 million—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred. I believe the noble Lord said that he thought that that was the recommendation which the Government might find most difficulty in agreeing with. I think that his interpretation is probably correct. The Government would normally expect applied research to be funded by those who benefit directly from it. I will, of course, nevertheless, draw that recommendation to the attention of my right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who also has the happy role of Minister for Public Service and Science.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred to competition in research. Several existing forensic organisations already carry out research. So competition is already there.
The committee also looked at laboratory accreditation, to which a number of noble Lords referred. It concluded that any forensic science laboratory which applies to the National Measurement Accreditation Service should be required to demonstrate a degree of control over the sampling process. We took that to mean, basically, the collection and the selection of potential items from the scenes of crime and from elsewhere.
We agree that that process is a vital part of forensic science procedures. Work has started in the North East involving police forces and the forensic science service looking at the best practice. That will also be a matter of concern to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and we shall certainly consider any views which the Royal Commission may reach.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, was concerned that the registration of forensic scientists should be introduced and pre-registration work should be done by them—a point with which the noble Lord, Lord Knights, was also concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, considered it important in view of the likely increase in work in the private sector, and of the fact that much of that might be done for the defence. It was necessary, so the noble Lord felt, that their work and methods of investigation should be, and should be seen to be, of the high standards which obtained in the public service. I think that is right and I am sure that the Royal Commission will also be interested in the committee's recommendations in that respect; namely, that a system of individual registration of all forensic scientists should be established. That raises wider applications for the field of expert witnesses in general. We shall certainly consider the Royal Commission's views on that, together with the views of the committee in the context of any recommendations which the Royal Commission may make.

1211
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the training of lawyers in science. Forensic scientists in the forensic science service support the proposal to give lawyers some training in scientific matters. She was also concerned about visual aids in court. Forensic scientists would welcome the opportunity to use visual aids more in presenting their evidence.
As the Home Office Minister with responsibility for the police service, I was particularly pleased to read the committee's views on the forensic science service. I am also grateful to the committee for setting out the areas of concern for the future wellbeing of the forensic science service and the work which it does. I have touched on police budgets and research but I can give some additional assurances.
The safeguards on the continuity of evidence, which are required by the courts when samples are transferred from one laboratory to another for a different series of tests on the same subject matter, are, in fact, already in place. But I can assure your Lordships that these safeguards will be drawn to the attention of the forensic science service advisory board.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred to pre-trial reviews. The forensic scientists support the pre-trial discussions of scientific evidence. That is being considered by the Royal Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, was concerned about the Home Office review of forensic science. That review will be fairly wide-ranging and will look at the organisational issues surrounding the provision of forensic science. The future position of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory will also be considered.
We are also drawing a number of other conclusions to the attention of those who are directly involved, including the committee's recommendation that the extension of scientific activities by the police themselves should be closely monitored.
Many recommendations of the committee fall within the area of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, and they will be for that body to consider. The committee's views on matters such as whether the forensic science laboratories should be linked with police forces, on various aspects of evidence and on the procedures which are used in criminal courts, are all matters to which doubtless the Royal Commission will wish to address itself.
I congratulate the committee, under what I can only describe as the perspicacious leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, not only on producing a report which will assist the Government but on producing one which will help the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice when it comes to consider the future of forensic science. The report is an important and valuable document.
If I may say so, I liked the committee's frankness in stating at the beginning of its report—words repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in his opening speech —that it had instituted this inquiry because of concerns that high quality had not always been achieved in the past but that it had found that action was already in hand to address those misgivings.
1212
The report also went on to say in Chapter 2 that:
"It is our opinion, based on our meetings and visits, that the quality of scientific casework done in the public forensic science laboratories in the United Kingdom is very high".
If I may say so, that is a generous and, I think, justified comment of the committee.
It also equates, as I explained earlier, with my own modest experience. When I first came to the Home Office some five years ago the forensic science service for a whole variety of reasons was in a trough of low morale. That has all altered. The service went through a considerable upheaval in moving to agency status—which is foreign territory for most civil servants, let alone applied scientists. But that was done. It altered direction. It has beaten its targets, both financial and work targets. Morale is up. It has good and strong leadership. I find that impressive. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his committee also came to the same conclusion—one to which I fancy that they did not expect to come when they first started on their journey.
I congratulate the committee on producing a valuable report and on generating a most interesting debate.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, before I turn to the Minister's comments, perhaps I may deal with some points raised by other speakers. First, it is a great pleasure to see in the Chamber the noble Lord, Lord Knights. He was chief constable of the city in which I was born and bred. I can, however, assure the House that this is my first meeting with him. I did not meet him in his official capacity. I do not believe that he had cause to meet me then. It would have been very useful if the committee had known of his interest. He put many matters into an historical perspective which, as members of the committee, we lacked. We were very aware of his concern that if forensic science is to grow, other police activities might have to be cut back. I believe that those were the words he used. It was a point to which the committee drew particular attention and the reason for our concern. We had the advantage of meeting those who ran the Harpurley Hall activity and we knew about the Durham diploma, which truly has its place in the scheme of things in forensic science. The noble Lord will, I hope, forgive me if I do not go into the many suggestions that he made.
I turn briefly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I thank him very much for his support on registration and on the code of practice. We are concerned about individual responsibility and performance, the code of practice, registration and re-registration. We do not consider that it is registration for life at the beginning. As I said in my report, we all—even I—have our sell-by dates. We need to be re-tested from time to time and shown to be competent. Perhaps it was the lack of that in the past which led to some of the unfortunate incidents to which I referred.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the so-called concordat with the Royal College of Criminal Justice was one-sided. The Royal College of Criminal Justice did not undertake not to look into the

1213
laboratory. Indeed, as one of its members, it has a distinguished chemist named Sir John Cadogan. I know that he is there for his particular interest in these affairs.
I should reveal that we have met the chairman and secretary of the Royal Commission. We felt that it was desirable to inform them early on of our concerns about the court procedures. We did not feel in any sense inhibited about making suggestions to the commission as the proper body to consider them. We were not inhibited from making any suggestions that we thought right. Those suggestions are there for what they are worth. I hope that they will come before this House when the Royal Commission's report is debated.
We share many of the reservations and concerns about agency status expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In fact, we listed the effects of direct charging as we saw them. We discussed the matter at great length but not one member felt that there was much mileage in suggesting to the Government that, having had a Next Steps agency step forward, the service should now be invited to go backward into the totally different system from which it had moved. There seemed to be no profit in that for us.
The committee considered carefully whether there would be disadvantages in the system which had been introduced. Many of the committee's recommendations were specifically directed towards avoiding what were foreseen as possibly considerable difficulties. I hope that the House will feel that the committee went a very long way—at any rate as far as it could see —towards mitigating any adverse effects, which were detailed in the report itself.
I must thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks about the work of the committee. The members of the committee who heard his responses as he took the House seriatim through the committee's conclusions will have felt, as I did, that there was a reasonably high degree of agreement by the Government with most of the conclusions. That is rather encouraging. It leads us all to hope that when the official government response is put before the House it will be similar in character but will carry with it more details as to implementation.
Having said that, I should like to take up a few points arising from the Minister's statement. He said that the police will become more responsible for their budgets and that that will enable them to make full use of forensic science. That brings us back to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Knights. I should like to know more about the size of those budgets. If the level of funding rises at its present annual rate and, as seems likely, the demand for, and therefore the amount of and the costs of forensic science increase faster, then the proper freedom of the police authorities to use their funds for forensic science will undeniably and inevitably be restricted. That still gives me a great deal of concern.
Similarly, the Minister was lukewarm to our proposal to stimulate strategic research. We did not say that all the research in forensic science was of the applied near-market kind, nor should it be. We said
1214
that it was necessary to stimulate strategic research by instituting a small fund from which grants could be made and a research institute or centre set up. That was elaborated on by my noble friend Lord Flowers.
I should perhaps reveal to the House that in the brief space of time since the publication of the report at the beginning of March, I have received a large number of communications which indicate a contrary view to that expressed by the Minister. The head of a large forensic science laboratory run by the police wrote to say that he welcomed the recommendations. Indeed, he went further and called for the Science and Engineering Research Council to make special provision for supporting forensic science research. That comes from the second largest laboratory in the country. I hope that the idea will appeal to Mr. Waldegrave. I believe the Minister said that he would draw Mr. Waldegrave's attention to our report and to that specific aspect of it.
Furthermore, I received a communication from the Chief Constable of Durham, Mr. Taylor, who was a witness on behalf of the forensic science user groups. In his letter he said that there was merit in both the proposals that will partially fill the vacuum that has been created. If the police realise that there is a vacuum, how can the committee deny that it exists, particularly when that coincides with its conclusions? I hope therefore that the Government will think again and, in referring the recommendation to Mr. Waldegrave, the Minister will indicate that there is a real gap which must be filled.
Perhaps I can emphasise again the importance of individual registration. I mentioned it earlier but it is an important part of our recommendations. It is fundamental to the maintenance of quality. As the episodes in the 1970s show, lack of quality is a denial of justice in this field. As my noble friend Lord Walton emphasised, registration works extraordinarily well and has done so for many years in the field of forensic pathology. The two fields are not dissimilar. Indeed, forensic pathology is in a sense part of forensic science: it happens to have been classified separately simply because that is the way it grew up.
I can see that it is a matter which concerns the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and also, I should imagine, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who will have views on the question. Does it not concern also the Home Office? In the last analysis it is the lead department for the forensic science service and it is its members of staff whom we are anxious to see registered as well as those outside the professional staff—those who are in the market place—before they can give evidence in court or be accepted unless the court decides that someone without registration is a fit person to be an expert witness.
The Minister says that some of our anxieties—for instance, that rising charges may lead to disadvantages, which we call fragmentation, or confusion when several different forensic science units are involved in the same case—are misplaced because that circumstance would be unusual. But as science progresses, the number of exhibits per case is bound to rise. That

1215
is a danger we would do well to watch for in advance. I hope that the Home Office will give the matter some real consideration.
Finally, I thank the Minister for promising to keep under review the possible difficulties of legal aid cases to which he referred. Perhaps he will also keep a close eye on the delays in payment of that legal aid, which many witnesses testify is a severe problem borne particularly badly by those people of limited means.
There are many other points on which I should like to have commented. I thank my fellow committee members who have spoken today and who have illuminated all those areas which, because of lack of time, I have had to leave dark. I am immensely grateful to them. I believe most of the points have been covered in this interesting debate. I thank your Lordships for the consideration you have given to the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill
5.36 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is my first introduction of a Bill of this nature in your Lordships' House and I understand it is also the debut of my noble friend Lady Hooper in her new position. I congratulate her and hope that her tenure of office will be long. In contrast, I hope to be brief.
The Bill may have caused curiosity in your Lordships' House. It started in another place being introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Ayr, Mr. Gallie, to whom I am grateful for his wise counsel and advice. There was all-party support for the Bill and its objectives in another place, and I understand that it has all-party support in your Lordships' House. Apart from my gratitude to my honourable friend, Mr. Gallie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, and not least my noble and learned friend who will give advice later today, the thanks of your Lordships' House are due in no small way to the honourable Member for Dumbarton, Mr. McFall. It was he who showed considerable interest in the measures contained in the Bill before us this afternoon and made a number of helpful points as well as giving his support to the measure which meets the problems that he sought to remedy in his Bill.
Many of us reading that wonderful Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Post a week or two ago—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who will be familiar with this largest-selling newspaper in Scotland—would have been startled to see on the centre page the leader,
"Crimes even a worry in Kirrie".
Your Lordships may be amazed by that statement; may be even my neighbour noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who alas warned me that he had a prior engagement today in the environs of Kirriemuir, my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is in Forfar today, and not least my noble friend Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, who knows the town particularly well, and my noble and learned friend the Minister of
1216
State. We all know Kirriemuir to be a unique and beautiful town. The article goes on to cover various aspects of crime, taking views from various sources in the town.
While none of the sources mentioned the contents of the Bill before us today, other newspapers in Scotland have drawn attention to an increasing tendency to use knives of all kinds and adaptations in the furtherance of violent crimes. While the Bill is intended to cover the whole of Scotland, perhaps I may whet your Lordships' appetite with two statistics from the Strathclyde region. Last year, 1992, saw, unbelievably, 92 murders in Strathclyde, of which 47 were committed with a knife or other sharp object. Over two years, 1991 and 1992, serious assaults, often involving injury—quite often serious injury—doubled where knives or sharp objects covered by the Bill were used. The House will agree that we cannot deny the police or the courts any power that may be required to halt this increasing culture of knives, of carrying weapons and perhaps even of what one might call the "macho image".
The law in Scotland covering possession of knives in a public place can be found in Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Under this section, an offence is committed by having an "offensive weapon" in a public place. The definition of an "offensive weapon" can be found in Section 1(4) and comes under three headings. I shall briefly spell them out. First, an "offensive weapon" is defined as being an article which is made for use for causing personal injury. Secondly, it is one adapted for use for causing personal injury. Thirdly, it is one which, while neither made nor adapted for such use, is intended for such use by the person possessing it at the time in the public place.
Our problem, and the one that the Bill seeks to remedy, is that the first two definitions do not cover many articles like kitchen, domestic, industrial or craft knives, or even letter openers, with which your Lordships will be familiar, as these are not designed intrinsically to cause injury. But clearly they are capable of doing just that. Mere possession in a public place is no offence. Under Section 1 there must be the intent. The onus on proving intent rests with the prosecution. Very often there is no clear intent. One fascinating case, with which no doubt my noble and learned friend will be familiar, of Farrell v. Rennicks in Scotland, among many others, presents a gap which the Bill seeks to fill.
The Bill replicates Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which covers England and Wales, in placing knives, bladed or sharply pointed articles on a similar footing to those articles made or adapted for use to cause personal injury. Perhaps I may quickly take your Lordships through the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 covers the offence of having in a public place a bladed or sharply pointed article. Subsection (1) covers the penalties for conviction either on summary conviction or on indictment. Subsection (2) covers an article that has a blade or sharp point, let alone both of those attributes.
Subsection (3) gives an exemption which will be of interest to your Lordships and which caused interest

1217
in another place. It gives exemption to a folding pocket knife which I believe all noble Lords would define as a penknife. Quite apart from the mention of a three-inch limit to the cutting edge of the blade of a penknife, the blade is not normally very sharp. Secondly, the folding nature of the blade of a penknife makes any stabbing motion extremely risky for the aggressor. Indeed, I think it was my noble and learned friend who suggested that the knife might fold back on one's fingers. Even in fishing or agriculture I tend to allow others to use these things, and so far I have kept all my fingers. In this definition and exemption I stress that any locking device—a button, stud or whatever —will turn the knife into one with a fixed blade for the purposes of the Bill. If any of those devices—button, stud or whatever—is part of the so-called penknife the knife no longer has a folding blade and no longer meets the exemptions in subsection (3).
Subsection (4) gives a defence to the accused—on whom the onus of proof is placed by the Bill—that he or she had good reason or lawful authority to have the article with him or her in the public place when challenged by the police. Subsection (5), like Section 139(5) of the 1988 Act, gives the additional defence that the person has the article for use at work, for religious reasons or as part of national dress. I am given to understand that the last exemption would cover a skean dhu, as carried by some of us in our kilts when we go in Scottish uniform, as well as a Highland dirk. I have certainly seen large dirks worn by some Highland chieftains, even though at grand balls it is quite dangerous to do folk dances or country dances while wearing one. I have also seen them worn by pipers in my regiment, the Scots Guards. They are part of the national dress and are covered by the exemption. Subsections (6) and (7) cover forfeiture of an article on conviction and the definition of what is a "public place".
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with stop, search and arrest by a constable. Subsection (1) parallels Section 4(1) of the Criminal Justice Act (Scotland) 1980 which gives constables power to stop and search for offensive weapons under the 1953 Act. Subsection (2) deals with the detainee being informed of the reason for his detention. Subsection (3) empowers a constable to arrest a person whom he has reasonable cause to believe has committed an offence. Subsections (4) and (5) deal with obstructing a constable acting under the clause and also with concealing an offensive weapon or knife. Clause 3 covers citation, commencement and territorial jurisdiction of the Bill.
That concludes my brief description of the contents of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will accept that it was necessary to spell out its provisions. If there are any points that the House would wish me to explain, I shall gladly try to elaborate. However, I am not a lawyer—I am a mere accountant and an Angus country lad—and danger lies in any noble Lord attempting to explain complex points. My deepest thanks are due to my noble and learned friends and to the Scottish Office who have sought to guide me in all aspects of the Bill.
1218
I stressed at the beginning of my remarks the enormous importance of taking steps to curb the horrific habit of carrying knives and blades around the streets. The Bill obtained universal support in another place. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lyell.)
5.48 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on introducing this important Bill in relation to the law in Scotland. From this side of the House I should also like to join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on what I may call her debut. We look forward to seeing her presiding over your Lordships' House on many occasions in the future.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Without a knife!
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, even with or without a skean dhu, I may say.
The Bill has been warmly welcomed by all parties in another place because it closes what was an apparent gap in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 in relation to the carrying of knives. The Bill is welcome because it does that and will help, we hope, to curb the recent increase in the incidence of horrific knife attacks in Scotland. It is to be hoped that the Bill will sound a warning to those who choose to carry knives and to use them in public places to inflict injury that they will be subjected to the full rigours of the law and that the public will look to the courts and the judges to take full advantage of the powers of fines and imprisonment contained in the Bill and to reduce violent crime in Scotland.
Perhaps I may say in passing—I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will agree with me—that Scotland is not a violent place. In certain areas there has been an increase in the incidence of knife assaults and those have received the publicity which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned. But Scotland is still a place which one can visit for holidays and enjoy them in peace without being subjected to injury by knives. Those of us who have practised in the courts for a number of years are aware—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Fraser, and the Lord Advocate will know—that the damage done by knives and similar weapons is probably not appreciated by the public in general unless they are directly or indirectly involved in the incident leading to the various consequences. The consequences of the use of weapons such as knives are felt not only by the victim's family, but in many cases by the family of the assailant, particularly where a young person is involved. There are many instances where children aged 16 or 17 have used knives to inflict injury causing the death of other young people.
The charge of murder follows and one young life is lost in the physical sense; and another life is lost in the sense that the life of the person who has been guilty of using the knife, meaning to do so or not, is wrecked by the irresponsible carriage and use of a knife. Over the years we in Scotland have seen many occasions where what is known as the single stab wound has caused

1219
death when in effect the person never meant to inflict such a serious injury on the other. Where it happens in the case of a school child it becomes even more tragic.
One of the tragedies of life and probably throughout the United Kingdom, is that children see television programmes where people are seriously assaulted and indeed stabbed, but they get up and walk away and they are in the next programme the following week. That is not the reality of life. The reality of life is that whether it is a three-inch penknife or not, if it gets to the heart or lungs, the victim is not going to get up and walk away. The result is a body on a slab and a body in prison facing a life sentence not only for himself or herself, but for the families involved on both sides.
During the debate on this Bill in another place the Minister said that he hoped that the media would take note of it. As your Lordships' House must know, the media takes notice of what it cares to take notice of and not necessarily of what is important. I suggest that it is not enough for the Government to ask the media to take note of the Bill. What is required is a government-led publicity campaign about the use of knives and including an educational factor in it. As I understand it, the Government have spent millions on the AIDS publicity campaign. Knives lead to death and AIDS leads to death: why not have the same publicity conducted throughout the country for the use of weapons and their consequences? The dangers of carrying and using knives must be brought home and in particular to the young people of Scotland and the United Kingdom. What we need is a full-scale policy of publicity and education in schools even if it involves shock treatment by showing bodies on slabs and what prison is really like.
One of the most tragic sights that one can see—noble Lords on the other side of the House know this—is photographs from murder trials showing a body with a little two-inch slit in the chest. That is all that can be seen apart from the dead body. That reality should be brought home to the young people in the schools. It is of great importance. An educational process should start now so that people can realise what is going on.
I am told by the Government that this is a free-standing Bill which stands independently of the 1953 Act. If that is so, then it will be judged by its own operation. It will require to be carefully monitored. The Government in another place gave the promise that that would be the case because we are dealing with a very sensitive area of the relationship between the police and the public. I cannot remember the precise figure, but there was a massive stop and search campaign in Scotland recently. Speaking from the top of my head, I believe that about 15,000 people were stopped and of that number about two or three people had anything remotely resembling an article in the terms of this Bill or under the 1953 Act.
That means that this Bill has to be very carefully operated by the police because for every innocent person who is stopped unnecessarily by the police, antagonism is being set up towards the police. It has been said to me, "What has the innocent person to object to if a policeman stops him walking down the
1220
street and asks to search him?" That person may lose his sense of liberty. We must have some controls over the use of the powers of search.
Clause 2(3) is part of a very strange Bill. I know that this is a copycat of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which applies to England. In Clause 2(3) a person who has not been found in possession of an article in the terms of Clause 2(1), may still be arrested by the police although he or she has not committed an offence. In Clause 2(3) a person is asked to give his name and address or both. If that information is not given or the constable is not satisfied with it, or the constable
"has reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary to arrest him in order to prevent the commission … of any other offence in the course of committing which an article to which that section applies"
that person may be arrested without warrant.
That is a major intrusion into the rights of the citizen. If a person does not have an article on him in terms of Clause 2(1), what reason can the constable have for arresting the person because he believes that he might be using an article which he does not have, for committing some other offence? That is why I say that this Bill has to be very carefully monitored. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question: if a person is stopped under the terms of Clause 2(1) and the result is negative, how does Clause 2(2) come into operation? Is that not an intrusion into the liberty of the subject?
Perhaps I may raise another point. In Clause 2(1) a person may be "detained"—that is the word which is used—without warrant for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out. There is some vague time-scale there. However, in Clause 2(3) a person who is arrested for something he has not done and which is not an offence, has no time limit prescribed at all. Does that mean that a policeman can arrest somebody who has done nothing and just lock him up because the constable believes that that person may he going to do something somewhere else involving the use of an article under the terms of the Bill? I shall be interested to know the views of the law officers on that point.
There is one other matter. Clause 2(3) is derived from Section 1(3) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. I do not know whether it was spotted by the persons who drafted the Bill, but for England and Wales that section was repealed by Schedule 7 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. What has resulted from that is the code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which lays down very stringent controls over the police on the question of stop and search. It is a very sensitive area of public life. We all want to stop crime and we understand the difficulties under which the police are operating on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights in discos, pubs and clubs, but there has to be some monitoring and control. Controls are built into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in England and Wales.
I shall not take up your Lordships' time with a great deal of detail because the legislation is there for anyone to read. For example, a constable is required to prove by documentary evidence that he is a constable if he is not in uniform. He must disclose his name and station; the object of the proposed search

1221
and the grounds for proposing to make it. The person searched can only be required to remove an outer coat, jacket and gloves. The constable must also make a written record of the search including many prescribed details. The chief constable's annual report has to provide information about the number of searches and the total number of persons arrested in consequence of the searches.
The code also deals with what constitutes a reasonable ground for searching someone. A reasonable ground is not the question of someone's colour or whether the policeman has previous information about the person's antecedents and criminal life. There must be a real reason for stopping people in the street. If that is not closely monitored, there will be trouble.
I am not suggesting for one moment that Scottish law should be brought entirely into line with the law for England and Wales because in Scotland we have a reputation for being pragmatic about life. In many ways, it is unrealistic to place too many constrictions on the operation of the police. However, perhaps I may ask the Government whether they would consider (either on a Scottish basis or on a United Kingdom basis) setting up a commission or committee to review the whole operation of stop-and-search procedures based on the operation of the code of practice, the 1984 Act, and what happens on the streets of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Having said that, perhaps I may say from this side of the House that, although I am not entirely happy with the Bill's terminology, it has (as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made clear) received all-party support. It will, however, be carefully monitored by all of us to see what happens. Although there may be some probing amendments in Committee, I make the promise that they will not be wrecking amendments. As was made clear in another place, the Bill will go through.
In conclusion, the maintenance and enforcement of law and order are not the property of any particular political party. The maintenance of law and order is the keystone of the civilised society in which we all have a vested and very personal interest. It is for that reason that this side of the House supports the Bill.
6.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, perhaps I may join others in extending my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, as she takes her seat on the Woolsack for the first time as we consider—and this may surprise her—this small but nevertheless very important Bill for Scotland.
On behalf of the Government, I am happy to welcome the Bill which has been so eloquently introduced this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Lyell. I hope that he will not only take it from me that we regard the Bill as important, but that he will have noticed that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who enjoys in Scotland exclusive rights as
1222
public prosecutor, is with me on the Front Bench. I am sure that my noble friend will understand that that is indicative of the importance that we attach to the Bill.
We owe a debt to my noble friend Lord Lyell not only for introducing the Bill but also for giving us such a clear explanation of its terms. The Bill, which started life in another place, is needed to enable the authorities to tackle the scourge of knife-related crime in Scotland. While I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, that we do not wish to characterise or caricature Scotland as being a place where one and all carry knives, nevertheless there are circumstances, occasions and parts of our cities where the habit is all too frequent and where the consequences, as he graphically spelt out, can be all too tragic.
The Bill will tackle that scourge by making it an offence to carry a knife or similar instrument in a public place without good reason or lawful authority. The Crown will not be required to prove that the knife is being carried for illicit purposes. It will be for the person carrying the knife to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority. If he cannot, he will be guilty of an offence.
The Bill was amended in another place to provide that any person found guilty of such an offence will be liable to severe penalties. The maximum penalty proposed now is an unlimited fine and two years' imprisonment. The amendment was supported on all sides in the committee in another place and reflects the level of concern felt by the people of Scotland about the carrying of knives. I believe that these penalties will help to break the knife-carrying culture that exists in some parts of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested that we should have a publicity campaign. I am more than happy to see the maximum publicity given to this change in the law. We shall, of course, be bringing it to the attention of senior police officers if they are not already well aware of it. Operation Blade, which was mounted recently in Strathclyde, gave great prominence to the evils of knife-carrying. I welcome that and hope that with the introduction of this new, substantive offence yet further publicity will be given, first, to what the Bill covers and to the penalties laid down, but also to the appalling consequences of knives being carried and then used.
Concern was also expressed in another place (reflected in another amendment) indicating that Members were so concerned about this matter that they wished the Bill to come into effect immediately it was passed. Again, that was carried without any disagreement. I believe that that reflects the very real urgency of the situation.
I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that I view with some dismay his approach to Clause 2. It does not introduce new powers of arrest (in the sense that we have never had comparable powers in Scotland) because such powers can already be found in the 1980 Act. I warmly welcome his support from the Opposition Front Bench for the principle of the Bill, but I am a little concerned that at the same time he appears to walk back from what must be an integral part of the approach that we must take—

1223
namely, that there should not only be an offence, but that where people carry knives the police should be able to enforce the upholding of the law. We cannot simply have a substantive offence if the police are not to be given an opportunity to enforce the legislation. There is nothing radical in that. It is an extension in a sense of the power to stop, search and arrest without warrant which is already available to the police in relation to offensive weapons. If the noble Lord has any particular anxieties, they will doubtless be raised in Committee.
I have already paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Lyell. I am not entirely sure that Kirriemuir will be enchanted at being characterised as the crime capital of Scotland—"Thugs of the Thrums" is not exactly how one thinks of Kirriemuir. As I have said, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. I am grateful also to the Opposition Front Bench for their support and for the support which I know comes from all parties and individuals in this House. I am grateful for that all-party support and trust that the Bill will enjoy a speedy passage through your Lordships' House, thus enabling it to get on to the statute book and to be applied in Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, nobody could fail to be touched by the support from all sides of the House that I have received for the Bill that I have introduced. I am very grateful for the reception given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. He rightly expressed concerns, as did his honourable friend in another place. He presented his points and gave your Lordships due notice of the fact that he may wish to ask for more information later. I hope that he does, and I hope that I will be able to give him full advice on the operation of the provisions. I am sure that my noble and learned friends will be able to do so.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, raised two points, one of which related to publicity. He probably knows the figures, but I am advised that the Government are planning to spend in the region of £1.6 million in 1993–94, the current financial year, publicising not only Operation Blade and Operation Dove, but also the provisions of this Bill and, above all, in attempting to reduce the carrying of knives in public places. As the honourable Member for Dumbarton, Mr. McFall, pointed out in another place, that is now beginning, horrifyingly, to happen even in schools.
I understand that £560,000 or thereabouts is planned for publicity in the current financial year with £960,000 planned for the safer cities campaign. There is a programme called Crime Concern Scotland for which nearly £100,000 has been budgeted. If the noble Lord wants further information, I can find out how the money will be spent. I am sure that it will be well-spent. The noble Lord expressed concern about publicising the provisions of the Bill which we hope will soon be an Act. I am sure that the media will pay attention to what is going on in your Lordships' House even on an afternoon like this.
1224
The noble Lord was right to express his anxiety about the stop-and-search provisions. I shall not attempt to follow him down the byways of stopping and searching by constables. I sought advice from the east division of the Tayside police in Forfar. I am grateful for the advice I received from Superintendent McBean. He said that in country areas and elsewhere the police will act as the noble Lord and everyone else would wish.
If the noble Lord wants to see how the measures, which appear at first sight to be draconian, will be carried out perhaps he will read column 38 of the proceedings in Standing Committee in another place. He will see described how various aspects of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act are implemented in respect of behaviour at football matches. An example is given of a young man with a can of Lucozade. I remember being in the position now occupied by my noble and learned friends in 1980 when I had to accept fierce criticism from the late and much honoured Lord Ross of Marnock about the draconian provisions contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in respect of conduct and behaviour at football matches. I believe noble Lords will agree that in the past 13 years the culture at those games has improved.
I am sure that the House will agree too that it is the sensible application of what appears to be, and is intended to be, hard-hitting legislation which will achieve what we seek. I thank my noble and learned friend for the compliments he paid me. Of course Kirriemuir is not the crime centre of Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will be aware, the Sunday Post has its finger on the pulse of feeling in Scotland. I believe that it is still the biggest selling Sunday newspaper in Scotland, and in Canada which does not have a national newspaper. The Scottish clans distribute it throughout Canada.
The Bill covers one aspect of crime. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, there is a knife carrying campaign—I hope I quote his words correctly—in various parts of Scotland. I am sure that the provisions of the Bill will be carried out sensitively and properly by the police in those parts of Scotland where they and the courts perceive that a problem exists. In that spirit, I ask that the Bill receive a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Rural Communities: Health
6.14 p.m.
Lord Shackleton Lord Shackleton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to meet the impact on people's health of their policies towards rural communities.
The noble Lord said: I ask an Unstarred Question. That is something I did not have the opportunity to do when I was occupying the position of Leader.
The purpose of the Unstarred Question is to raise issues upon which we have not concentrated specifically; namely, the social and health needs of rural communities. Many of the points which I make

1225
are explicit in the White Paper The Health of the Nation. The Health of the Nation supports healthy cities, healthy schools and healthy workplaces, but does not make provision for supporting healthy rural communities. For that we have to look at the report on rural health by Jeremy Fennell of ACRE.
Some rural areas are not in designated Rural Development Commission areas. I am not an expert on this matter and should like to know what is the qualification for being a rural development area. What are the criteria for recognition and applying for those areas which are not currently covered by the Rural Development Commission? Rural development areas may receive community grants. Again, I should like to know how they are arrived at.
My speech is based mainly upon the work of Dr. Derek Browne, my local GP, who has shown tremendous energy in developing caring community facilities not just in his area but throughout the country. His work is well known to many people. In particular, it focuses on the Brockenhurst area.
Brockenhurst is a rural community in the heart of the New Forest with a population of 3,500, with 25 per cent. over the age of 65 years. The local general practitioner, with his practice team of four doctors, two practice nurses, two health visitors and a district nurse, has developed networks of care involving the village hall, church, education centres, hotels and the environment. Local clubs, societies and care groups are supported by the primary care team. Those organisations provide support for the social, physical and psychological needs of the community.
Much can be achieved by the initiative of just one doctor. However, rural areas have social, economic and health needs, many of which are unmet and unknown to statutory authorities because the communities tend to be more caring and self-sufficient. Their needs still require coherent policies for action and support by the statutory and voluntary agencies.
Rural areas are thought to be wealthy and self-sufficient, but they are usually scattered communities with poor transport and communication networks, with increasing numbers of dependent elderly people, with psychogeriatric problems, degenerative disorders such as Alzheimers, schizophrenia and manic depression. There are children with special needs. Unemployment is increasing in all social groups and families are having to move as financial constraints and commitments cannot be met. Health and social needs are increasing, but as the authorities are often not aware of the needs, the rural community does not receive the needed resources.
The community care provisions came into effect on 1st April 1993 with the intention that local authorities should provide the care but with the proviso that they should be given sufficient funds to discharge the responsibility. Social security spending has escalated from £10 million in 1979 to £2,400 million in 1992–93 in respect of residential and nursing home care. It will be expensive to meet the demands of community care for rural communities. Such help must be achieved by properly organised voluntary action.
Rural cottage hospitals face closure in the new round, even though unit costs are less than in general hospitals. There is a most valuable hospital at Lymington but there is uncertainty as to its future. Problems also arise over discharge. For example, recently it was announced suddenly in Lymington that as many as possible of the patients would have to go home for Easter. That caused considerable alarm, especially as some had no adequate facilities at home. In the event, it did not happen quite like that. It was done much more humanely and sensitively. Discharge procedures after planned hospital admissions back into the rural areas can be made beforehand, but many admissions are emergencies and there is fear of bed blocking and difficulties in assessing responsibility to either health or social care. The philosophy is to allow choice and advocacy for the user but that will be governed by the resources available.
A valuable component both in the medical and caring field is the local pharmacy and here I wish to ask the Minister whether the Government will revise the proposals which so far have aroused great anxiety among pharmacists. In Brockenhurst we have a very able pharmacist and an excellent service is provided; indeed, many people see her as a substitute for the doctor. But there are some pharmacies which are too small to qualify for the supplement dependent on the number of prescriptions prepared. At Sway, for instance, which is part of the Brockenhurst practice, there is a very good pharmacist who will just about survive, but there are others in the neighbourhood who simply will not and their withdrawal on financial grounds will be a tremendous loss to the community.
Another problem is the availability of ambulances. I know of cases where doctors have waited sometimes for hours not feeling able to leave a patient because there was not sufficient clarity as to priorities. Difficulties will arise about demand and nobody knows now how the pay factor will operate.
GPs in single handed practices have their own particular problems which should be addressed. They tend to have smaller lists and although rural GPs do receive additional remuneration, this has no bearing on those allowances which are dependent on list size. Their isolation also makes it difficult for them to find time to attend postgraduate courses, and this could be made easier if they received direct reimbursement of locum allowances.
A valuable solution, and indeed a contribution to networking local facilities, would be via the appointment of a local community co-ordinator who could help network local facilities, resources and people supporting the primary care team. Wessex Regional Health Authority, under its chairman, Sir Robin Buchanan, supports those concepts. Is the difficulty over providing such a co-ordinator for Brockenhurst the fact that Wessex Regional Health Authority has had some heavy financial losses? Sir Robin Buchanan has stood up very strongly in what must have been a period of considerable stress.
Economic, social and health needs can be supported in rural communities. The primary care

1227
team, including the general practitioner will organise that but it would need help. It would be useful if a co-ordinator could be appointed.
Social support for health involves interaction between individuals, groups and communities where they receive mental, emotional, informational material and operational support. This helps reduce factors which cause social strain and social disparities.
Community support with transport, people and social needs can be met. Local resources such as village halls, churches, schools and hotels can be used by the community for the community to help build healthy alliances between individuals and the community in which they live. Supportive community environments which enhance the physical, social and psychological dimensions, provide conducive conditions for people to pursue healthy lifestyles. However, they need the opportunity to practise what they are advised to do.
Advocacy for national policies supporting rural communities is an important step to strengthen interagency collaboration, including the voluntary and statutory organisations. These ideas were discussed in Sweden at the Sundswall international conference on Action on Public Health and Supportive Environments in 1991. There is a real need that the facilities which are available are known so that inadequacies are noted successfully. And there will always be a need for continuous monitoring of the activities such as described in the ACRE report by Jeremy Fennell.
Earlier this afternoon I heard of yet another development, this time in Southampton. The local education officer, Mike Clarke, has initiated schemes to bring health-related services into schools, thus ensuring that children receive the medical services which they need rather than the children having to go to the service at some distance. A similar scheme is already in place in Lymington. There are other schemes which call for special attributes in those seeking to carry out such work.
There is a great deal of opportunity to develop health care in rural areas but there must be additional work and additional funds so that that can be carried out properly. Meanwhile, we must look at the problem of the chemists, the ambulance services and so forth to ensure that the problems are met and that there is a continuous concern to watch how the systems work. It is all too easy to assume that they cannot work perfectly. Others can show that they do work well but that an effort is called for.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I intend to use this opportunity of a debate on rural health policies to comment on the availability of dental services in rural areas. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for initiating the debate and I congratulate him on an excellent speech, which clearly highlighted the problems of rural areas. However, I am a little disappointed by the shortage of speakers in the debate. I had hoped to slip my name into a long list of rural experts and raise a couple of
1228
dental questions which would be answered together with all the other questions at the end of the debate. However, I shall "do my thing" for dentistry.
In the Minister's reply to the dental debate on 10th June last year at col. 1354 of Hansard, she restated the Government's commitment to the NHS dental service and stressed the importance of the forthcoming fundamental review, which she said would assist the Government in their task of building a better NHS dental service for the future. As far as I am aware the Government intend to publicise their response to the review in mid-June. Although the debate may not be the ideal time for an answer I shall be interested to know why the Government have recently compressed a consultative period to mid-May, putting the profession under severe pressure to assimilate and to discuss the report within such a short period of time.
Before the current NHS dispute there was apparently no crisis of availability of NHS dental services to patients living in rural areas. It would of course be true to say that it would not have been unusual for patients to have to travel 10 or 15 miles to the nearest dentist because of simple commercial demand and supply factors. The need to travel that distance would be routine for patients living in those areas because they would expect a journey of that length in respect of most other services that they would need and would presumably combine a trip to the dentist with other purposes.
In rural communities, where the population may be widely scattered, few villages would be able to sustain a full-time practice, although many seem to have been served on a part-time basis—perhaps between one and three days per week—by smaller branches of larger practices based some distance away. I did that myself when I worked in Gloucestershire but found that even in the 1970s the system of dental remuneration did not encourage principals to set up practices in different areas and work in them on a part-time basis.
It would seem natural to assume that in most rural areas dentists would have been more reluctant to accept patients for treatment on a domiciliary basis. In fact, there appears to be no evidence to support that; indeed, even the reverse may be the case. The dispute which arose last year over NHS fees, and on which Sir Kenneth Bloomfield has now reported, has had effects at three levels.
First, existing patients have, by and large, suffered no problems in obtaining services, unless their dentist has actively de-registered them; that being the exception rather than the rule. Secondly, the majority of practices have refused to accept any new NHS patients, or in some cases, those NHS patients who are liable to charges. Patients not already registered, or new patients coming to a rural area, then face a particular problem, because if they cannot become registered with the nearest practice they may have to undertake a 25 to 30 mile journey to the next nearest dentist who is prepared to take them on. Thirdly, patients needing domiciliary treatment in such an area would certainly find it extremely difficult to persuade a dentist to make a round trip of perhaps 60 miles, on

1229
several occasions, to make, for example, a set of NHS dentures, requiring three or four visits on a domiciliary basis.
Rural practices tend to have been less ready to combine together in protest action than the dentists in the city centres and larger towns, perhaps because they are so much more dependent upon local goodwill. On the other hand, a small town or a large village with only one dentist is acutely vulnerable to the possibility of that dentist withdrawing from the NHS. Precisely that has happened in Llandovery in Dyfed, where the only NHS dentist withdrew from the NHS, leaving many patients facing a 25 to 30 mile journey. On the other hand, when several dentists in a small rural area all go private, it leaves the door open for a new practice to open up and take over many of the patients. That happened in Tenby. The FHSA was faced one minute with no local dentist to serve 10,000 patients, and the next, with a new practice on its doorstep, keen to sign up as many patients as possible.
Among the FHSA/health board areas where the availability of services has led the department to seek funding for salaried dentists, there is a large number of FHSAs with a rural component. The socioeconomic status of the area seems to be a factor. The likelihood of the household having a car—making a trip of even 20 miles or more manageable—and the availability of local bus or train services is important. For example, mid-Dorset is very rural, but has reported little or no problems of availability, while North Cornwall is equally rural but has suffered far greater problems due to a heavier reliance upon a local bus service which leaves a lot to be desired.
I am informed by the British Dental Association that problems in Gwynneth FHSA and Highlands and Grampian Health Board have been brought specifically to their notice and other inquiries have shown that round trips of 50 miles or more might be necessary within Devon, Cumbria, Clwyd, Dyfed, Gloucestershire, Powys and Cornwall FHSAs. I am also informed by a dental colleague who carried out some research for me that Lincolnshire should be added to that list, but staff at the FHSAs in Lincolnshire, Gwynneth and Gloucestershire are saying that they have been given instructions not to discuss the local situation with anybody, nor to give out any figures and I am unable to make any further assessment.
In conclusion, there are clearly some local problems, but I am not convinced that they are very much worse than in more urban areas. In rural areas the problem is obviously one of distance, whereas in urban areas it is more likely to be one of actually finding a dentist to accept you at all.
I apologise for speaking solely on dentistry. I shall look forward to hearing from the real experts on the Front Bench and from my noble friend the Minister.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for asking this Question. Indeed, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord
1230
Colwyn, for his contribution because the consideration of a particular case, such as dentistry, illuminates the problems arising from the general issue.
I speak for a political party which, during much of the time I have been a member—although not now, I am delighted to say—had almost all its representation in rural areas. Therefore, we have had the time and the opportunity to put together and represent the desires of individuals living in the countryside. I am particularly interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, about the distances which have to be travelled. I believe that he under-estimated rather than over-estimated the distances involved.
The problems of access to health facilities in rural areas are familiar. A widely scattered population, many with limited mobility, make access to facilities difficult and render large units financially unviable. Also, many rural communities have a larger than average proportion of elderly people. Current government policies, including the introduction of the internal market within the health service, and the increase in the capitation element in GPs' contracts, have led to a significant worsening of services for people living in thinly populated areas, hitting in particular those who have difficulty travelling to obtain their services.
The provision of services on a single district general hospital site is inappropriate and inconvenient for rural users, especially out-patients. The social benefits of provision on multiple sites must be balanced against the need to make use of staff and skills in the most resourceful way. Very often it can be said that the marriage of the two—using social benefits and staff and skills—produces the best answer. I am not an admirer of the use of large units for the provision of health care. I believe that it will be found in this regard, as in so many others, that we shall move away from gigantism and towards "small is beautiful".
We should certainly, where appropriate, introduce mobile out-patient clinics which could take place in village halls and community centres. Rural ambulance services and hospital travel schemes are essential to many people living in villages and those must be properly funded. I shall say a few words in conclusion about the length of time for which money will be necessary. At present, we certainly ask for proper funding of those services. In Cornwall, an air-ambulance scheme has been pioneered. It is possible that in remote areas, something along those lines should be copied.
There should be more peripatetic primary and community health services, from chiropody to family planning. The setting up of primary health care, including GPs, practice nurses, health visitors, social workers, district nurses and midwives and dentists, would be of major importance in rural areas. Even some hospital care can be provided in the local community. Suitable patients can be discharged from hospitals and looked after by community nurses in their own homes.
We believe that there should be special financial arrangements to enable rural pharmacies to survive in areas of scattered population. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned that. The aim is to ensure that

1231
the local population has access to a reasonable amount of medication and also that community nurses are able to prescribe medication knowing that it can be made.
It is essential that the body responsible for administering the health care in an area should be representative of that area. Mechanisms need to be in place to ensure rural representation on relevant health associations and boards. Funding formulae for services must reflect the additional costs of providing a decent services in the rural areas.
Having said that, there is now the additional community care which will be needed for those who come out of institutions needing to be looked after. The countryside is almost ideal, not just because it is a reasonably healthy place in which to live but because there is a tradition of community care in villages and rural areas which can he tapped. If it is to be tapped it must be supported. It needs subsidy and support. In particular carers need support. There is an absolute need for machinery to be on tap so that carers can be given the support they need if they are to do their job properly and if they are not to be totally exhausted looking after people suffering from Alzheimer's disease or complete disablement of various kinds.
The real answers to the problem lie in a return to the countryside; in other words, a re-population of the countryside. I have said that in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion. There is a chance that it may happen. If it does and if we develop the kind of industry, services and jobs which, for example, do not depend on electronics, people will actually be able to live in the countryside and work. We can then start re-populating the countryside and will be able to keep the post offices, the village hall and schools that we have and provide the kind of medical care which is absolutely necessary. I sincerely hope that that will happen. I think that governments of this country must ensure that it does happen.
When it does happen, the financial burden foreseen at present will become much less because the communities themselves will be able to support what is going on. In the meantime, it must be the business of the Government to ensure that the rural areas do not suffer merely because a little more money is needed to keep operations going. The people of the country must not be the sufferers. The Question that has been asked this evening is a very important one. I look forward to hearing the Government's reply.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for giving us the chance to debate a particular aspect of rural life which certainly needs examining. I think we can all agree that this is an area which needs intervention by government and local authority—that is, both action and intervention. It is certainly not a problem which can be left to the market. We know that approximately 10 million people live in the rural areas and that is about one-fifth of the population. In fact, the population of rural areas is increasing. A recent survey showed that 13 million people now living in
1232
towns and cities would like to live in the country and that 4 million people expect to move to a more rural area within the next five years.
But alongside that evident love of the countryside and rural living, there is the uncomfortable fact that 25 per cent. or more of rural households are living on or near the margins of poverty. I know that the Government find it hard to make any connection between health and poverty; but everyone knows that it exists. There are problems of transport, housing and unemployment and they all have an impact on the health of people who are living in rural areas. That can be both directly as regards their state of health and indirectly through such matters as poor transport facilities which make it harder for people to visit their GP or to get to their community, district, or regional hospital.
A particular district health authority that I know well claims to be over-provided with community hospitals. It is trying to reduce those facilities and to centralise much more of the services on the district hospital. But that is taking place in a city with notorious traffic problems, on a site where it is sometimes literally impossible to park a car and where, if a parking place can be found, the hospital car park is now charging for the service and clamping those who forget to pay. Of course, that is not the problem for 25 per cent. of rural families in Wiltshire that do not own a car; they just have the problem of a very inadequate public transport system.
ACRE (Action with Communities in Rural England) has produced an excellent publication entitled Health Care in Rural England which describes the problems extremely well and which sets out proposals for action. That report was mentioned by my noble friend in his opening speech. It draws attention to the complexity of organisation in analysing and delivering health care in rural areas; for example, the regional and district health authorities, the family health service authorities, the GP fund holders, the non-GP fund holders and now the local authorities with their new responsibilities for community care all overlay and intermingle to a rather confusing degree where rural health care is concerned.
But, overall, there is one economic fact which must be faced: services are expensive to provide in rural areas. We know that the populations are scattered, the economic use of resources is difficult and effectiveness is harder to achieve by conventional non-rural yardsticks. Within that difficult framework efficiency, however defined, often demands that the consumer has to come to the service rather than vice versa, that the extra costs of service provision may be externalised by the provider to the customer—for example, he or she will have to pay more either directly or indirectly than the urban consumer—that fragile rural services are often withdrawn first when budgets are stretched (that is certainly what is happening in the area where I live) and that services are often enhanced by the use of voluntary organisations to help secure their delivery.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton gave an excellent example of what can be achieved at local level by an

1233
imaginative GP, a Dr. Browne, and good coordination of services. I have to say that such co-ordination is rarely present at the various levels of bureaucracy where there is hardly a rural dimension at all in planning, developing and monitoring good practice. The situation is unlikely to improve with yet another reform of local government structures on the way, a third wave of NHS trusts, another round of GP fund holders and all the problems of implementing community care reforms. Those reforms present a problem in rural areas. I know that the Minister is aware of that fact.
Another excellent report also by ACRE entitled Who Cares deals with community care policies in rural areas. It conducted a questionnaire in the Autumn of 1991 asking a number of rural community councils and social services departments to look forward to the situation as they saw it in April 1992. Overall, 27 county areas are covered and there was a good rate of response. I shall quote just two of the conclusions that were drawn from the answers. The first concluded that some counties are covered by more than one health authority and that some health authorities embrace a higher proportion of rural areas than others; but no respondents noted any specific differences in approach to rural areas in their planning. Secondly, it was noted that two-thirds of the rural community councils say that their county is not planning a specific rural care strategy.
With the exception of the rural practice payments within the GP contract and the arrangements for small pharmacists in rural areas, can the Minister say what other rural dimension exists in health planning? I have already given the example of one district health authority that has a deliberate policy of reducing community hospital facilities and centralising much more of the services. If such a decision is being planned, just how much of the cost-benefit analysis is conducted to measure the effect of such considerations as the lack of public transport, more travel for patients and their relatives, the greater load that is likely to be placed on informal carers and all the other problems that surround what seems to be a straightforward bureaucratic decision which is taken entirely on cost grounds?
Can the Minister say how much research has been carried out, or is contemplated, on the whole matrix of rural health problems? For example, such matters as the lack of public transport and, where it exists, its high cost. I have already referred to the fact that 25 per cent. of families in Wiltshire do not own a car. I am sure that that is a percentage which is repeated in many other areas. There is also the difficulty of running surgeries from village halls.
There are other difficulties over prescription and collection services. There are problems with establishing self-help initiatives in rural areas. Some health authority policies are insensitive to the needs of rural areas. Cuts are being made in ambulances and in the hospital car service. There is poor provision of ante-natal care and of maternity services in rural areas. Above all, there is a lack of recognition of the
1234
wider social care role of the rural GP. How much work is being done in the department on the whole matrix of rural health problems?
As I said in the debate on 3rd March:
"The problem of child care can be severely worsened by rural isolation, as can the situation of the army of informal carers looking after the elderly, the infirm or people with disabilities. The pressure to close community hospitals is intense in some rural areas, certainly my own".—[Official Report, 3/3/93; col. 670.]
The problem of rural pharmacies has been mentioned. That problem, together with the problem of a lack of child care and of informal care and the closure of community hospitals, are all examples of the many problems in rural areas that may be small in terms of absolute numbers but the impact of which on a local community can be very severe. The other vital players besides GPs in the rural health scene are, of course, nurses. I am sure there is no need for me to expand on the vital role that community nurses play. They work in rural communities, assessing needs, and providing care and support for those at home or in residential or nursing homes. Community nurses are particularly well qualified to assess the need for help through their regular visits. It follows that under-provision of community nurses in rural areas will be reflected immediately in the standard of care of people who are living at home or who are in residential care. That will place an immediate extra burden on the friends and relatives of those people.
The new funding arrangements for community care may result in a greater incentive to place people in residential rather than nursing homes to save costs. That will immediately place an extra burden on community nurses. There is great concern at the moment about the failure to co-ordinate health and social services at local level. That is particularly the case in rural areas. The January edition of the BMA News Review gives truly alarming figures. Those figures were given in January, only three months ' before the implementation of the community care reforms. The review shows that more than 90 per cent. of the GPs surveyed were not aware of a formal hospital discharge policy and more than 80 per cent. had not been informed of the proposed arrangements between the various community care agencies. It is clear there will be a grave problem in rural areas.
In conclusion I wish to compare and contrast this situation with the excellent GP initiative in Hampshire which was described by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. I am sure the Minister will tell us that that is just the kind of initiative the Government support. The idea of a local community co-ordinator is an excellent one, but who pays? If the Department of Health could find the money to support such appointments, that would be money well spent. It could eventually lead to a reduction in overall costs by keeping people in rural areas, especially elderly people, fitter for longer. That would reduce the need for residential, nursing and hospital care. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject which affects some 10 million people. Like other speakers in the debate I, too, await with interest the Minister's reply.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this debate should be set in the context of the successful one generated by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on 3rd March, in which he set out so clearly the social and economic needs of rural areas. I do not wish to add to the overall picture which he so well described then and again in his opening remarks tonight but to start by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for concentrating our minds today on the issue of rural health. No one is better qualified to do so since the noble Lord has not only lived in a Hampshire village for many years but served as Herbert Morrison's Parliamentary Private Secretary. He will have observed at close hand the complexity of the issues surrounding the setting up of the NHS, and watched, I suspect with interest, its evolution both countrywide but perhaps more particularly in the countryside.
I wish to add a personal note. I am also a country person and when the noble Lord was PPS to Herbert Morrison I was six years old and sometimes accompanied my father, a GP, around the villages he served, and later the village I served as a parish, district and county councillor. One quickly learnt that it was futile to treat rural areas as an entity. Two of the neighbouring parishes that I represented appeared to be not only different, but constantly at war with each other. These seemingly irreconcilable differences only made sense to me when it was explained that one supported the Royalists and the other the Roundheads a mere 300 years ago.
The effects of history cannot be eradicated. The intimacies of village life are complex. Traditions are important and they need to be understood, respected and taken into account when services are delivered by any government body, whether national or local. It is this philosophy which has inspired the Government to devolve the delivery of health care to as low a level as possible. Local people seek local solutions. They work with the grain of the community; they understand its dynamics; they identify its strengths, and they achieve results because instinctively they know what works where, and what does not.
Primary care in these situations assumes an even more important role. In the depths of rural areas the GP, nurse, health visitor and midwife are the NHS. The primary health care team has to be comprehensive, providing not only advice and treatment but rehabilitation, minor surgery, maternity, preventive and supportive services. For rural people a visit to hospital is not simply an inconvenience but for some a dreaded and even an alien experience—a last resort. Nurses, midwives and health visitors working in remote areas have enormous opportunities to push forward the boundaries of their professional practice. They can teach front-line carers many of the functions routinely performed by nurses, and they can take in some of the diagnostic, therapeutic and health promotion responsibilities normally associated with GPs. GPs on the other hand, working within the new reformed NHS are encouraged to perform minor surgery and other treatments normally associated with hospital care.
1236
In many areas we have witnessed the success of GP fundholding schemes but in rural practices because of their size there may be difficulties in meeting the requirements of the scheme. To ensure the benefits of fundholding are spread as widely as possible, the Government are piloting a number of schemes. Under these schemes an agency adopts the day-to-day management of the fund leaving health professionals to concentrate on the clinical aspects of fundholding. This makes it easier for small practices to come together and for rural communities to benefit from the added advantages of fundholding.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, highlighted the crucial role played by community pharmacists. Before 1983 there were no formal restrictions on NHS dispensing; any qualified pharmacist or doctor could dispense. It is a measure of the complexity and importance of the issues that it took the two professions eight years to agree on how the joint regulatory committee would operate. Under present arrangements before either a pharmacist or doctor starts dispensing, the family health services authority checks to see whether this would have any detrimental effect on existing services. Also there is a scheme under which small pharmacists who are some distance from the next pharmacy can claim financial support. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that as part of the current negotiation on pharmacist fees, the department is committed to strengthening the essential small pharmacy scheme. Despite the scheme, however, I know that in rural communities access to a pharmacy is not always easy. When there are difficulties dispensing doctors provide a convenient and tailored service delivered close to the people who need it. There are additional rural practice payments allowed within the GP's contract in recognition of the extra expenses incurred through call-out and travelling times.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Colwyn decided to raise the subject of dentistry. I believe that for some time there has been an uneven distribution in that service across the country. My noble friend highlighted the current and, in his view, exacerbating problem. The Government are monitoring the situation along with local FHSAs which are able to assist patients in obtaining NHS dental treatment. As always, some patients may need to travel to their dentist. Patients who are unable to travel can obtain treatment from the community dental service. The FHSA may also appoint salaried dentists to ensure adequate provision of services. The White Paper Promoting Better Health published in 1987 recognised concern over the location of NHS dentists. A location incentive scheme was agreed between the British Dental Association and the Department of Health, providing financial assistance with the cost of setting up or expanding dental practices in areas where there is a shortage of general dental practitioners.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn also asked what was the current position and what progress had been made on the recommendations of the Bloomfield Report. My honourable friend the Minister has clarified the position regarding progress on the report. He has indicated that he wishes to make determined but

1237
realistic progress on consultation and expects to have heard the views of all interested parties by the end of May. He will then be in a position to consider all the points that have been made when making a decision on the way forward.
A key feature of Working For Patients has been to change the focus of health authority work from the management of services to the purchasing of services. I believe that that will meet the anxieties and answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, this evening.
Purchasing requires health authorities in both rural and urban areas to change their habits and for the first time to act as the champions of the people, identifying their needs and setting contracts to meet those needs. That greater responsibility has been reinforced by the Patient's Charter with its emphasis on local service standards and people's rights under the NHS. We believe that decisions which involve local people, where they are encouraged and given the opportunity to influence contracts, will result in more appropriate services which are better targeted and sensitive to the needs of users and therefore more effective.
Health authorities are having to justify in public the decisions they reach. That includes the location where care and treatment is given and, in particular, whether or not for instance a cottage hospital might fit in with their overall proposals.
Accessibility, local geographical factors and transport links are key factors which those responsible for purchasing health services need to take into account. They need also to consider how best to secure high quality and value for money. Those are often very difficult judgments to make and we are all aware of how much concern there is when a much-loved local service is deemed to be no longer viable.
I should like to say a word about community hospitals. I generally share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I think that small is very often more beautiful, especially when it comes to rural hospitals. In my experience, decisions to close community hospitals are seldom made due to the poor quality of the service which they provide. The arguments are usually financially based. Of course, those charged with spending public money must be satisfied that it is well spent.
I believe that with the new funding arrangements under the reformed NHS we may see that the financial aspects of community hospitals change. Again in my experience, where a community hospital is paired up with a much larger district general hospital, the overhead costs of the district general hospital are often carried by the community hospital. That is an unfair burden. Under the new arrangements where there are community units which include a community hospital, I suspect that their value will alter, and their financial viability will also change.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, may perhaps gain a crumb of comfort from the latest OPCS figures that I have seen which show that the population of rural areas is increasing. That fact was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
1238
In order to achieve sensitive and effective purchasing, the local community must be involved and alliances built. We recognise that improvements in people's health cannot be delivered by the NHS alone. It needs the collaboration of everyone. Healthy alliances identify and harness the strengths in the community, bringing the many and varied contributions together for the benefit of everyone. NHS managers are being encouraged to form alliances with parish councils, community health councils, other local authorities, employers, voluntary bodies such as the local branches of the Women's Institute, WRVS, and professional associations such as the National Farmers Union, charities, playgroups, industry, retailers, religious bodies, schools and local media.
Those healthy alliances build on and enhance existing services. They are an integral part of the implementation programme for The Health of the Nation. Handbooks covering each of the five key areas—coronary heart disease and strokes, cancers, mental illness, HIV/AIDS and sexual health, and accidents—mention the importance of seeking ways and means of engaging the wider community into accepting and meeting the agreed targets.
The new proposals for community care, which were also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and which were fully implemented on 1st April, should improve services as individuals will have their needs assessed on a personal basis. Perhaps I may also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that carers' views have to be taken into account.
Alliances are based on the important principles of commitment, trust, working to common objectives, willingness to share, communication skills, acceptance of responsibility and good personal and working relationships. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised the example of Brockenhurst. I too have been impressed by the vision, the work, energy and enthusiasm of Dr. Derek Browne and his team, and I look forward to visiting them in June. The success of their work is based on having accurately identified the needs of their local community and having a clear vision as to how those needs should be met.
There are other examples of vibrant alliances, such as the Oasis project at Hailsham in East Sussex. There local GPs, in partnership with the Wealden District Council, prescribe a fitness programme at the local leisure centre rather than embark on a drug regime. That has benefited patients by improvements in their health, and better use is made of the facilities at the leisure centre. I have long believed that there are more imaginative prescriptions for depression and stress than Valium. And that scheme proves that.
Another example is the Meres Day Centre based in Ellesmere in the midst of the Shropshire lakelands. It occupies the ground floor of the former cottage hospital. That facility is owned by the people of Ellesmere and surrounding villages by means of a charitable trust. It provides short term intensive support during a crisis, help to recuperate after an illness or stay in hospital and longer term support for people who are unable to care for themselves as well as for providing relief for those who care for them.

1239
Before concluding, I should like to pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, at the beginning of his speech about the role of the Rural Development Commission. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his speech responding to the debate on 3rd March, referred to how the commission was the Government's main agency for diversifying rural enterprise. It is sponsored by the Department of the Environment and therefore outside my immediate area of responsibility. However, I understand that the priority areas are being brought up to date with the benefit of information arising from the 1991 national census. It is hoped that new areas will be announced this summer for implementation next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked what research is being undertaken into rural problems. At this moment I am not aware of any national initiative; but health service purchasers are carrying out a great deal of local research into the needs of their local populations. Clearly, without that information they would be unable to do a useful and worthwhile job.
In conclusion, support for rural health, particularly through good practice schemes, has been provided for a number of years and will continue. But what is of
1240
particular importance to rural communities is the greater sensitivity, improved information and more responsive pattern of services which have been introduced through the NHS reforms. The approach to greater community involvement through healthy alliances helps to ensure that the right balance between promotion, prevention and treatment is achieved, and allows services to be designed specifically to meet the needs of local populations, particularly those in rural areas.
I very much welcome the contributions made by noble Lords tonight, for I believe that in trying to provide such a diversity of solutions to such a multiplicity of personal problems it would be arrogant indeed if the Government pretended to have every answer.

Midland Metro Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.