Lords Sitting of 10 February 1993

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

Plutonium: Transport Safety
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether plutonium is being flown over Britain in containers designed to withstand a drop of only 27 feet and, if so, whether an accident might cause a major nuclear disaster.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the containers being used for the carriage of plutonium and other radioactive materials are designed and tested to withstand extremely severe conditions. The advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive materials in its report in 1988 advised that the health risk to people from the transport of radioactive materials, including civil plutonium by air, was extremely remote and acceptable. The report discussed and effectively ruled out any possibility of a major nuclear disaster from such transport.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is not the practice in other countries? Is he aware that in the United States, for example, the restrictions are so severe that no transport of plutonium takes place in the air? Is he also aware that in some countries such transport is prohibited and that the degree of safety in this country is below that anywhere in the world? Will the Government look at the problem again?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take strong issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. The safety standard in this country is extremely high and rigorous. It is approved by the IAEA and therefore it applies not only to this country.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in those circumstances I shall write to the Minister because there appears to be a factual difference between us.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not surprised that there is a difference between us. It has happened before and doubtless it will happen again.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the House of Commons Environment Committee warned against such transfer of plutonium? Although the Question refers to transport by air, is it not the case that the Japanese Government have prohibited the landing of plutonium in any of Japan's ports and have cancelled arrangements for the use of a specially converted ship? Does that not show that there is serious concern? As the Government have set up a
634
Cabinet committee to decide whether the THORP project in Cumbria should continue, should not the matter be reconsidered?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we share entirely the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for the safe transport of hazardous waste. That precisely is why ACTRAM was set up, with specialists available to give advice. That is why ACTRAM studied the situation so carefully and reached its conclusions.

Legal Aid: Costs
2.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to restrict the growth in the cost to taxpayers of the legal aid system and what is the anticipated cost in the current year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it is anticipated that net expenditure on legal aid will reach £1,100 million during the current financial year. That compares with £426 million five years ago. I have announced a number of proposals designed to bring the rate of growth under better control. Regulations to implement those proposals will be laid shortly. Even after my proposed changes have been implemented it is estimated that spending on legal aid will continue to rise by 10 per cent. per year. It will reach more than £1,500 million by 1995–96.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extremely interesting Answer. Does he share the view that although legal aid is a valuable service it is odd that in this day and age it should increase in cost as a percentage more rapidly than almost any other form of social activity? Is my noble and learned friend aware that many of us strongly support him in curbing legal aid, even if some fairly severe restrictions are involved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. Obviously, like every other type of public expenditure legal aid must be kept under proper control. One of the important objectives of what I have in mind is the achievement of that control in as fair as manner as possible.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his proposed savage cuts in legal aid have been condemned by the consumer bodies; condemned by the CABs and advice centres; condemned by the Law Society and the Bar Council; condemned by the judiciary; condemned by his own statutory body which has advised him on legal aid; and have met with approval only from the Treasury, from whence they came, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the number of names does not necessarily give strength to the argument. It is extremely important to consider the position. Surely a degree of control is required in

635
respect of public expenditure. I have carefully considered proposals put forward for other ways of limiting the expenditure on legal aid. So far none has been adequate to the task. I am willing to consider any proposals which will have the effect of providing a better and more efficient service for those entitled to legal aid while giving proper value to the taxpayer.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, fresh as I am from serving on a Select Committee which had the pleasure of listening to 42 petitioners in person, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind the vastly increased cost to the legal system of a substantial increase in the number of unrepresented litigants in both the criminal and the civil courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should perhaps say that I expect very little effect at all on criminal legal aid. As regards civil legal aid, I am not at all certain that there will be a substantial increase in the number of unrepresented litigants. It is true that there are unrepresented litigants at present. I do not have the precise figures but I should be very surprised if many are unrepresented because they are not eligible for legal aid. Many have views about the strength of their cases which prompt them to represent themselves.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, as in civil cases the litigant assisted by legal aid who is successful is normally able to recover the bulk of his costs from his non-legally aided opponent, will my noble and learned friend say what proportion of legally-aided civil litigants are successful against those who do not have the benefit of legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the proportion varies according to the subject matter. The one which is often singled out for most attention is personal injury actions. About 85 per cent. of those are successful and 15 per cent are unsuccessful. When the action is not successful the costs are considerable so that there is a cost to the legal aid fund in respect of all types of actions where legal aid is available.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that, by themselves, numbers do not count. Will the noble and learned Lord accept that among those numbers are many learned people who are involved at street level with the problems? People are entitled to have their problems properly dealt with and their cases heard. Has the noble and learned Lord considered what effect his proposals for cuts may have on the various charters produced by the Prime Minister; for example, the Citizen's Charter and the Patient's Charter? It is not much good giving people rights in charters if they find that they cannot afford the legal assistance to obtain those rights because of cuts imposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principal purpose of the charters is to confer rights which will not be required to be dealt with by a great series of legal action; for example, the way in which people are treated at public service counters and the disclosure of
636
the name of the person who is attending to them. My proposals are to curb the growth of legal aid. I want to make it clear that there is no question of reducing the legal aid budget. Those who speak of savage cuts imply that we are seeking to cut the legal aid budget. In fact, it has increased by 10 per cent. per year during the survey years. I do not envisage that my proposed changes to control the budget will have anything other than a marginal effect on charters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has made clear, to describe the control of expenditure which is rising more rapidly than that in almost any other area as "savage cuts" discredits the noble Lord who puts forward that argument.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend says, the matter must be taken in context. I wish to emphasise—because it seems to have escaped the notice of some—that it is expected that the legal aid budget will rise substantially during the survey years.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as legal aid, by definition, is given largely to the poorer sections of society, is not the major cause of such an increase the fact that there are now many more poor people because of the policies implemented by this Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the principal reason for the increase in the numbers seeking legal aid is because of the rise in the number of remedies available. Of course, it is also true that the range of cases in which legal aid is available is considerable. The demand for legal aid has risen on that account.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the legal profession could do much to reduce the increasing cost of legal aid and prevent the waste of police time and that of witnesses if it were to enter into discussions to reduce the number of cases which go right up to the door of the courts before the accused changes his not guilty plea to one of guilty?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend has made an extremely important point. The implications of the matter he has referred to go far beyond legal aid. It has implications as regards the convenience of witnesses, jurors and many others. Any suggestions that noble Lords can make that would have the effect of limiting this difficulty for the general public would be most welcome.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of a case that was mentioned in The Times two or three days ago where the costs of a legal action were discussed in the court? In the case that was mentioned a figure of £35 per hour per solicitor employed was considered reasonable. Does the noble and learned Lord feel that that kind of figure, as distinct from the somewhat astronomical figures that have been mentioned for legal services, is probably nearer the mark?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I represent the taxpayer and as I purchase legal services, the noble

637
Lord will not be surprised to hear that I much prefer the £35 figure to some other figures that have been mentioned.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, to what extent are the problems that my noble and learned friend faces in this field a reflection of policies followed by the Home Office? If so, will the searching study that we were told the Secretary of State is now going to carry out into the affairs of that department have a bearing on the problems that my noble and learned friend faces?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, obviously my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responsibility for policies relating to the criminal law. Those policies have an effect on costs and other matters. In formulating his policies my right honourable friend takes account of the effects they may have on the courts and on my department. However, he has a wider brief than that and he must take other matters into account.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I believe that this is both a difficult and a contentious subject. Will my noble and learned friend explore the possibility of treating it in terms of a debate rather than simply through questions and answers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always open to consider debates. We have had two debates on this subject since I intimated my proposals in November. One debate occurred at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the other occurred recently at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

Children Born Without Eyes: Research
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will commission independent research into the cause of some children being born with no eyes, with particular attention to the possible effects of pesticides, dioxins and viral infections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, this tragic condition has been studied for many years without any clear indication as regards its cause. However, it is recognised that it may be genetically determined. I have asked for all the available data to be reviewed by the department's external independent expert advisers. We shall commission any research that they recommend.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will do all she can to assist in this matter of children who are born without eyes. However, I am equally sure that an independent inquiry is far preferable to an inquiry conducted by a government department which is responsible for licensing pesticides, especially as the Ministry of Agriculture has been less forceful in restricting pesticides than agriculture ministries in some other countries. Pesticides are a possible source of the
638
problem we are discussing. Will the noble Baroness try to ensure that the Government establish an independent inquiry to examine the statistics and to investigate any possible cluster effect? Where cluster effects are found, clearly the local hazards must be identified. Will the Government also make a special effort to help the children affected by this condition and their families?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is very much my intention to help the children affected by this condition and their families. At this stage, however, the Government would be reluctant to institute an independent inquiry. We would prefer to use our external independent expert advisers who have the specific task of reviewing these kind of incidents. I believe that is a quicker way of tackling the problem. Our advisers can obtain information more readily and we can then take action.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Baroness said this defect may be due to a genetic condition, but is she aware that another condition known as optic nerve hypoplasia, which is not a genetic condition, may also be a cause of the defect? I urge the noble Baroness to follow my noble friend's suggestion and establish an independent and unprejudiced inquiry into this. This is a very serious matter.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is an on-going research agenda. The director of research and development at the department ensures that issues of the day that need investigation are investigated. In the current year we are spending £20.22 million on research and development. That is just within the department. In addition, a great deal of research is being carried out within the NHS and among non-departmental public bodies.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is probably a condition that occurs worldwide and is one of distressing proportions, can my noble friend say whether the World Health Organisation is doing anything in this field?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend any information on that point at the moment. I am not sure what research programmes the World Health Organisation is carrying out. However, I shall certainly bear his views in mind. If we can learn anything from other countries we should do so.

International Criminal Court Proposals
2.55 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the Answer of Baroness Trumpington (H.L. Deb., 19th January, col. 810), whether, when the United Nations sets up an international criminal court, cases involving British service personnel accused of war crimes will be investigated and tried by that court.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the study by the International Law Commission of the possibility of establishing an international criminal court is at an early stage. It is impossible to speculate on what its jurisdiction may be. British service personnel accused of war crimes may be tried in civilian courts in the UK.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I appreciate that discussions are at an early stage. But this matter is a cause of great concern. Will she give me an assurance that before any decisions are taken by Her Majesty's Government, the Chiefs of Staff, commissioned officers and other ranks will be consulted about the implications of any such agreement and also that Parliament will discuss the matter? Will this matter require legislation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that if an international criminal court is to be set up by the UN it will be some time before it is established. That gives us the opportunity which the noble Lord mentioned to allow the very fullest discussion to take place before any war crime is referred to that court, should it be established, rather than to a civilian court in the United Kingdom, wherever the alleged offence has taken place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would this matter need legislation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe it would require legislation. However, I should like to check on that. I do not believe we could proceed with an international criminal court of this kind without legislation being initiated.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I believe my noble friend said an examination was being carried out as regards the possibilities of setting up this international court. Who in the international arena is sponsoring this court and taking the initiative in the matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the United Nations commission of experts is taking the initiative in this matter. That commission will report to the UN Secretary General. The experts are obviously considering machinery which already exists under the terms of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for prosecuting those who commit grave breaches of the conventions. However, it will be some time before the court is established and full discussion will be undertaken before we reach any decision on this matter.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister comment on allegations that the UN commission investigating war crimes in Yugoslavia has insufficient resources to carry out its job properly? Why is it that the UK Government have so far failed to submit any evidence to this commission when both the United States and France have already done so?
Baroness Chalker: My Lords, I am not aware of the UN commission of experts having any lack of
640
expertise, time or resources to carry out its work and to make a report to the Secretary General. Nor am I aware that we have failed in any way to submit information. Certainly in respect of one aspect of the war crimes—the awful rapes that appear to have happened—Britain has been in the lead, with Dame Anne Warburton leading the mission. We have given the UN commission as much help as we can and shall continue to do so.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes and in that of the noble lord, Lord Chalfont, six minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. These two amendments to standing orders give effect to two items in the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House, which enjoyed a favourable wind when it was agreed to on Monday of this week.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 40(2)
At end insert (", unless unanimous leave is granted by the House.").
Standing Order 51
Leave out Standing Order 51 and insert the following:

("51.—(1) When, on the Question being put, a division is called for, the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall order the Bar to be cleared. Two Tellers shall be appointed by the Contents and two by the Not-contents.

(2) If, after a lapse of three minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared, Tellers have not been appointed for either the Contents or the Not-contents, a division cannot take place. The Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall declare the Question decided in favour of the side which has appointed Tellers.

(3) One Teller for the Contents and one for the Not-contents shall be appointed for each division lobby without respect to their degree; and Clerks shall be in attendance in each division lobby to record the names of the Contents and Not-contents respectively; the Tellers shall count the votes and announce the numbers to the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair.

(4) After the lapse of six minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared, or longer at the discretion of the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, the doors of the Chamber shall be locked, and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall inform the House or the Committee of the Question which is the subject of the division.

(5) A Lord may vote in a division although he did not hear the Question put.").—(Lord Ampthill.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee: Report
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman rose to call attention to the sixth annual report of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should first like to pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) not just for the annual report but for the other specialised and detailed reports which they produce from time to time. They show a deep understanding of the problems of those with every kind of disability as they try to journey around our cities and our countryside.
This document reminds us that it is not just people with physical disabilities who need help to use public transport, but those with other disabilities, such as parents with prams, buggies and young children, the elderly, and those with heavy baggage and shopping. Over 6 million people in the United Kingdom have some disability. They include 2.5 million who have access to a household car, and 3.75 million who do not. Over 4 million people have a serious mobility problem, and 500,000 of them use wheelchairs. The easier the access to public transport, the more those persons will be able to use it, or to increase their use of it.
The Department of Transport Disability Unit report for 1990 said that its research suggested that there was a new market of up to 40 per cent. of disabled persons who could start to use buses and coaches, or use them more often, if those buses and coaches were easier to get on and off. Those extra passengers could amount to some 2.3 million people. Surely that is an incentive to go out and get on with the job.
The report that we are discussing is wide-ranging. Basically it deals with the pedestrian environment, the bus industry and education and training for mobility. The summary begins:
"Accessibility in the pedestrian environment is fundamental for removing mobility handicaps".
We all know that to be true. We have all experienced uneven footpaths, ill-sited seats and litter bins, cars parking on pavements, cycles strewn around, even being ridden on footpaths, indiscriminate parking at bus stops by cars and vans, no ramps to get up kerbs, and insufficient tactile paving for the blind.
If that kind of obstruction takes place, then mobility handicap is the result, and any effort to make other modes of transport accessible is virtually impossible. It is an interesting statistic that three-quarters of all pedestrians admitted to hospital after accidents have suffered injury by falling on the pavement. What cost is that to the NHS?
On education and training in transport for mobility, I hope for the widest possible publicity for other reports by the same advisory committee—the DPTAC Catechism and the Pilgrim's Progress. I endorse that committee's fervent hope that the next
642
generation of people in charge of public transport will understand the scale and nature of their future markets and how best to serve them.
I want to concentrate most of my time on the bus industry and some serious factual conclusions contained in the report. It says:
"that because of a combination of adverse conditions in the past, at present and in the all too near future—and in spite of determined efforts by management with all matters in its control—neither the bus operating industry nor the bus manufacturing industry in Britain can now be expected to perform so as to prevent harm to society unless transitional help is provided".
The report goes on to judge that,
"given transitional help, the two industries could produce positive new advantages to society within a few years and on an increasing scale".
I believe that what comes out of the report is the knowledge that some of the suggested recommendations needed to be acted upon urgently so that the industry can survive in the immediate future, and that there will still be available such forms of economic services which are needed in both urban and rural areas.
So what is happening? The Department of Transport is sponsoring a series of experiments on bus priorities and other measures to encourage people to use public transport. The department is also supporting experiments with low-floored buses. In this House on 19th February 1990, the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, on behalf of the Government, said that four demonstration vehicles had been touring the country for 18 months. That takes us back to 1988. The noble Viscount went on to say that time would be needed to sort out any technical and operational problems.
It is now February 1993. How much more time does the department need? Is the Minister in a position to express an opinion on the result of those experiments? Is he aware that in Germany and Holland, low-floored designs are in wide use and it is accepted that not only people with disabilities but everyone else can use the same bus? Those experiments are good, but five years on and in the light of what is happening in Germany and Holland, will the Minister assure the House that there will be no delay in action taken to consider the bus industry's difficulties?
More accessible vehicles introduced into mainstream transport must surely be to the benefit of all users, and widen the opportunity to use public transport regularly for those who at present cannot get onto a bus. I accept that with deregulation and privatisation it is the bus industry which has to decide the level of its investment. The Bus and Coach Council statistics for 1991–92, using the department's own figures, show that by 1990–91 the average ratio of the industry's pre-tax profit to turnover declined to 1.5 per cent. and returns on capital to 4.2 per cent. That is not a sound base for investment. What powers can local authorities be encouraged to use to provide capital grants to assist in buying buses with the DPTAC specifications?
In his Autumn Statement on 12th November 1992, the Chancellor said:

643
"I propose, however, to allow a time-limited relaxation of the rules governing local authorities' use of their future capital receipts. The existing rules allow them to spend only 25 per cent. of their housing receipts and 50 per cent. of their other receipts. With certain exceptions, local authorities will now be entitled to spend all the capital receipts that they realise between tomorrow and the end of December 1993".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/92; col. 997.]
That statement was amplified on the same day by the Secretary of State for Transport who said:
"The temporary relaxation of the rules about capital receipts would provide extra resources for local authorities to spend, at their discretion, on public transport and roads".
Can the Minister give the House any information as to if and how that money is being spent? What active encouragement has the department given to local authorities to spend some of its capital receipts in this way? If Section 106 grants can be used for disabled, user-friendly buses for subsidised services, as DPTAC proposes, will the Government come out loudly and clearly in support of what people with disabilities need?
I recommend to the House paragraphs 30 to 50 of the report which give detailed statistical evidence on which the conclusions are based. They deal with the reduction in passenger travel, the effects of deregulation, privatisation and intensified competition. They tell of the incidence of fuel duty, of the loss of local bus grants, of reduction in annual support from public funds and of the financial difficulties which face the manufacturers and operators in the bus and coach industries.
We have seen staff reductions and a reduction in operating costs. We have seen a reduction in the size of coaches because smaller ones are more commercially viable than 53-seaters or the double-deckers. However, that only allows the fleet of the larger vehicles to age with a slower rate of replacements, and fewer additions to the fleet. In today's conditions the industry is left with the job of making a profit and showing a return to shareholders. Passenger fares have increased. The competition from the car and the recession means that the number of passenger journeys has fallen. In 1985–86 the National Travel Service suggested that 4 per cent. of the total population, including 11 per cent. of the elderly, had difficulty in walking and if they could reach buses they could not use them in their present form. There is therefore a need for the bus industry to look at the way in which a vehicle is designed and operated.
In June 1988 DPTAC developed its specifications which suggested low cost ways of making buses more readily available and more user friendly, not only to people with mobility handicaps but to all users. Many hundreds of low-floor buses now operate in Europe. The design makes buses easier to board and alight even with a wheelchair, buggy or pram. They are also quicker and easier for everyone else who uses the bus, thus saving time at bus stops. Indeed, operators in Germany and Holland have stated that they can provide the same service with fewer buses, thus helping to relieve congestion on their roads. Why cannot the DPTAC specifications be incorporated
644
into the construction and use standards to which all new vehicles must conform? Cannot that be done by order, or is legislation required?
Another benefit from having an accessible and reliable means of public transport is that the legal restrictions can be made on the use of cars in congested cities if the quality of the vehicle and the standard of the bus service is made more attractive. The bus manufacturing industry has faced similar problems of costs, financial restraints and reduced orders leading to a fall in the purchase of new buses by 31 per cent. in 1991 and a rate of sales of new buses which would not replace the fleet in less than 25 years.
The Bus Industry Monitor indicates that the age of many buses still in service will dictate a significant growth in rebodying and refurbishing in coming years in the absence of major fleet replacements. However, rebodying and refurbishing means retaining the chassis, and it is the floor of the present day chassis which has to be superseded if we are to have low, step-free buses, with their advantage in marketing and operation.
In paragraph 98 of the report, the bus manufacturing industry states:
"Tell us what you will need and when you will want it and we will produce it".
But, first, those manufacturers will need reasonable assurances that what they then produce will be bought. The report goes on to suggest that government action could prescribe conditions which would effectively provide common ground. For example, as was done with London taxis, they could specify that after a certain date no new buses could operate on local services unless they conformed to DPTAC specifications; and that after another specified time no bus which did not conform would be allowed to continue in service. The same conditions could apply for long distance coaches.
Local authorities could also help by laying down terms of tenders for services they intend to subsidise, including the types of buses to be used. Only help at this time from public funds can assist the bus industry to be ready to act in good time.
The report accepts some of the side effects of the former new bus grants and suggests that any new grant from public funds should be directed at the bus operating industry rather than the manufacturing industry. It suggests that such a grant towards the acquisition of accessible buses might be payable to operators only as they scrap an equal number of buses of traditional design.
I conclude by referring to Appendix I. It points out that evidence shows that disabled persons able to use public transport means significantly fewer calls on domiciliary services; and that between £30,000 and £40,000 a year per 1,000 disabled people would be saved in that way with potential savings in excess of £200 million a year if all public transport were accessible. Accessible transport can play a very real role in enabling disabled people to continue living in the community rather than in institutional care.
Those are all valid reasons for doing something to improve transport. That would demonstrate that the

645
cost of providing mobility is less than the cost of acquiescing in immobility. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for initiating the debate and to congratulate her on the very constructive way in which she did so. I emphasise the need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government in response to the DPTAC report, to which she referred. I, too, warmly congratulate the members on the production of the report. I declare an interest as vice-president of RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—which also welcomes the report, although it has some regrets to which I shall refer as I speak.
One of the advantages of this House is that because of our age structure we are better able to understand the needs of disabled people—many of whom are elderly—than perhaps applies to those in another place, or indeed to the population as a whole. The OPCS survey in 1988 on the prevalence of disability among adults found that 24 per cent. of people in their sixties, 40 per cent. of people in their seventies, and 70 per cent. of people aged 80 or over were affected by disability. That is a factor that we ought to bear in mind. The demographic structure of our population suggests that about 6 million people have mobility disabilities. It is suggested that by 2026 the figure will have increased to 7 million. We therefore have an increasing problem as the age structure of our population increases.
Nearly 50 per cent. of families in Britain have a car in the family. However, many elderly people live alone without a car, or with only one other companion who also is without a car. A substantial proportion of our population is dependent upon the family, some of whom may live far away and some of whom may not be able to provide transport at the time when the person needs it. Inevitably, that person becomes dependent upon public transport, and would find taxis very taxing on income.
The National Travel Survey in 1985–86 shows that 11 per cent. of the elderly population can use buses if they can reach them. That is a big "if" because for many people a bus stop is often at a considerable distance from where they live. That applies especially if those people are in wheelchairs. Nineteen per cent. of the elderly population have difficulties in walking. If they can reach a bus, they cannot use it as it is presently designed. That point was made strongly in the report and by the noble Baroness in introducing the Motion. Thus the design of buses is critical to increasing the mobility of disabled and elderly people. That is a problem which must be tackled as a matter of urgency. It will not be good enough if the Government say, "Well, we're strapped for funds". We are always strapped for funds. It is a matter of deciding on our priorities. As a society we have a debt to pay to disabled and elderly people.
646
The importance to the disabled person of having buses designed to meet their needs hardly requires emphasis. Perhaps I may refer to paragraph 84 of the DPTAC report which states:
"Low floor design goes to the heart of the main cause of mobility handicap in using buses by making it easy to board and to alight; and possible to do so from the kerb even in a wheelchair or with a buggy or a pram. But the same feature makes it easy and quick for everyone else to use the bus; and time is saved at bus stops in operating the bus, particularly if off-bus ticketing is used. So much time has been saved in this way that operators in Germany and the Netherlands have found it possible to provide the same services with fewer buses".
That point needs to be emphasised, and it is important that we should begin to learn some of the lessons from other countries which are ahead of us. I am thinking of our Community partners who are ahead of us in providing that facility.
Bearing in mind the public anxiety about safety, the need for the reduction of pollution and traffic congestion, the design of new buses is crucially important. I wish also to refer to another of the paragraphs in the report (paragraph 89) which states:
"For the industry there would be a new marketing opportunity. It would be offering something better for people who are already its customers; something better also for those who could have been its customers but have chosen not to be; something for those who would have had to give up using buses but can continue to use them in their … accessible form; and something for those who have not been using them because they have not been so accessible".
To give the necessary boost to a change in the design and construction of buses demands government action. Time is of the essence; and it requires some form of government assistance in funding. The DPTAC report produced a code of practice for bus operators. It includes the provision of handrails on buses; for the handrails to be in bright contrasting colours and to be covered with plastic material which is easier for people to hold. The bell button should be lowered to a height which disabled people can reach from a seated position. The entrances should have split steps with appropriate handrails to enable people with a locomotive disability to get on to the bus more easily. I submit that none of those changes is expensive in any way. They are simply good common sense to enable disabled people to use the vehicles.
However, DPTAC specifically does not provide access for wheelchair users. The Government have announced that they will assist in the funding of some low-floor buses in the United Kingdom during this year. But during the UK presidency of the EC, the Secretary of State for Transport decided not to take forward an EC draft directive which would have required, from a future date, all buses to be accessible. I should like the Minister to answer the question why we did not take this opportunity during our year of presidency. It seems to me to have been another opportunity missed. The report which was published in October quite specifically urged the Government to take an initiative during the six months' period of our presidency. One might have thought that that would in some way have been a redeeming feature of an otherwise disastrous presidency for the United Kingdom.
A final word about pavements. They were mentioned in the report and just referred to by the

647
noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. As she said, the report showed that three-quarters of pedestrians who are admitted to hospital after an accident have suffered injury by falling on the pavements. There is strong evidence, difficult to quantify, that the quality of pavements is decreasing rather than increasing as a result of local authority cuts in pavement repairs. I can vouch for that: in the area where I live in East Finchley, the quality of the footpaths has been so disturbed that for many people they are now dangerous.
It is important that we should not allow standards to slip at a time when needs are increasing. I appeal to the Government to see the urgency contained in the report and the urgency mentioned by the opening speaker in this short debate. The Government will receive full credit if they go forward and take a positive attitude towards the needs of disabled people.
3.26 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, it is very welcome that my noble friend Lady Stedman was successful in the ballot for a debate. It has given us the opportunity today to discuss the subject. I note that the Disabled Persons Transport and Advisory Committee, other-wise known as "Diptack", has chosen three main aspects of the subject on which to offer recommendations. I am amazed to learn that the National Consumer Council estimates that over half of all pedestrians who had to be kept in hospital for treatment did so as a result of pavement falls. How much more dangerous the uneven pavement must be to the visually handicapped person.
Although quite recently there have been notable improvements in the state of pavements generally, perhaps the most trying are those pavements which are heavily sloped. That must be a particular problem for someone in a wheelchair, not forgetting children in buggies or pushchairs. Pavement crossings—many of which are today well sloped—would perhaps be safer to use if a different coloured kerbstone were used. It would ensure a greater degree of safety.
The design of textured pavements to assist partially-sighted people is good, but they are, I fear, few in number. The sound to attract the attention of the blind or partially sighted is good, but sometimes it hardly gives time for a person to cross. The Royal National Institute for the Blind reports on a new audible signal called the "Bleep and Sweep" because of its distinctive sound. It gives four bleeps followed by a longer, rising tone. It is now available for use at staggered Pelican crossings. The loudness of the signal can be adjusted to enable the partially sighted or blind to hear it above the traffic, but it cannot be heard on the other side of the staggered crossing, which is essential if a partially blind person is to cross in safety.
There is a new form of crossing indicator called the Puffin which can be used instead of the Pelican crossing; it is the pedestrian user-friendly intelligent crossing and is so called because it can spot a person arriving at the crossing, able-bodied people or anyone with any form of disability who needs a longer time to cross. It enables the green man to remain long enough
648
for someone to cross. As I understand it, it can regulate traffic to enable pushchairs or wheelchairs to cross. The Puffin need take only two or three seconds longer when needed and I understand that when no one needs it it can switch off to allow traffic to flow more freely.
The RNIB reports that 50 such Puffins are to be installed and tested. Can the Minister say whether one could be installed at the bottom of Bridge Street and Whitehall where traffic turns left for Westminster Bridge? The present little green man hardly gives time for a person to cross before the green has changed to red. It is a wide crossing, but the dangerous side is the one I have mentioned. Highway authorities have been given all the information they need from the Department of Transport to choose between a Puffin and a Pelican crossing.
One other tactile aid for the partially sighted is a little round knob in addition to the press button on a control box for pedestrians to cross at lights. When the green man shows, the round knob rotates. I do not know how many there are in use, but the Ministry of Transport knows and approves of it; so I hope it will become widely used.
With regard to unmanned stations, I note that the committee has expressed concern about the policy of leaving 1,000 railway stations unmanned. I wonder whether the Minister is yet able to say whether British Rail has reviewed the policy and explored the possibility of making greater use of tactile surfaces on platform edges. There are many other questions which concern BR. I do not wish to suggest that it does not have a very good record in relation to disabled people. But there are many trains which require one to press a button to open the carriage door on arrival at a station. I note that in many cases the buttons are obviously too high for a person in a wheelchair. What would happen to a solitary disabled passenger in a wheelchair on a platform at an unmanned station with no ramp to assist in boarding the train? But there are many good stations for disabled users. I wonder how privatisation of BR will affect what on the whole is currently an excellent service for disabled people.
I draw particular attention to a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaking on an Unstarred Question on disabled transport, when he said:
"However, even if you can understand the actor's voice it is not much help if you are on the wrong train to be told the destination after you have left the station of embarkation. Surely the announcement should be made before the train leaves the station".—[Official Report, 19/2/90; col. 122.]
Certainly on the InterCity trains that I use from King's Cross announcements are made of places where the train is to call several minutes before it leaves, and more than once. Similarly, at York the destinations of trains are announced clearly and they are often repeated several times, apart from the display on the electronic visual boards. We must be grateful to the noble Lord for what I am sure must have encouraged British Rail to make this improvement at some, if not all, stations.
There is one very important point made by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the need for visual displays or indicators. Many deaf people who travel regularly have watched in dismay their train

649
empty of other passengers as they obeyed the tannoyed instructions to continue their journey from somewhere else. At the present time, when there are not infrequent alerts for security reasons and orders to clear a station, it is imperative that there should be some form of easy display or indicator for the hard of hearing to read.
London Regional Transport has installed visual displays in 170 of the 274 Underground stations, which the RNID welcomes. The only problem is that they do not display information telling passengers to evacuate a station for security or safety reasons. I hope that London Regional Transport may consider the possibility of doing so.
London Regional Transport provides access for deaf people by means of a 24-hour minicom inquiry service, but many other transport services have overlooked the need for such access. This is Text telephones, which allow deaf people to access the telephone network by typing their conversation on a small keyboard. It is then transmitted down the telephone line to a similar terminal capable of receiving typed script. That is of great help to the hard of hearing, especially in an emergency.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is possible for railway stations and travel centres to be encouraged to aid those who rely on lip-reading by installing non-reflective glass. Ordinary glass shines and makes it almost impossible to lip-read and so to understand what is being said.
With regard to the disabled driver, I ask the Minister whether there are disabled instructors to teach a disabled learner, especially where a car may have entirely hand operated movements. It would perhaps give the learner added confidence if he knew his instructor would understand his difficulties very well from experience.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this important debate so eloquently and warmly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I must also congratulate the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on coming up with a frank and lucid sixth report.
The section on the bus industry is accurate and presents a fair assessment of the current situation. It is with that industry that I declare an interest and a long and happy association. The views that I shall express are those of the Bus and Coach Council, which represents the bus operators, and the Passenger Transport Executive Group, which represents the views on transport of the metropolitan authorities.
I hope that the following will not sound offensive, but the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned the matter in her opening remarks. To talk about "the disabled" is inaccurate and imprecise. There is no such single category. There are degrees and types of impairment or reduced mobility, ranging from the wheelchair user to the elderly, the sight-impaired, the young mother with shopping and a child, even the young man with his leg in a plaster cast. To propose a single solution—wheelchair accessibility for a minority—is to overlook the needs of the majority for
650
whom less radical solutions are appropriate. Indeed, such DPTAC solutions have universal benefits even for the fully mobile.
The industry and its members have for many years paid great attention to improving the quality of buses and the facilities provided in order to offer safer and more attractive services. Many of those features have been adopted by DPTAC, whose consolidating work is welcomed by the industry. The bus industry has been in the forefront of initiating the production of vehicles with more convenient access and lower step height—the noble Baroness covered that point—more comfortable and accessible seating, better lighting and smoother and safer acceleration and braking.
However, it should be realised that there are technical and operational limits beyond which vehicles become unreliable and excessively complex and costly. Many of the DPTAC recommendations are now, happily, generally incorporated in specifications for new vehicles and simpler ones widely adopted on a proportion of existing fleets. As vehicle fleets are replaced and updated, the percentage of vehicles including such features will increase. However, that increase is likely to be very slow, as the industry is operating with profit margins which are far too low to provide for adequate replacement or updating of its fleets. Bus operators aim to provide services which can cater for as many passengers as practicable, and in this context the willingness of some local authorities and passenger transport executives to contribute towards the retrofitting of appropriate DPTAC features on existing vehicles undoubtedly speeds up the process.
The industry has demonstrated that it is keen to incorporate DPTAC features, recognising that the benefits accrue to all passengers, not just the elderly and disabled, and it is optimistic that universal adoption of DPTAC specifications and other improvements will eventually be recognised by the public as beneficial. As yet, however, experience with DPTAC modified vehicles has not demonstrated that such provision has generated additional ridership sufficient to offset their cost.
In the absence of adequate profitability, the industry would only be able to incorporate the more extensive DPTAC features by increasing fares. Industry does not consider it reasonable to expect the ordinary passenger to provide financial provisions for a separate class of ridership for which special facilities may be required.
It is accepted that the DPTAC improvements need to be funded by way of a direct Department of Transport grant, or through a grant under Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 at local level, sufficient to allow the full DPTAC specification to be adopted on new buses and retrofitted, as far as practicable, on all those existing vehicles which have at least five years' expectation of service.
The industry will continue to improve the quality of bus services and of its vehicles. But the rate of progress, where expensive and extensive modifications are required, will necessarily he slow. A faster rate, if thought to be socially desirable, can be achieved only with external public support in the manner suggested. Nevertheless, the industry is participating in the trial

651
use of ultra low-floor buses in London and in the North East, and we await the results with interest. Although ideally all buses should be retrofitted to provide wheelchair access, in terms of value for money many more people would be able to travel if all buses were modified to the DPTAC standard rather than a few new buses made fully accessible.
The report does not address the difficulties which transport authorities may have in maintaining the subsidised network if they require buses to be fully accessible, and neither they nor the operators can afford either to purchase new vehicles or to modify existing vehicles. It would not be feasible in many cases to make older vehicles wheelchair accessible and it is unfortunate that the committee has not recommended to the Government that credit approval be made available for upgrading vehicles short of wheelchair access.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it is unfortunate also that the Government did not use the opportunity of the EC presidency to expedite the production of a European directive on the accessibility of transport, both previous draft directives having failed to become law. The question of the nature of governmental action required is posed in the report. Can my noble friend say what is the Government's view?
3.43 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, the most appropriate way of thanking my noble friend Lady Stedman for providing us with this opportunity to debate transport for disabled people is no doubt to target my comments with the same admirable precision as the DPTAC Report to which she called our attention. That report makes the point of general principle that we should not further disable people with disabilities by running transport services that they cannot use and cluttering pavements to the extent that rights of way become obstacle courses. The report also notes that those who staff our transport services can be either aides to the mobility of people with disabilities or human obstacles to their mobility, apart from the obstacles provided by the pavements themselves.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Peter Baldwin and his colleagues for making us think, since lack of thought is so often the main problem. One of MENCAP's trustees is blind —though physically he moves around with an energy which makes me out of breath watching him. He travels a great deal and on a recent visit to a familiar railway station he was thrown by an unexpected change in the arrangements. He inquired how he was supposed to have picked that up. The answer was that there was a notice. He then asked how, as a blind person, he was supposed to know that there was a notice which affected him. "You could ask", the official said helpfully. I will not complete the conversation. Your Lordships will have identified the peculiar logic. I have seen a notice at the taxi stop at Euston Station, which I am sure many of your Lordships have also seen, which advises disabled people on arrival to contact a member of the station staff if they need help. I have never yet seen such a
652
member of the station staff even within hailing distance never mind standing by, ready, willing and able.
The DPTAC Report shows how the technical ability to meet the needs of people with disabilities has advanced by leaps and bounds in recent years. There have also been considerable advances in expectations of travel. There was a time when travel was apparently accepted as the prerogative of fit males between the ages of 20 and 40 and women travellers had the curiosity value of Mrs. Trollope, Mary Slessor or Mary Poppins. Women, women with small children, women expecting children, older people and people with disabilities are all now accepted as actual or potential travellers. I am a trustee of a group devoted to providing recorded tapes for disabled visitors to some of our major and minor national tourist attractions. Some of your Lordships may well be the owners of some of those attractions. We recognise that disability does not equate with a desire to vegetate.
Each year MENCAP organises a range of holidays to suit the varied tastes of people with learning disabilities; from adventure holidays to more restful breaks from the sometimes rather limited opportunities of daily life. Community care is a rather empty concept unless people have the opportunity to get out and about in the community and to travel further afield to the same extent as others in the community. There are people whose disabilities, including behaviour problems, are such that special transport is a more realistic option than public transport. But for the majority, the accessibility of public transport is crucial to mobility in the community and with the community. I use the term "public transport" in its traditional sense of transport for the public. I notice that there seems to be some measure of inter-party agreement that who owns it is of less importance than who can use it.
For those people with learning disabilities who also have a physical disability—and that is true for many of the older or more severely disabled among them, including my own daughter who is both physically, mentally and sensorily disabled—the Advisory Committee's recommendations on buses and coaches are exactly in line with their needs. The same is true for those who have problems with balance. I would underline what the committee said about action at the European level. At the moment the situation is quite different in continental Europe—sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. As my noble friend Lady Stedman pointed out, buses may be more accessible on the continent, but pushing a wheelchair around is easier on this side of the Channel than on the other. I would add that getting across the Channel is not as easy with a wheelchair as it should be, though here too there have been substantial improvements.
For the generality of people with learning disabilities, reliable transport is the main requirement with trained staff to compensate when the normally reliable is temporarily unreliable. Trained staff can help to compensate too for the sometimes unhelpful attitude of other travellers who are too single-minded in their determination to get from point A to point B to have time for their fellow citizens with disabilities.

653
There is a poignant story in a book just published about a rather special man with a learning disability who lived for 14 years in the L'Arche Community in Lambeth until his death at the end of 1991. He paid his fare on the bus and then gave up his seat to a lady. The lady sat impassively while the conductor proposed putting the disabled gentleman off the bus because standing was not allowed. Mention of conductors indicates that that little scene took place a few years ago. But it well illustrates how bus design, crew training and public attitudes need to be tackled to ensure that people with learning disabilities do not look back to the hospital crocodile—to the special hospital transport —as a safer guarantee of mobility than we offer them in both our community and theirs.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I share with other noble Lords my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing the debate and also congratulate Sir Peter Baldwin and his committee colleagues for what is an extremely comprehensive report on an acute subject. We must now await what I hope will be an equally comprehensive reply from the Government. The point I wish to make to the Government is that this is a responsibility which they now have and cannot avoid; and those who are operating buses and those involved in their manufacture, are entitled to some firm leadership from the Government.
My approach is slightly different from that of other noble Lords who have spoken. I had some six or seven years with the bus industry and I had some four to five years as president of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers. It is therefore a subject of which I have some knowledge. The National Bus Company was a large and successful commercial operation. We had some 16,000 vehicles. We were in a position to be able to buy each year on an orderly basis some 500 to 600 new buses. We were able to deal with what was then called the ageing fleet. We were therefore able to co-operate with the manufacturing industry over the types of vehicles that were required commercially and for the customers whom we served.
We can take pride in that we put the first of the "kneeling" buses, based on the Leyland National, into operation. We put it into Hastings where, according to our statistics, there were more elderly and disabled people than perhaps in other towns. Those buses were well received and were successful. But the nature of the Leyland National and the cost of maintenance of the rather complicated machinery necessary to form it into a "kneeling" bus led me and many of my colleagues in the National Bus Company to the view that we should look to a low deck bus.
Prior to privatisation we had already put aside a very considerable sum of money to carry out our own research into developing that type of vehicle. I was also persuaded, because of our duties under the nationalisation Act, to appoint a consultant. We were privileged to appoint Mrs. Claudia Flanders as our consultant on the disabled as ordinary passengers. I learnt from that how much could be done at relatively little cost. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to
654
covers on handrails. One had never really thought about that, but our attention was drawn to it and we were able to do it quickly and relatively cheaply.
The most significant result was that the drivers and the general work force of the company were able to understand the needs of the disabled right across the board—the blind, the partially sighted and those who were in chairs. They had a better attitude in dealing with those types of passenger. That new attitude flowed into their treatment of the general bus passenger. We were able to do many things because we were a large and profitable company.
We now have a different situation. We have deregulation and we have had privatisation into many fragmented and some very small companies. Those companies, even at the best of times, will have had difficulty in providing the type of contribution which a large organisation can make. But they have operated in a period of great adversity. They have had falling passenger ridership. Although they have been able to increase their revenue by increasing their fares by some 50 per cent., costs and revenue have meant that they are in a very parlous financial state. None of those companies has the financial capability, despite the quality and even the aspirations of their management, to provide orders to the bus manufacturing industry for the provision of a new generation of vehicles. It is beyond their competence and it would be unreasonable to expect them to do it.
The bus manufacturing industry—the body builders and the engine and chassis workers—has experienced a calamitous collapse of orders since privatisation. That has had a grave effect on its ability to participate in export markets. The industry is incapable of undertaking new initiatives to meet new demands. It is a situation which the Government, and only the Government, can reach. It is perfectly true that local authorities have powers, but the local authorities are themselves strapped for cash and I do not believe that they will be able to exercise those powers. So it is to the Government that we must look. If the Government were willing to find ways and means by which we could develop a new generation of low floor buses, with all the benefits that those would bring to the disabled and to the general public who use buses, we could get an increased ridership because they would be more acceptable than they now are. It could also have an effect on our ability to sell overseas, which has always been essential to the bus manufacturing industry.
The proposals for government support which are set out in the report are reasonable and sensible. Bus operators need aid and support so that they can buy the vehicles that they need. There is another way. One could form a leasing arrangement by which a leasing company could buy vehicles in advance in order to get the benefits of size and scale. Those buses could then be leased to the operator. That would be helpful in terms of their capital requirements.
I thought that the Government gave great hope during 1992, particularly through the speech of Mr. Freeman on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State wished it to be known that he wanted to pursue urgently an initiative in order to

655
improve accessibility to places of employment. But, as we know, the directive to which he referred went into abeyance. A new directive has now come forward. It is a matter for dismay that this aspect is attached to an appendix to the directive. Instead of being mandatory or a line of purpose it has been put into an appendix in an optional way. The Government should say what part they played in that decision in producing the new directive. Was it a case of subsidiarity, or was it the case that they themselves recognised that the industry was unable to find the sums required?
Despite the dismay and anxiety of all those who participate in this field I hope that the Government will come forward now with a clear determination to encourage the two sides of the industry so that this critical objective can be achieved in a reasonable period—shall we say, by the year 2000?
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may in one breath apologise to my noble friend Lady Stedman for not being in the Chamber for her opening speech and also thank her very much indeed for this opportunity to look at the excellent report and valuable work done by Sir Peter Baldwin and his team at DPTAC.
Three years ago, in the debate on transport for disabled people, I concentrated on the orange badge scheme—the new proposals; the four inner London boroughs and local authorities issuing their own badges—so I thought it would be interesting to see what progress had been made. The revised scheme was introduced in March 1992. There were just over 1.4 million badges then. About one-third of those are now of a new design. Although the criteria for issue were not tightened as originally proposed, they are more strictly applied and enforcement against abuse is made much easier by the new badge with the concealed photo.
I turn to the inner London boroughs. Here a remarkable success story lies behind the brief mention in Appendix XI of meetings about disabled persons' parking in central London. The late Neville Rees of the Department of Transport, brought together a group consisting of his divisional colleagues, representatives of the councils, the police, DPTAC and the Traffic Director for London, and Ann Frye, head of the DoT's Disability Unit. The police were very helpful because they do not like the differing entitlements under the boroughs' respective badge schemes.
DPTAC pressed for more designated bays, longer free periods at metered bays for orange badge holders and for mutual recognition of the boroughs' respective badge schemes—each as a step towards full acceptance of the badge scheme. The four authorities have consequently come forward with a series of proposals which should improve the concessions offered to disabled drivers and passengers. The City of London has very much taken the lead in this matter. It published a leaflet which lists the locations of 140 designated bays for orange badge holders. Camden has agreed to extend the orange badge scheme to a
656
large and important area south of the Euston Road. Last October Kensington and Chelsea provided 78 bays. Westminster hopes that 100 additional bays will be in place by the summer.
I have gone into some detail because it really is terrific progress, as anyone who has followed this saga over the past 20 years will appreciate. I very much congratulate not only the DoT and DPTAC, but also the boroughs in particular for having come up with these proposals.
All four boroughs have now been asked to consider allowing holders of the new orange badge to occupy metered bays without charge. That would be limited, progressive and easy to police. Therefore, it is hoped that within a few years the local schemes would then become unnecessary and the orange badge scheme would effectively apply to all people living, and/or working or visiting in any of the four boroughs which is what the scheme was originally intended to do. It would be the best possible tribute to Neville Rees who, despite his illness, pursued this outcome courageously but firmly and with resolute determination.
I now turn to the problem of the growing number of local authorities issuing their own badges which offer varying concessions and which use varying eligibility criteria. Some of them are instead of, some are additional to, the orange badge scheme. In fact, I am tempted to call this hotchpotch the "not the orange badge scheme". It does have certain farcical elements. For instance, I have a wonderful letter from the access officer of my local town stating that the eligibility criteria is,
"difficulty in walking 50 yards"
and since my application shows that I cannot walk, I am ineligible for the scheme.
It is actually a serious problem. It means that disabled people living elsewhere do not know whether they can park in a town which they plan to visit. Under the local town's often somewhat bizarre criteria they may well be eligible, but they do not know and so they cannot visit. The "not the orange badge scheme" has been discouraged by DPTAC, RADAR and the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People. The DoT stated that it was undesirable in a leaflet issued on the introduction of the new orange badge.
I shall quote briefly extracts from four pieces of correspondence between Peter Large, the chairman of the JCMD, of which I am a member, and Ministers, because it is the quickest way of summarising the current state of play. Peter Large wrote to Roger Freeman, Minister of State for Public Transport, on 20th July 1992:
"Your Department has made excellent progress in encouraging the inner London boroughs to recognise the problems of Orange Badge holders … and we wonder whether some similar initiative could be made in respect of the special local badge schemes. That would start dismantling existing special badge schemes.
"We would also welcome some action to prevent new schemes being set up. Frankly, we would like to see them made illegal".
The Minister for roads and traffic, Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, replied on 12th August:
"While we understand the difficulties that local authorities face in areas where parking demand is high, we agree that such schemes cause unnecessary and inconvenient restrictions on the mobility and freedom of travel otherwise enjoyed by

657
people with Orange Badges. As you say, we have asked local authorities to review the position of these schemes in the light of the new arrangements for the Orange Badge Scheme and are hopeful that the new Scheme will reduce the demand for such schemes. However, I should very much like to see how the new Scheme beds in and the effect this has on local schemes before committing ourselves to any of the actions you have proposed".
Peter Large wrote again to Kenneth Carlisle on 10th October saying,
"We know that you appreciate that many Orange Badge holders are finding life very difficult in the areas where local badge schemes operate. We trust therefore that information about local schemes and their future will be actively sought by the Department so that any action that may be required along the lines we suggest can be taken in good time".
Kenneth Carlisle replied on 17th November, once again in the same vein,
"On the introduction of local concessionary parking schemes for disabled people, I can only repeat that we will continue to monitor the position".
We are now a third of the way into the new-style badge scheme so I believe that it must be beginning to settle in a little. When the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, comes to reply can he say what conclusions have been drawn so far from their monitoring? Has there been any reduction in the demand for new schemes? Has there been any dismantling of existing schemes? Has the DoT had any correspondence with local authorities? What, in short, has been happening?
I look forward very much to the Minister's reply. I am sure that he agrees wholeheartedly that the revised orange badge scheme must be allowed to work. The four inner London boroughs have given the lead and if they who have resisted the orange badge scheme for over 20 years can do it, surely the other local authorities who hitherto adhered to the scheme can follow suit and ensure that the new-style orange badge enables all holders to get around and to conduct their lives as effectively as possible.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is very difficult to wind up a debate like this when one is surrounded by so much expertise. Nevertheless, I believe that it is very good for those of us who speak for our parties on transport in this House to be able to listen to such a debate of enormously high quality, containing a great deal of knowledge, and so excellently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
Perhaps I may spend a minute or two speaking about the pedestrian environment described in the excellent report because I believe that those of us who are not disabled in any way do not entirely realise the problems that are caused by minor obstructions on the pavements of the towns and cities of this country. I had an experience about 18 months ago when I tore a leg muscle. I was on crutches for the first time in my life, which was a very revealing experience. It happened at our party conference in Bournemouth where there is a most excellent new conference hall with ramps, lifts and also fire doors. I found that I could not get into the building. I could get up the ramps all right, but the big heavy fire doors stopped me from going into the building unless there was someone there to assist me.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, someone might have wanted it that way.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggests that that might have been thought a good thing by the rest of the party. That is for him to judge.
When I returned home I went for physiotherapy to my local hospital. I was unable to get into the physiotherapy department, again because of fire doors. I said to staff at the hospital "This is curious. You are dealing all the time with people with various disabilities". They said "Yes, but you see, it is the fire regulations". I said, "You mean that it does not matter whether people can get in or out. You prefer that they burn to death if they are left inside than to be able to get out if they are on crutches". There did not seem to be an answer to that.
I give that example by way of illustration. It comes as an enormous shock to people who do not normally suffer from disabilities to be faced with that kind of experience and to realise what many people go through every day of their lives. I was astonished to realise the level of injuries caused by broken pavements. I believe that RoSPA suggests that about 3 million people are hospitalised each year because of pavement injuries and 200 people die from them. Those are the kinds of statistics that one does not normally hear in debates on traffic and transport in your Lordships' House, but clearly they are extremely significant. Therefore, one welcomes the suggestion in the report that there should be proper monitoring of pavements. Those of us who have been accused in the past of conducting pavement politics perhaps feel less bad about it than we sometimes have done. It is an important factor in people's lives. Of course, parking on pavements is a real problem and a real cause of a lot of the damage done to our pavements.
I gather that since the repeal of Section 7 of the 1974 Act it is no longer illegal to park on pavements. I wonder where we go from here, and what legislation is going to be introduced to put back that provision. I may be misinformed, but I should be glad if the Minister could tell us where we stand, because it is a serious matter. First, where there is obstruction from cars people who are partially sighted bump into them and damage themselves, and perhaps people with wheelchairs cannot get their wheelchair past the obstruction. In addition, the parking of heavy lorries on pavements causes much damage to pavements.
Often we underestimate the problems from which partially sighted people in this country suffer. When one thinks of disability one thinks of the more severe physical handicaps, and people who are partially sighted are often forgotten in our considerations. There are other people who are not normally categorised as being disabled; for instance, people with arthritis, which has been described as the hidden disability. They find it difficult to walk about our streets. Another category suggested to me of people who can suffer badly is people with hip replacements.
The analysis of the situation on the buses has already been dealt with, and it is extremely well dealt with in the report. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. He is right that there are

659
many recommendations in this report that are admirable, but it is doubtful whether the bus industry as it stands today, particularly in its more fragmented state after privatisation and deregulation, is capable of generating the capital to replace buses at the rate they ought to be replaced or of the quality that is necessary to take account of the disabled. The Government must look at the whole question to see how they themselves can assist, or indeed assist the local authorities.
It is easy to say that there should be buses fitted with lifts, or there should be "kneeling" buses, or low-level buses, but if the capital is not there to provide these admirable vehicles we shall go rambling on for years without proper provision for disabled people. As has already been said, these buses would speed up our transport system. Again as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and another noble Lord mentioned, off-bus ticketing has not been seriously tackled in this country, and I do not understand why. It works perfectly well in many countries on the Continent but somehow nobody seems to have tackled here.
I fear that if we come to the deregulation of the London bus system—heaven forbid that we ever do, but it is threatened—many of these problems will be put on to the back burner again. The whole question of through-ticketing is a problem that affects disabled people, and I fear that the privatisation of British Rail is another situation where through-ticketing is going to be under threat. Bear in mind that disabled people are not among the richest members of the community. They will experience difficulties if their concessions are eroded. Many of them find it necessary to have a travel companion and are therefore responsible for two fares on each journey they make. Those matters must be borne in mind. We cannot allow through-ticketing on both buses and rail to be eroded.
There are one or two items that are only marginally referred to in the report, and one or two that have already been referred to today. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about notices. I was reminded of a notice allegedly in a Welsh village which said, "When this notice is covered with water, the valley is flooded". Similarly, I thought the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, about visible announcements for people who are deaf is an important facet that is not adequately covered.
I noticed that when the Heathrow Express mock-up vehicles were shown at Paddington about 18 months ago they included dot-matrix signs in each compartment, so that there is an announcement on a dot matrix as well as by sound of the station you are approaching. That is a good development that I hope can be incorporated in the rest of the underground system, and preferably in buses as well, because there is a great problem for people who have severe hearing problems.
I have received, as some other noble Lords no doubt have, representations in relation to this debate from London black cab operators. Although slightly wide of the mark it is an aspect that noble Lords ought to take into account. Their worry is the thought of licensing minicabs. On the whole, I approve of
660
licensing to improve the standards of minicabs, particularly where women travel alone and want some kind of security. In those areas where it is not possible to get a black cab they ought to have security in minicabs as well. I can understand the dilemma that arises by black cabs having to reach a certain standard to deal with wheelchairs where minicabs do not, and probably cannot, have that requirement. There is a genuine dilemma there.
We usually manage to bring bicycles into transport debates from these Benches. I think they are not referred to in the report. There is a particular problem with bicycles in that nobody ever seems to have a bell any more, probably because bicycle bells are pinched. I gather that there is no longer a requirement—and I should be glad to be corrected—for bicycles to have bells. People who are partially sighted can be put at grave danger by irresponsible cyclists rushing past them and causing them great distress.
Finally I want to say a word about the department's disability unit because it has been slightly left out of this debate. Although the Opposition Benches tend to castigate the Department of Transport from time to time, I think that the disability unit does an excellent job. It is clearly a listening department. Appendix 9 of the report gives some of the things that are being done. There is quite a list, including tactile services for blind pedestrians which we have touched on previously in your Lordships' House, particularly when someone was foolish enough to remove the one from outside St. Stephen's Entrance. There was an explosion in your Lordships' House and it was rapidly put back.
There is a whole series of questions, including that of pedestrian interface with light rapid transport systems. While we are talking about low level access to buses we also should be thinking of making regulations to the effect that all these new light rapid transport systems being introduced in the conurbations of this country are required to have proper low level access, or access for wheelchairs, and, indeed, tactile signing and all the rest of it. There is a long way to go, but the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has so well brought before us today points the way. I hope that we shall not take our eye off this important subject and that the Government will respond to all the suggestions in the report.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, not only for taking the opportunity to introduce the debate on the report, but also for the eloquence and significance of her remarks in so doing. This has been an outstandingly good debate. I have certainly learnt a great deal as, so he said, has the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
Two salient principles seem to emerge from the report. The first is that although there have been considerable advances in the technical means for helping those with disabilities whatever the form of their disability—it may be a question of a mother trying to wheel her child's pushchair on to a vehicle of one kind or another—public transport by and large does not cope adequately with mobility impairments.

661
The second point was well put by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who illustrated how the reductions in services which have emerged as one of the consequences of, as he put it, the deregulation, privatisation and fragmentation of the industry into small companies do not auger well for the kind of investment that is required. That is a point the Government must address.
We are not talking only about reductions in services in terms of helping those who suffer from some form of physical impairment; it is also a question of reaching the outlying or peripheral areas of our towns and cities which may not be profitable areas to which to run a service. There is also the question of the impact of all this on the bus manufacturing industry which is facing, as my noble friend put it, acutely difficult times. It needs help. It is an important industry not only for domestic purposes, but also because of the potential that it offers in terms of overseas markets.
I should like to advert briefly to the question of the pedestrian environment, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He referred to the number of accidents that occur as a result of uneven, slippery and neglected pavements. Such accidents account for something like three-quarters of the pedestrians who are admitted to hospital after suffering accidents. That is an astonishing percentage. There is often difficulty in obtaining legal aid in order to mount the smaller class of claim. That is compounded in times of difficulty for local authorities by the local authorities taking a stringent view about the liability and quantum that may be involved in the knowledge that it is extremely unlikely that the litigant will be able to afford to go to court.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also referred to the representations that had been made regarding the black cabs in London. I hope that the Minister will deal with that. I understand that out of about 16,000 black cabs in London only 4,000 (or something of that order) are wheelchair-accessible. Admittedly, as the new cabs come on line, that proportion will increase.
Noble Lords have been reminiscing and providing personal anecdotes of situations, so perhaps I may tell your Lordships about taking a taxi to the House yesterday. It was a lovely taxi—a J-registration. I asked the taxi driver how the cab coped with people who were handicapped in some way or another. He said, "It is all there—all in the taxi". I said, "When I get to the House of Lords, would it be possible for you to demonstrate it to me?" He said that he would try to do that but that he was not very well equipped to do so. I said, "What do you mean—you are not very well equipped?" He said, "I have to read the handbook". It is all very well for one to have the necessary facilities to help people who are in wheelchairs and so on, but it is incumbent on the taxi driver to take the trouble to read the handbook. However, he was a very nice chap, and promised me that he would do so in future.
There are scarcely any lifts for disabled people using the Underground. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, disabled people have to be accompanied everywhere by an able-bodied person. I understand
662
that wheelchairs have been banned altogether on the Glasgow Underground. That seems a remarkable state of affairs.
I should like to devote the rest of my remarks primarily to the issue of the bus and coach industry. I understand that out of the whole National Express fleet of 800 coaches, only nine are accessible to wheelchairs. That is an extraordinary statistic. There should be legislation to ensure that buses are made much more accessible to wheelchairs, and that that needs to be done far more quickly than at present.
The report recognises the adverse operating and manufacturing conditions in the bus industry and the need for transitional help. Therefore, the question that I put to the Government, as other noble Lords have done, is: how are the Government proposing to address that issue? The fact is that the quality of buses has deteriorated to such an alarming extent that many people regard them as a third-class form of transport. Frankly, I believe that the amount of transitional help that would be needed is simply enormous. Indeed, it will take a considerable period of time to see real progress.
In relation to the bus manufacturing industry, the report quotes from paragraph 91 of the Bus Industry Monitor, 1992, which states:
"Purchase of new buses fell by 31 per cent in 1991, following less serious reductions of 13 and 3 per cent. in the preceding two years. Total sales volume at 2,804, is now the lowest experienced since the current form of record-keeping began".
The report continues:
"This is a rate of sales which would not replace the fleet in less than 25 years".
That is a fact of life with which the Government must deal.
The report suggests that a period of public financing to re-equip the bus industry with fully accessible buses is required. However, with respect to those who wrote the report, it is somewhat naive to think that the local transport authorities are able to fund the expenditure by using Section 106 grants. That fails to recognise the way in which the transport authorities are cash-starved by central government and are unable to take on a role of that kind. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has alluded to that.
The report demonstrates that the potential bus market will continue to decline so that by the year 2001 people with disabilities will account for something like 50 per cent. of the potential market. It asserts that the industry is currently inaccessible to a high proportion of that market of people with disabilities.
One of the ways in which public attention is being focused on the role of buses in combating the kind of difficulties to which noble Lords have referred and in combating pollution and congestion has been highlighted by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I am the president, in running a "Year of the Bus" and instituting annual good practice awards. Some of those awards have gone to those who have led the way in terms of help for the disabled.
The report goes on to refer on the one hand to the financial constraints facing local authorities; but on

663
the other hand, it recommends that local authorities should exercise their powers under Section 106 of the 1985 Transport Act to make grants for the purchase of low-floor or wheelchair-lift-equipped buses. Frankly, I do not see how local authorities can do it. I do not think that they have the financial capability to do so at present. Indeed, many PTAs are having to curtail concessionary fare schemes or are having to introduce new or higher charges. There is no alternative but for the Government to intervene much more directly or indeed for them to seek additional powers if necessary. Unless more money is made available to local government then none of the improvements envisaged in the report will come about. It is pie in the sky.
I support the recommendation of paragraph (xvi) (d) of the summary to the effect that the Government should provide credit approvals for local authorities' capital expenditure on accessible buses to run on subsidised services. What we need is a firm commitment from Government for such schemes. Is that likely to come about? The Department of Transport arranged an experiment along these lines, which resulted in 68 buses available in London, but only £200,000 was made available for the rest of the country. But above all there has been no commitment forthcoming about any expansion of the scheme in the future, and I should like to know what the Minister has to say about that.
I now come to the DPTAC specification. The report deals with this but I think it rather overemphasises its impact. The number of new buses being built with or without DPTAC features is very small. It represents only a tiny proportion of the fleet as a whole. Part of the specification can be retro-fitted to older buses but the extreme old age of a large proportion of the fleet means that the benefits from this are likely to be very small. One of the concerns about the standard is that it is not specific enough. Many local authorities believe that the revised standard should be more prescriptive in its requirements than its predecessor.
The report refers to the need for European Community legislation: a point which was taken up by my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lord Shepherd and by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. There was a very clear understanding that United Kingdom Ministers would be giving a lead on this issue, particularly during the time when we held the presidency of the Commission. There seems to be no evidence—although the Minister may be able to refute this and I shall be interested to hear what he says—that Ministers of this Government made any attempt to promote legislation on this issue. Indeed it is very unlikely that it will be brought forward until the German presidency during the second half of 1994.
I end by asking one or two other questions which I think are relevant. Is there not a very strong case, based on the report, for a review of bus legislation? Also, could the Minister indicate when the consultation paper on the fine tuning of the Transport Act 1985—promised by Mr. Roger Freeman last year —is to appear? Would he accept that Section 106 grants should be awarded locally and that the
664
expenditure implications for local government should be acknowledged by central government? Also, could the noble Earl explain how the Government envisage that the introduction of low-floor buses will be financed in the medium to long term and could he explain the Government's attitude, as has been demanded by a number of speakers already, to progress at European Community level and how the necessary actions are to be taken?
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the recommendations of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee's Sixth Annual Report. The debate has ranged widely across the breadth of the report: not only that, but it has gone completely outside what the report had to say and has dealt with disabled transport in general. We will obviously consider what your Lordships have said with great care, and I can assure your Lordships that I shall draw what has been said to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends.
I should say from the outset that we greatly value the advice and support which the members of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee have provided over the last six years. I should like to pay a particular tribute to Sir Peter Baldwin, who has chaired the committee since its inception in 1986. His personal contribution to the development of transport policy in this area, both as chairman of the committee and earlier as a permanent secretary at my department, has been immense. Your Lordships might know that Sir Peter will be retiring as chairman later this year and I should like to take this opportunity to wish him well with his future endeavours. I am sure that your Lordships will support me on that.
The committee's sixth annual report begins by focusing on the pedestrian environment, which is of course the key to mobility for all of us. We all begin and end every journey as a pedestrian, even if it is only between home and the car. It is therefore vital to ensure that the pedestrian environment is designed and built and, just as importantly, maintained in a manner which meets the needs of all its users. Several years ago my department commissioned Leeds University to look at the ergonomics of the pedestrian environment, to identify the problems encountered by people with disabilities in going about their everyday business and to make recommendations on how the situation could be improved. In conjunction with my department, the Institution of Highways and Transportation then drew on the results of the Leeds work in revising their guidelines on providing for people with mobility difficulties. The revised guidance Reducing Mobility Handicap—Towards a Barrier-Free Environment was published in 1990 and is perhaps the most comprehensive source of advice on how to combat many of the problems which have been identified.
My department has also issued advice on other related topics. The Disability Unit Circular 1/91, The Use of Dropped Kerbs and Tactile Surfaces at

665
Pedestrian Crossing Points, provides guidance to local authorities on how to reconcile the needs of two groups of disabled people: wheelchair users, who need gentle gradients and flush dropped kerbs at crossing points, and visually-impaired pedestrians, who need to be given advance warning where the kerb definition has been lost. The blistered tactile surface now used at dropped kerbs across the country will be familiar to many of your Lordships. Indeed, it is used at a crossing point outside this House.
Of course, it is not only the planners who can create problems: inconsiderate drivers can turn the most accessible environment into a "no-go" area for pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly said that pavement parking and indeed parking at bus stops are not only antisocial but they can be positively dangerous for disabled and elderly pedestrians. The National Federation of the Blind's campaign, called "Get Streetwise", is helping to raise awareness of these problems. My department is drawing up guidance for highway authorities which sets out best practices and engineering measures which can be used to deter vehicles from pavement parking. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that at the same time we will be looking for an opportunity to introduce legislation which will provide for local authorities to make orders specifically prohibiting pavement parking in places where it is a particular problem.
We have also tried to shame those drivers who park at bus stops, and 27 million motorists have now received a leaflet with their road tax reminders which warns them of their anti-social behaviour and the danger it can be to bus users. We also encourage local authorities to take steps at local level to highlight this problem. Local publicity and other campaigns can be an effective way of raising public awareness. Parking at bus stops makes access much more difficult for elderly and disabled people. It also undermines many of the improvements which have been made in recent years to the design of buses, to make them easier to use for ambulant disabled and elderly people, as well as those with small children, shopping or luggage.
Perhaps the best known DPTAC initiative is the Recommended Specification for Buses Used to Operate Local Services. There can be no doubt that the specification has brought about something of a revolution of bus design. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will be interested to know that we now estimate that 90 per cent. of new buses have at least some of the features recommended in the specification, such as textured and colour-contrasted handrails, step-edge markings, "bus-stopping" signs which are particularly helpful to those with impaired hearing and bell pushes which can be reached from a seated position. We also know that some bus operators have retro-fitted some of these low-cost features to their existing fleet. For example, here in London, London Transport has carried out a programme of retro-fitting elements of the specification to 2,500 older vehicles. I agree with my noble friend Lord Teviot that it is right to compliment the bus industry on its work—work to which he rightly drew attention.
666
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, drew attention to an important point. He said that physical improvements may be totally undermined if drivers are unaware of the needs of their passengers. DPTAC has also produced a leaflet for bus drivers which gives some basic disability awareness guidance; for example, how to communicate with a deaf passenger and to allow passengers to sit down before driving off. It also gives commonsense advice which can greatly enhance the confidence and safety of elderly and disabled bus passengers. As regards common sense advice, consideration for others is something which cyclists might well bear in mind. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will be happy to disseminate that piece of advice to his fellow cyclists.
The next stage in bus design must be to develop vehicles which can provide full access not only to wheelchair users but also to people with prams and pushchairs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, rightly pointed out, low-floor buses are already in use in parts of Germany and the Netherlands. However, the operating conditions in those countries are quite different from those experienced here. We must ensure that such vehicles can provide an effective and sustainable transport service in the UK. We do not want to introduce a concept which is "here today, gone tomorrow". That would obviously have a detrimental effect not only on the confidence of the users but also on the operators.
The noble Baroness asked what assessment has been made of bus priorities and other measures to promote bus use, including experiments in low-floor buses. As regards bus priorities, the Government have been able to increase the allocation of resources to local authorities in 1993–94 from a prospective £6 million to £15.5 million. That is in addition to the £4 million allocated in 1992–93. The Department of Transport is to monitor five schemes with before and after evaluations.
With regard to low-floor buses, we certainly believe that such vehicles will have advantages for all users, and not only those who are elderly or disabled. But it must be for those in the bus industry to decide the appropriate level of investment in renewing their fleets and also the type of vehicle they believe to be most appropriate for their operations. I am sure that if low-floor buses offer advantages over conventional buses the industry will adopt them in large numbers. But more work needs to be done to assess the costs and benefits of such vehicles. That is why we are supporting two experiments with low-floor buses. One involves 68 low-floor single deck buses on three routes in north and west London. The other uses five buses on a route in North Tyneside operated by Go Ahead Northern (Coastline), which the Minister for Public Transport announced on 4th February.
Both experiments are just getting under way and therefore we are not able to express an opinion about their effectiveness. We shall be conducting monitoring exercises for both projects designed to provide an indication of the costs and benefits of introducing such vehicles. The results, which are expected in 1994–95, will be made available to all bus operators and local

667
authorities so that they can take the results of the research into account in planning future bus purchases.
Powers are available to local authorities to provide capital grants to bus operators to assist in the purchase of buses with special specifications. Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 gives a power to local authorities to make grants towards expenditure on a vehicle, equipment or other facilities,
"provided wholly or mainly for … members of the public who are disabled; or … any equipment or other facilities … incorporated in any vehicle … not provided wholly or mainly for that purpose".
In providing such grant, however, local authorities must have regard to their duty not to inhibit competition.
Steps have been taken to draw the attention of local authorities to the powers available under Section 106. Paragraph 30 of the Transport Policies and Programmes Circular, inviting local authorities to put forward their bids for grant and capital approvals, states:
"The Department wishes to encourage the use of public transport".
It goes on to list a number of measures, including,
"grants to improve travel facilities for disabled people under Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985".
In addition, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has itself drawn to the attention of local authorities and bus operators the powers available under Section 106.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister believe that, strapped as they are for cash—that was the expression used by my noble friend Lord Shepherd —local authorities can really undertake that kind of obligation? They simply do not have the money.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord interrupted me as I was about to draw his attention to another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. It was the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. That allows local authorities to spend all of the capital receipts they realise up to the end of December 1993. Of course, we in the Department of Transport hope that some of this money will be devoted to improving public transport and, in particular, transport facilities for disabled people. But we have to recognise that it is for local authorities to take decisions on their own priorities.
I have already mentioned the increase in funds for local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in the special position that he holds with the AMA, will draw that particular opportunity to its attention. I look forward to seeing some positive results as a consequence of what the noble Lord can do.
The noble Baroness drew attention to the report's conclusions about the low profitability of the bus industry and the effect that that is having on fleet renewal. That point was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I agree that it is true that the industry is going through tough times, but then so are many others. But the remarkable thing is that the majority of operators have managed to stay in business and many believe that the tide is beginning to turn on
668
profitability. The fact is that we still have more operators running more bus miles than before deregulation. We acknowledge that patronage continues to fall, but that is part of a long-term trend brought about, as the DPTAC report acknowledges, largely by the increasing use of the private car. The recession has also played its part in reducing orders for new buses—part of a worldwide phenomenon affecting all classes of new vehicle.
But recently there have been welcome large orders for new buses, including the 68 low-floor vehicles for the London experiment. I hope that that trend continues. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders statistics of bus and coach registrations in 1992 show an increase of 10 per cent. during the previous year and I hope that low interest rates and better trading conditions will see a continuation of that upward trend. Therefore, I hope that the gloomy picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be transformed into a better picture and that the next time he speaks on the subject it will have a rosier hue.
I turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, about laying down minimum specifications for vehicles. The DPTAC report acknowledges that in view of the international nature of the market that could be done only through EC construction and use regulations. A proposal for a draft directive has been put forward by the European Commission dealing with technical standards for bus and coach construction. Detailed discussion on the draft will not begin until later this month. But our initial reaction to the proposal is disappointment that it appears to deal with the issue of accessibility in a very inadequate way. In some areas the standards proposed appear to us even to represent a retrograde step rather than progress.
We would certainly hope to work with other member states to reach agreement that the features specified by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee for accessibility to buses should be incorporated as far as possible in the directive. Beyond that, we hope also to be able to make progress towards full accessibility. It is too early in the discussions yet to say how far we will succeed in this aim, but our intention is quite clear.
I must also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that it is our intention to give more prominence in the final document to the point which he made about access features. The document is a Commission document and it is now up to us to try to to change it.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, is the document now with the Council of Ministers or has it been referred back to the Commission?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that it is with the Council of Ministers. We are discussing it at official level and we shall try to make progress on the points that I have mentioned.
But, as the report indicates, powers are available to local authorities, both through their tender specifications for subsidised services and through the use of Section 106 of the 1985 Act, which I have already

669
described, to encourage operators to introduce more low-floor buses as well as other features to assist travel on public transport for elderly or disabled people.
I have described the action that the Government are taking to encourage the use of the bus both in terms of bus priority measures as well as specific support for low-floor bus experiments and we shall take stock of the situation when the results of those experiments are known.
We support the DPTAC initiative to incorporate disability training in course syllabuses for the planners, engineers and transport managers of tomorrow. With the knowledge that they gain during their training, we should find that the needs of disabled people are taken into account from the outset —in other words, providing access becomes a fundamental element in their thinking.
My department is working with the committee in pursuit of this aim. We have already had encouraging responses from many professional bodies, including the Royal Society of Arts, the Chartered Institute of Transport and the Institution of Highways and Transportation. We hope eventually that training will be provided across the range of qualifications, from national vocational qualifications to degree level.
But, as your Lordships will be aware, it is not just the training of the professional groups involved in the areas of public transport and the pedestrian environment that we are hoping to influence. We are also trying to raise awareness of the personal mobility needs of people with disabilities. My department's Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service— MAVIS—is working with the College of Occupational Therapists to see how its syllabus could be tailored to focus on this particular area. The aim is to ensure that disabled people are made aware of the opportunities fir independent personal mobility at the earliest stage of their rehabilitation.
Personal mobility undoubtedly gives the greatest level of independence for anyone with a disability. But for many disabled people, the process of learning to drive and getting themselves a car is a great deal more complex and difficult than most of us have had to face. With this in mind, in 1983 the department set up the first of what has become a biennial series of Mobility Roadshows. Those shows bring together all the major vehicle manufacturers, each with a fleet of their latest standard production cars equipped with a range of hand controls and adaptations. Disabled people are invited not just to look at the cars but also to test drive them on the private road system down at the department's Transport Research Laboratory. Even those who have only a provisional licence can test drive cars under the watchful eye of the department's driving examiners. The last Mobility Roadshow in 1991 attracted more than 200 exhibitors and over 30,000 disabled visitors. The next show, which will be on June 11th to 13th, will, we hope, offer a wider opportunity still.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about disabled driving instructors. A Private Member's Bill, which has full government support, is currently being discussed in another place and, if passed, it will make
670
it possible for the first time for physically disabled people to apply to become approved driving instructors.
The noble Lady asked also about tactile surfaces on platform edges and other facilities at unmanned stations. We are jointly funding a project with British Rail to look at practical solutions to access problems of elderly and disabled people at unmanned stations. Tactile surfaces will be one of a number of initiatives to be tested. Perhaps the noble Lady will allow me to write to her on the other points she raised because I do not have time to mention them all.
I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the number he gave for taxis which have wheelchair accessibility in London was not correct because over 7,000 now have that accessibility. Every new taxi has full access. From 1st January 2000 all taxis in London must be fully accessible. We have also produced a training video for taxis called "Call a Cab" which is widely available to the taxi fraternity. If the noble Lord finds another taxi driver who does not know what to do, perhaps he will indicate to him that there is a video available to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked about minicabs. As he will know, we are currently considering that issue. Questions about it have been tabled in the House. We hope to be in a position to put forward proposals shortly.
The mobility needs of people with disabilities, like those of everyone else, cover a wide spectrum. We are grateful to the work of DPTAC in helping us to develop clear and effective policies in this area which are aimed at breaking down the barriers that exist and creating an environment in which fully independent mobility is possible.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, which has been useful. I am sorry that we did not have more positive answers from the Minister as to how the department is likely to help and encourage. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned that local authorities are strapped for cash. However willing they may be to use Section 106, the funds may not be available for them to do so. I hope that the Minister will take to heart the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about the possibility of leasing back buses. That will encourage the fleet to be replaced by buses which the physically handicapped, those who are handicapped in varying degrees and the able bodied can all use. I hope that something can be done in less than the 25 years which is suggested at present.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I wish that he had been a little more positive. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Military Commitments and Resources
4.56 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to call attention to the demands of national defence and international security and to the importance of ensuring a proper balance between military commitments and resources; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in tabling this Motion is to draw attention to what I believe to be the serious deficiency in the direction of our national security policy. Of course, since the Motion appeared on the Order Paper the Select Committee on Defence in another place has published its second report on Britain's Army for the 1990s. That report recommends that the Government should cancel all amalgamations and disbandments of infantry battalions.
Of course, the report is concerned only with the Army. In my view the problem goes much deeper than that. It involves the long-term structure of all our Armed Forces which does not seem to be planned according to any clear view of the kind of commitments which they are likely to be called upon to discharge in the coming years. My proposition is that that arises from a failure in what used to be called the "West" to comprehend fully what has changed in the structure of international security since the end of the Cold War and also, just as important, what has not changed.
As regards this country, in my view that has led to an apparent confusion about the long-term role of Britain in the world and, inevitably, to a muddled and incoherent approach to defence policy. If we do not know what kind of international arrangements we need to take us into the uncertainties of the 21st century, how can anyone be expected to devise the kind of military resources which we shall need to support our overseas commitments?
It was reasonable to expect that with the end of the East-West confrontation which had dominated military thinking since the end of World War Two, there should be a radical reassessment of the size, shape and equipment of our Armed Forces. The Soviet empire had disintegrated, and the threat of a surprise attack by massive armoured formations upon Western Europe had disappeared, although the Russian federation remained, in a turbulent political environment, still with a powerful military machine and with the second largest nuclear striking force in the world.
But the time was certainly right for fundamental re-examination of defence policy, based on some clearly defined assumptions about the changed nature of international security and national defence in the post-Cold War environment and of the role which this country intends to play in that environment. What we got was Options for Change. It is tiresome and pointless to prolong the sterile argument about whether that was a resource driven or Treasury led exercise. The evident truth is that it led to deep cuts across the whole spectrum of the Armed Forces in pursuance of the doctrine of equal misery for all.
Inevitably, that gave rise to a serious mismatch between resources and commitments, especially in the Army where it very quickly became clear, especially in the infantry, that all the warnings from Select Committees, retired officers, serving officers, academic strategists and other assorted experts about overstretch had been only too well founded. The elastic finally reached breaking point recently with the deployment of a sizeable British contingent to Bosnia. Last week, the Defence Secretary bowed to the inevitable and announced an increase in Army manpower and the planned number of infantry regiments. But that is only the beginning of our worries. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, confirmed in your Lordships' House that the cost of this modest increase would have to be borne from within the Options for Change budget. It needs no special knowledge or insight to conclude therefore that there will have to be further reductions in either the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force, or both, unless of course it is intended to make compensating reductions in other Army units. I hope very much the noble Viscount will reassure the House that that is not the intention.
If the strength and equipment of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force were so carefully calculated to meet requirements during the Options for Change process, what has happened since to lead us to the conclusion that they can now safely be subjected to further cuts? It must surely be clear to everyone now that Options for Change and the structure of the Armed Forces which sprang from it was based primarily on the need to apply severe financial restrictions evenly throughout the three services, and only secondarily, if at all, on an assessment of the commitments which those services were likely to be called upon to discharge.
It is not the Ministry of Defence that has to bear the responsibility for this. The Ministry and the Chiefs of Staff are in my view doing their best to meet the commitments laid upon them by the Government with the resources available. Nor, of course, is there any ground for criticism of the services. The British Armed Forces are widely recognised as being among the finest in the world. They are professionally led, and they are well trained. Their loyalty, discipline and courage are not in question; nor is their morale so far, although that is under severe strain.
No, the deficiency lies elsewhere. The resources which are devoted to the Armed Forces in the broad policy of a sovereign nation state are a matter for decision and direction at the highest political level. That direction should spring from a clear vision of the role which the nation seeks to play on the international stage. The ability and the will to deploy effective armed force is not only the essential guarantee of national security; it is also one of the principal and indispensable means by which a nation can pursue a coherent, responsible and influential foreign policy.
So far as this country is concerned, there is no clear evidence of that vision or political direction. When the results of Options for Change were announced, we were told that it was based upon fulfilling

673
commitments to Allied Command Europe, the dependent territories, Northern Ireland and the defence of the United Kingdom. Yet within months we were undertaking commitments in Yugoslavia, Somalia and in the Middle East which were nothing to do with any of those four basic interests.
The force structure which emerged from Options for Change has, in my view, been proved to be based on assumptions which are no longer valid, even if they ever were. Yet there are strong indications that when the current long-term costing process is complete even more cuts to the defence budget are contemplated: cuts in submarines, surface ships, support vessels, aircraft, armoured vehicles and armoured fighting vehicles. I do not expect for one moment that when the Minister comes to reply to the debate he will be able to confirm that. I imagine he will, however, at least confirm there are no plans to increase the resources allocated to the Armed Forces.
It is difficult for me at any rate to understand upon what long-term strategic concept all this is based. I am not suggesting that forces can or should be provided to meet every contingency. The Foreign Secretary, in a speech at Chatham House on 27th January, mentioned a United Nations assessment which asserts that there are now 25 substantial conflicts in progress in the world. He went on to say that as a result there will be even greater demands upon our military resources in the future. He also said that we shall probably have to say no more often than we say yes.
This is no way to construct the foreign and defence policies of a great country. Nor is it any longer simply a question of another defence review, however necessary that may be. It is no good tinkering with the existing resources in well meaning attempts to react to short-term crises. It is, in my view, a matter of national leadership in which the people of this country can see clearly what part the Government intend Britain to play in the affairs of a dangerous and unstable world.
At one end of the spectrum it would, of course, be possible to say that we shall in future concern ourselves only with the defence of the realm and the protection of our own immediate narrow national interests. We could then reduce our Armed Forces safely, perhaps to a level comparable with Sweden which spends 2.5 per cent. of its gross national product on defence; Switzerland, which spends 1.5 per cent.; or even Austria, which spends 1 per cent. That would surely be a miserable ambition for a country which has uniquely broad and deep historic links around the world; for a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which is actively involved in more international organisations than any other country; and for a people who derive a good deal of their national self-esteem from a tradition of constructive engagement in the problems of international security.
This is not to suggest that we should aspire to the role of the world's police force or that we should become involved in every dispute, crisis or conflict that arises anywhere in the world. Already, I believe, we are much too ready to listen to demands for action from every television reporter with a hand-held video camera. Much more seriously, there is a tendency to
674
take for granted the right of the United Nations to intervene, and to demand our help in intervening, wherever its secretariat perceives some problem of human rights or injustice.
We should, perhaps, remind ourselves that Article 2 of the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits interference in the internal affairs of a member state. As our own Foreign Secretary reminded us recently, that prohibition is now giving way to the assumption that humanitarian concerns must always prevail over a sovereign nation's right to manage, or to mismanage, the affairs of its country and its people. We cannot, nor do most of us wish to, aspire to any imperial or superpower status. However, many of us are not content to see our country accept some insignificant, menial role in the construction of a new world order.
What we need to do now, in my view, is to identify clearly some of the potential threats to international stability in the post-war world from such developments as the spread of missiles and weapons of mass destruction; the possible emergence of China as an expansionist superpower; the deterioration of relationships between Islamic countries and the West; the implications of the possible descent of the Commonwealth of Independent States into civil war and anarchy; or even the return of hard line communist regimes to some of the powerful states which have emerged as successors to the former Soviet Union, many of them with powerful military forces and nuclear arsenals. Then we need to play our part in strengthening and supporting those like-minded nations and international institutions which have common cause with us in meeting these threats. Those are the United Nations—provided it is restricted to its proper responsibilities—the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in a restructured and modernised form; the United States of America; the Western European Union; the European Community, provided it does not become fatally addicted to federalism; and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE).
But in accepting our international responsibilities we must not neglect the defence of the United Kingdom. Leaving aside the minimum requirements of defence against external attack, we employ at present something like 20,000 troops in an attempt to preserve a precarious security in Northern Ireland. We could, according to the best military assessment I have heard, reduce that number substantially if we were prepared to arrest and detain about 150 known terrorists from the IRA and the Protestant paramilitary groups. But unless there is the political will to take that calculated risk, we shall presumably have to keep what is something like a quarter of our infantry strength indefinitely tied down in Northern Ireland.
We cannot, in my view, defend the United Kingdom against internal and external danger and at the same time discharge an honourable and responsible role in international security with the military establishment which emerged from Options for Change, much less with that which seems likely to result from the current long-term costings exercise.
The Government must now make a choice. Either they must substantially and progressively reduce the deployment of our Armed Forces abroad—we have 80,000 troops at present serving outside this country, including nearly 4,000 on UN duty in Kuwait, Cyprus, Cambodia, the Balkans, Somalia and North Africa —or, alternatively, they must provide adequate military resources to discharge all those commitments and others of a similar kind which will inevitably arise in the future.
The present imbalance between resources and commitments, if it is allowed to persist, carries with it too many dangers. Operational tours are becoming too frequent with the attendant strain upon soldiers and their families. Training is, in some cases, woefully inadequate. There is a real danger that important tasks will not be discharged effectively. From all that springs the greatest danger of all in a fighting force —a progressive loss of morale.
It is no good telling us that the situation is being kept constantly under review. It is no good pointing to the recent increase in army manpower as an example of a reaction to changing circumstances. Modern armed forces are skilled, sophisticated organisations, handling complex weapons systems and high technology communications. They are teams of dedicated, highly trained men and women who depend for their effectiveness upon an amalgam of tradition, esprit de corps, discipline, and shared experience. They cannot be expanded and contracted safely, like some kind of hot air balloon, to meet passing political and financial calculations.
The anxiety that some of us feel about the lack of political vision in the conduct of those affairs should not be dismissed as just special pleading or disenchanted criticism pointed at the government of the day. It is far more important and deeper than that. Let me conclude with just one or two quotations from a speech on the same theme made only two weeks ago:
"a number of possible involvements is growing rapidly almost month by month".
Then:
"as we read … the details of each particular case, we may, to some extent, fail to see the general picture".
Finally:
"These themes affect our diplomacy, our armed forces, the way we allocate our resources, and the way we look at the world … Our diplomacy is now undermanned … and our armed forces are already stretched".
Those are not the words of some disaffected military activist; they are the words of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Douglas Hurd. I beg to move for Papers.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Ridley of Liddesdale: My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships for the first time. I approach it with a large degree of trepidation because I very much want to be in the Government's camp over this issue but I am frightened that, overnight, the Government will raise its tents and disappear into the darkness and I shall find myself supporting a position which the Government have abandoned. It seems to
676
me that we have to approach this matter from the resources angle, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said.
I am no military expert. Indeed, I never rose beyond the rank of captain in the Territorial Army. I became officers' mess cook. It was not until I took the stores up in the sleeper to Catterick Camp and was awakened in the middle of the night by Brie dripping on my face that I decided the time had come to end my military career. I have to draw attention to the resources available:£27.5 billion goes on defence, overseas aid and foreign affairs, but the Government's deficit this year is £37 billion. So it is only two-thirds of what we have to borrow that we are currently spending. With a trade gap of £20 billion we cannot afford to have a large adverse effect upon the flows of money across the exchanges.
Certain commitments are inevitable: Northern Ireland, of course; Belize unfortunately; and the Falklands. Having tried in my day to negotiate solutions to those problems, I hope that the Government will continue to search for honourable and peaceful solutions which will relieve us of the military responsibility there. Certain commitments are profitable: the Romans kept Hadrian's Wall for 100 years after they lost control of the country on either side of the Border. They left the garrison there and charged dues on those who traded or went through. They made more money than the Roman army on Hadrian's Wall cost, which is why they kept the army there. It is a good military reason for a presence in an area. We do not make, but we do not lose, money on Brunei, and Hong Kong, a commitment which will come to an end, and we probably make money on the Saudi Arabian business and the al Yamahah project, and many other training operations which the Army undertakes. Those of course are all excellent.
The noble Lord has already drawn attention to the dangers of the future. I feel even more strongly than him about some of those dangers. The Cold War has ended and unleashed a whole maelstrom of nationalism and Moslem fundamentalism, ancient ethnic hatreds, grudges and tensions. At the same time, we have a nasty crop of dictators, some of them nuclear, who will be part of the pattern of history for a long time. We shall not, I believe, see less trouble in the future, but rather more.
I therefore think that the policemen of the world will be called upon more and more, and it is a pity that they always seem to be America, Britain and France, with, of course, some additions and some extra help from other parts of the world. The role of the policeman will be necessary. I give every support for us continuing to take part in that role, but I believe equally that the burden must be shared very much more evenly because there are plenty of rich nations which contribute nothing like their full share to the cost of those operations.
There would be no need for Options for Change, and no problems such as those to which the noble Lord has drawn attention, if there were a far greater flow of income into Britain from the various policeman operations that we have undertaken. The Gulf War set a good precedent in the sense that the hat

677
was passed around and a great deal of money was thrown into it; but we cannot ignore that precedent and see it as a one-off. We have to develop more sophisticated ways of making that happen in the future.
Another vision has been the transformation of the United Nations from a useless talking shop into a body which can grant mandates, recommend action and co-ordinate military activity in pursuit of its decisions. That too must be developed. Fragile, dangerous and hard-to-make-stick though such decisions are, and difficult though the problem is of financing those operations by those who, although not participating, will benefit from them, it seems to me that we should try to move the world in that direction. I have no illusions about how difficult that will be. However, I hope that in the longer term such a consideration will contribute towards squaring the circle which the noble Lord has raised, allowing me to continue to support Options for Change, which I very much wish to do.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Healey: My Lords, I believe that I speak for the whole House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ridley of Liddesdale, on a stimulating maiden speech. I have always been a little cautious in criticising him, even when I disagreed, because one Balliol man never eats another, as he may recall. However, we have other things in common. We are both keen painters. We have never been unduly infected by an excessive subservience to the orthodoxy of our parties when we felt strongly in disagreement with it. I found myself agreeing perhaps a little more with what he said than with the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I agreed with a good deal of that speech but he left out one important dimension which was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, and that is the economic dimension.
Perhaps I may begin with another quotation. I remember Sir Henry Tizard saying in the late 1940s, after our victory over Germany and Japan, that we would not remain a great nation if we tried too hard too long to be a great power. Now that the Empire has gone, the Cold War is over and Britain is producing less than Italy, the time has come, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, to try to relate our spending to our means and our economic situation. At present, we are spending nearly twice as much of our gross domestic product on defence as Germany—which is much closer to all the potential sources of conflict—and 50 per cent. more than the average per head in NATO Europe. I fear that unless we can bring down our defence spending, if not to the general NATO European level at least to the German level, our economic decline will continue. In a world increasingly dominated by economic power we shall see the Germans and Japanese—they have been far wiser than we have in that respect—continuing to forge ahead.
The excuse for not facing that decision is usually that it is an unstable world; and indeed it is. But one source of that instability has been created by ourselves and our allies in the irresponsible export of arms to
678
unstable parts of the world. I was shocked to see a Government Minister boasting yesterday that we had record arms exports of £4.5 billion last year, 20 per cent. of the total arms exports in the world. Yet we know from bitter experience that many of those arms will fall into the hands of our enemies. It has happened in Libya, the Argentine, Iran and more latterly in Iraq. We know that excessive spending on arms by developing countries is liable to produce military dictatorships which will be hostile to us. We know too that our double-standard foreign policy in the Middle East is increasing the threat from Moslem fundamentalism to some of the regimes which are currently our friends.
That sad story was symbolised recently by British Ministers applauding an attack by American missiles on a factory outside Baghdad which was full of arms-making machinery supplied by Matrix-Churchill and financed not by the Iraqi Government but by export credits provided by the British taxpayer. Surely we should take that dimension of the security problem a great deal more seriously, as we promised to do at the end of the Gulf War but, like the Americans, have lamentably failed to do.
It is absolutely true that the Army is overstretched. I should like to pay my tribute to the Select Committee for spelling that out in detail. However, one reason is that we are still carrying commitments which are not in our interests. We ought to be able to get rid of the Cyprus commitment in the near future in particular since the prospects for a United Nations settlement are now much closer. I hope that the Minister will say a word about that in reply.
I do not understand why we still have the Belize commitment. That is surely an imperial relic grossly out of date. I am baffled to know why we have 46,000 troops in Germany when the Foreign Secretary admits that the threat which put them there in the first place has disappeared and NATO is now a biological monstrosity—an organ without a function.
If we need more troops for peace-keeping, surely the first place from which to draw them is Germany, if only in the short term, especially as the Germans have renounced any contribution to peace-keeping outside the NATO area. I do not go so far as the Financial Times this morning which suggested that we should ask Germany to provide battalions in Northern Ireland. But that is worth considering at least as much as the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, that we should provide mercenaries for the Germans and Japanese all over the world to protect their interests rather than our own. I do not believe that that is a terribly attractive answer to the problem.
The threat of a Russian military dictatorship, so often quoted, is an odd thing for the Government to use on the very day when our Prime Minister is trying to persuade the Prime Minister of the Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons which, by the British argument, are the ideal deterrent against a possible future Russian military dictatorship and, at a time when we are producing a new range of long-range nuclear weapons to penetrate a Soviet anti-ballistic missile system which they will be setting up in co-operation

679
with the United States. It seems to me that there is an awful concatenation of antique relics infecting our defence policy at present which badly needs attention.
The Foreign Office and the Government must decide what commitments it is "in our interests" (I quote the Foreign Secretary) to accept. I speak with the knowledge that I have behind me two chiefs of staff, the lacerations of whose spurs I still feel in my flanks. But the worst way to approach the problem is the way that the present Government have gone about it—by equal shares of scarce goods between the three services. I thought that we had long ago decided to tackle those problems on a joint service basis. I was deeply disturbed to hear a rumour recently that the Government are now planning to abolish the Joint Services Defence College at Greenwich. That is the main nursery for people who will in future consider dealing with such problems in an inter-service way. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he replies.
My own feeling is that we have far too much at the moment in the Royal Air Force and even more than that in the Royal Navy. All three services have far too big a top hamper. I was impressed by a letter from the commander of our forces in Oman during the famous war on behalf of the sultan. I wish we could get back to that kind of top hamper, but I doubt whether we could get quite so far very fast.
I believe that there is a chance now, perhaps just out of economic necessity, to get some sensible decisions taken which have been long overdue. The Foreign Secretary stated the problem four years late, and he did so accurately, but he proposed no solutions. I believe that the present Defence Secretary is an ideal man to co-operate with him in finding answers to those questions. I hope that the Prime Minister will not allow the Whips to dictate our defence policy. I gather that the cost of keeping two naval dockyards going instead of one will be enough to equip four battalions, if we were prepared to do that.
In view of the time, I shall finish by saying that I hope that the Government will not continue to use the Defence Secretary's job as a parking lot for Cabinet Ministers on the way up or down and that we can for once achieve continuity among those who run our defence policy.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it was sometimes argued during the period of the Cold War, when our Armed Forces also faced serious over-stretch and over-commitment, that we should seek a better way of meeting our NATO obligations by getting the alliance to adopt the concept of specialisation. The concept proposed that rather than every nation trying to cover the whole range of capabilities which might be required by NATO, we should seek to share the range across the alliance as a whole. If satisfactory arrangements had been agreed by all, there would have been better value for the money devoted to defence. However, the concept did not receive universal support from the Chiefs of Staff. It was felt
680
that there were too many national and other commitments beyond NATO's area of interest which had still to be met.
We are now living in a very different world where the risks and obligations we may encounter have taken on new dimensions. In particular, as we face the probability of further demands for United Nations peace-keeping or peace-enforcing operations, as the Foreign Secretary recently pointed out, I wonder whether we should revisit the concept of specialisation. No one country in the United Nations context could be expected to undertake or cover all requirements on its own. The United Nations operations will be undertaken by two or more nations in partnership. There should be scope for sharing out the range of potential and actual commitments, drawing as far as possible on the capabilities which each member country has already provided for its own national security needs.
In our case, bearing in mind our current scale of operations, our anxieties in Northern Ireland and on the ground elsewhere overseas, and potentially until 1997 in Hong Kong, many of our ground forces are more than heavily committed.
If we are to live within the resources devoted to defence and if we are to do all that is necessary to sustain our position as one of the permanent members of the Security Council, now must be the time to make it clear that, in respect of any further United Nations operations or increases to those currently in train, we would be willing to do more. But we should do so only by drawing on certain elements of our defence capabilities which are less committed at the present time.
Against such a background, there should be scope to start to rein back on our ground force deployments and to seek to provide more from our maritime and air forces in ways with which your Lordships will be well familiar. We are already doing so with Her Majesty's ship "Ark Royal" in the Adriatic and Tornado and Jaguar units around the borders of Iraq. I believe that the experiences of the past couple of years have given us plenty of practical lessons from which we could draw up and declare publicly a range or scale of capabilities, which would be available if required, as our share of actual or potential contributions to United Nations operations.
Indeed, if we do not do so, we are in danger of being dragged little by little into ongoing or new activities, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out this afternoon, with neither the resources nor the essential public support and understanding for what we are doing and where the line has to be drawn between resources and commitments.
The second point that I should like to make refers to the pressures for Her Majesty's Government to undertake yet another defence review. It has been my lot to have been closely involved with major defence reviews in each of the past four decades. For all of them, there followed a protracted period of adjustments: facilities being closed down or handed over; units moving once, maybe twice, before they reach their new "long term" locations; uncertainties about career prospects and even redundancy; family

681
plans for schooling, house ownership and spouses' own employment disrupted or curtailed, with inevitable effects on the families' budgets.
The impact of the follow-through to a major defence review is protracted and at times tiresome for the officers and men and women involved. Even though they recognise that it has had to be done, it is still a disrupting business, made more difficult if actual operational deployments and family separations occur in parallel. In the last review, Options for Change, all those follow on problems have arisen on a truly massive scale, as we would expect following a drawdown in manpower of 20 to 25 per cent. over a relatively short period.
There is a tendency, in the calls we now hear for yet another review, completely to overlook the fact that the implementation of Options for Change has really only begun. It will go on for a number of years, and your Lordships will appreciate what that means to individuals. To be treated to yet a further period of uncertainty, which follows in the wake of the commencement of a defence review and continues for many months, would be a grievous blow to morale throughout the Armed Forces and their supporting civilians.
I am relieved and glad that Her Majesty's Government have so far made it clear that apart from some comparatively minor trimming and adjustment or postponement to a few elements of the overall Options for Change package, they have no intention of instigating a further fundamental review. I hope that the Minister will feel able to confirm that position this evening.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for providing the opportunity for the debate today. I am sure that I shall not be the first noble Lord to rise with some trepidation to speak for the first time in this House.
My interest in the subject of defence dates back to my four-year extended short service commission in the Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales Own) in the 1970s. The regiment was at that time based in Germany, BAOR, and equipped with Chieftain tanks. My role for the majority of my service was as a troop leader. A troop at that time comprised four tanks and 15 soldiers. The regiment served in Northern Ireland twice during that period in an infantry role. After leaving the Army, I remained on the Royal Armoured Corps Reserve and still remain on the Emergency Reserve.
I sometimes feel that in the public perception the issue of "defence" does not rank as highly as it should do on the list of priorities, except at times where substantial numbers of our servicemen are involved in a major conflict such as the Falklands War or the more recent Gulf crisis.
I believe that it would put things in better perspective if our defence budget were looked upon by everyone as this country's insurance policy to safeguard our future interests. Like all insurance policies, there is a premium. These premiums
682
sometimes seem unnecessary at the time. On this basis, the country would have a right to expect a competitive premium for the best possible cover.
Herein lies the crux of the issue. What possible roles do we as a country expect our Army, Navy and Air Force—arguably one of the best-trained combined services in the world—to carry out on a domestic and international basis? Only when that question has been answered, can and should the cloth be cut accordingly, and not vice versa.
The events of the past 10 years, and of the past two years in particular, have shown that the unexpected can and does happen. The question is: do we as a country want, and indeed can we afford, to play the significant role in the future that we have done in the past in situations outside our own domestic and NATO arenas?
Following the changes which have taken place in the Soviet Union, the removal of the iron curtain and the unification of Germany, there is ample evidence to suggest that we now live in a more unstable and dangerous world than we did before. It is for these reasons that I hope the British public will see the good sense in paying whatever "insurance premium" is necessary to ensure that we can continue to safeguard our interests in the future as we have done in the past.
There are two specific points that I should like to mention briefly, as they greatly affect the lives of all servicemen, particularly soldiers. They are well-known: over-stretch and manning levels within battalions and regiments.
Where manning levels within a regiment or battalion are not at full strength, other units will probably need to be seconded, for instance, for an emergency tour in Northern Ireland. Those seconded soldiers are then likely to find themselves returning to the Province with their own regiment, when they get back there, in well under the desired 24-month gap period. Both those factors create obvious service and family pressures and have a detrimental effect on morale.
Finally, I would like to put the case of the Royal Armoured Corps that there should be no further reduction in the number of armoured regiments. In my experience, the calibre of the average armoured corps soldier is such that he is able quickly to adapt and retrain to an infantry role, and back again to his primary role. I ask my noble friend the Minister for his assurance, if it is possible, on that point.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure in your Lordships' House to pay a tribute to a maiden speaker. That is my duty today. I had some trouble trying to find out about the noble Lord and his activities. There was someone who saw him in the hunting field who said that he was a bit slow across country. Today, however, the noble Lord spoke with great rapidity and competence, and I congratulate him. It is always an ordeal to rise in your Lordships' House for the first time: the noble Lord discharged his duties exceedingly well.
We are short of time. I sometimes think, when one only has seven minutes, that the most popular action

683
one could take would be to sit down at the point I have now reached; one might even sell one's odd minute or two to other noble Lords. I considered doing that, but I decided that it would create too much ill-feeling and not enough certainty of what our policy was.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who is always a very competent speaker and thinker. I must confess, however, that I was more attracted by the vision of my old friend, my noble friend Lord Healey, in confronting the issues that face us. I find it exceedingly difficult to come to any conclusion. I do not think that there is any clear-cut solution. I do not envy the noble Viscount who will reply. I do not doubt that he has a smooth and efficient speech to make but the problems are almost impossible.
There is one issue that we ought to bear in mind. We do not want inter-service rivalry. There have been suggestions that the Air Force, with its European fighter, was hogging the money which the Army wanted; that you could take an airman and turn him into a foot soldier. That will not work very well. We have to face the fact that we shall not find any certain solution. That probably implies that we should continue regular investigations. We have had four defence debates of one kind or another in the past few months. I think we might have one every month and take the latest view. With a good supply of maiden speakers, we shall always hear some interesting new ideas.
I am concerned about the destruction of know-how —of knowledge. Those noble Lords who have read the details of the fight in the Falklands will recognise the importance of the knowledge and understanding of the soldiers, the marines and others who took part. We should be careful that, in cutting down numbers, we do not destroy the know-how, the feeling of esprit de corps and the courage of the Forces. The story of the Falklands is of a bloody war. Immense courage was shown. We need to retain that ability.
That makes me nervous about another aspect. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to comment. There is no proper reference in the White Paper (which I find a readable document) to the hydrography service. There is a reference to the hydrographer but not to the service. I understand that the hydrographic vessels are to be retired early and not replaced. Can the noble Viscount tell us what is happening? One of the great achievements of the Royal Navy has been its hydrography work in which we are supreme in the world; we want to continue with that ability. I find it disturbing that a proposition can be put forward by which the knowledge that goes with the ships as well as the men will be seriously damaged. That issue goes right across all the services—the ability to keep the knowledge that goes with operational experience.
I thought that I might have to talk about the European fighter. But the case for that is clearly set out. It is a good and economic answer to the problem, especially when one looks at the Russian aircraft that will no doubt be spread throughout the world and which we may have to face.
The services undertake a number of popular activities, not least ornithology. I am sorry suddenly
684
to enter upon that subject. I started off with the hunting field, so perhaps it is appropriate if I conclude on the ornithological. The Air Force has lost its chief ornithologist because he has become Chief of the Defence Staff. That is a very satisfactory outcome. I hope that he will lend his support to those activities in all three services.
I congratulate again the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, on a very fine speech, about which he can feel very happy. I hope that he will frequently speak in your Lordships' House.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, this debate is extremely timely, not least because the Government's preemptive strike last week, although welcome, still left many key questions unanswered. It is absolutely right that commitments and resources should be discussed in tandem. The more one feels obliged to reduce one's defence expenditure in search of a "peace dividend", even though the world has become anything but peaceful, the greater must be one's restraint on the military commitment that one maintains, let alone takes on, and the less one must be prepared to carry weight and exert influence in many areas of international affairs.
On the other hand, if it is felt that Britain's somewhat unique experience, and particularly our seat on the Security Council, makes it difficult to refuse certain obligations and involvements in the cause of international safety, then proper and adequate resources ought to be set aside to sustain the forces which will be needed. Like love and marriage, commitments and resources should go together. I mean, of course, real resources in financial terms, not just those that rob Peter to pay Paul. And if your Lordships accept my second premise, it is no good going on saying, as the Secretary of State said in his Statement in another place—I only hope with his fingers firmly crossed—that,
"The judgments made in "Options for Change" remain valid".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/93; col. 319.]
If we want to retain our international role and seat on the Security Council, they almost certainly will not remain valid and, indeed, many of the assumptions made in that document have proved inaccurate.
Let us look at resources. There, of course, the cat is out of the bag. No one is denying that the Armed Forces, and particularly the Army, are unacceptably stretched for their everyday commitments, let alone having enough in reserve for emergencies. The Select Committee's report is critical of the Government's part in allowing that state of affairs to develop, which may have accounted for the timing of the recent Statement agreeing to do something to alleviate the Army's manpower situation to the extent of two extra battalions, a 3,000 increase in the manpower ceiling and 2,000 redeployed into the Infantry from who knows where.
As far as it went I welcomed that Statement, and I rejoice for those who now see their proud regiments retained, even though I have to say that there will still be many deserving cases of quality throughout the Army—not least the Brigade of Guards and the large

685
regiments who are so infinitely better organised to face the future than single battalion regiments—who will feel correspondingly resentful and aggrieved.
But leaving sentiment aside, that modest recognition of reality raises two important points. First, bearing in mind the glaring shortcomings of all peace-time establishments, particularly but not exclusively in the Infantry, I very much doubt if raising the ceiling by only 3,000 will be sufficient to support and maintain those extra battalions and the other two, which at the last moment were put into Options for Change without any extra manpower. I believe that we need at least double that number and if I am right all that will happen is that we will end up with extra cap badges but with the units themselves still inadequately manned for the tasks that they have to do.
My second point concerns the right honourable gentleman's Statement that the cost of any additional manpower must be met not just from within the original Options for Change financial projection, which was severe enough; but within the much lower still financial provisions of the Autumn Statement of 1992. That means that the Government are not finding extra resources to meet increased and unplanned commitments. In fact they are continuing to take them away even faster. They are merely shifting £80 million from one part of the highly-stretched budget to another. It is all being done by mirrors!
We are entitled to know from where that money is likely to come. Will it come from the Royal Navy? That is a service which perhaps more than any other is ideal for projecting power and bargaining clout to any crisis area, as we have seen in the South Atlantic, the Gulf and now the Adriatic, and where some degree of amphibiosity is essential to the flexibility that that service provides. Perhaps it will come from the Royal Air Force, without which, as the Gulf War showed, our ground and naval forces cannot operate, in any conflict worthy of the name, without an unacceptable degree of risk and whose Tornado force provides a unique, highly specialised—to pick up the point of my noble and gallant friend—and professional element in any United Nations or international task force.
I believe, as some other noble Lords I am sure would agree, that it could come from our more than adequate nuclear capability. But sadly, if we keep anything worthwhile at all, the savings cannot be great in the shorter term. Or will the funds come from the Army, grasping at that age old panacea of "cutting the tail to strengthen the teeth"? There might have been something in that, if we had not been doing that for the past 25 years. I say that with some feeling having been involved, up until Options for Change, in every reorganisation in that period.
It is therefore my judgment that those things that we can, in financial terms, obtain from headquarters —the logistic and medical services, military music and the training machine—are all trifling compared with what we need elsewhere if we are to continue to play our part on the world scene.
That brings me to a final word on commitments. I am certainly not one to suggest that we should rush into military involvements when they are really none
686
of our business, when our national interests are not involved, when there is no clear political objective and when military action would not work anyhow. There is also much to command respect in the Foreign Secretary's recent speech regarding Britain's interest in a safer world needing to be disciplined and constrained and more concentrated on the techniques of prevention.
But if, as he also said, there is a need from the international community for an effort comparable to that in the years after 1945 if we are to avoid a slide into disorganised chaos, then Britain should play its part and some commitments will be inescapable. If we are not careful we could be in danger of deciding our foreign policy initiative not so much on what serves best our international relations and national interest and what is achievable in military terms, but on paper plans initiated by medium grade officials heavily influenced by the Treasury over three years ago when the world scene and prospects for stability looked very different from the way they look today.
If the Cabinet cannot produce more resources or at least stop taking them away, then they must shed commitments and have the courage to do so. We must do something about Ireland. When I was the CGS in Ireland we had 9,000 men stationed there; there are now 19,000. For whatever reason, if those commitments cannot be shed or refused—and I think that is more likely—and as a result the Armed Forces continue to be over-stretched, then it is equally their duty to obtain more real resources to correct the situation on the perfectly logical basis that the assumptions and judgments on which Options for Change was drawn up three years ago are today no longer valid.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing forward the debate and giving us such an excellent, wide-ranging survey to open our discussion. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Ridley on his outstanding and authoritative maiden speech. I particularly welcome the opportunity to say that because he and I were both elected to the other place on the same day many years ago and for something like 30 years I remained one of his constituents in Cirencester and Tewkesbury. I am glad that he has now joined us in this House.
I must declare an interest as a former Life Guards Officer in the Household Division. I felt that I wanted to say a word or two today not really in regard to the macro scene, which was covered so well by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, but also in regard to the more individual scene of the position of the Household Division.
I welcome the recognition by Her Majesty's Government that Options for Change is inadequate. If one had listened to the Secretary of State for Defence on television the night before last one would have received the impression that he did not think Options for Change was inadequate; that he thought it quite sensible and that we were going to continue with it as

687
before. But the Statement made last week by the Secretary of State surely indicates that he must consider that Options for Change is inadequate in view of the change in the international situation.
The fact that Ministers did not recognise—I hasten to add that I do not include my noble friend on the Front Bench, who was not a Minister at that time but has tried very skilfully to pick up some of the pieces since he arrived at the Ministry of Defence—that United Nations commitments would increase throughout the world: Bosnia; the Gulf has already been mentioned; Cambodia; Somalia; and many other places have added to the burden on the British Army. If we are going to remain a permanent member of the Security Council, a privilege which we have had since the institution of the United Nations in 1945 and a vital and important part of our foreign policy, we have to pull our weight and do our fair share in the operations which are needed around the world. We have been doing that very skilfully and we have been in the forefront of countries which have supported United Nations intervention in various parts of the unsettled world today.
We cannot, as other speakers have said, get rid of our Northern Ireland commitment. That is there. Indeed, only recently, at the end of last year, we had to accept the fact of sending two more battalions to serve in Northern Ireland. Two more battalions to serve in Northern Ireland is not just two battalions. They have to be backed up and training has to be arranged. For two battalions one is probably talking about 10 battalions in the final line-up supporting those two battalions in Northern Ireland. We cannot carry that out unless we have our regiments up to strength.
Previous Ministers appear to have been carried away by the end of the Cold War. They seemed to think that the Cold War was finished and that hanging on trees around Whitehall was loads of money which they could pick up by cutting down our Armed Forces. They thought that peace would break out everywhere and that we would no longer need troops, or that we would need very minimal numbers. That has proved to be totally untrue. The pressure of the Treasury, which was mentioned quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in saying that we cannot go on pursuing this issue—he and I have spoken in about three debates in the House in which we have made the point that pressure from the Treasury was causing the build up and the production of Options for Change—has quite clearly taken place. I am told that the figure for cut-backs which the Treasury has insisted the Ministry of Defence should carry out is somewhere in the region of £1 billion.
Both the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned resources and commitments. Will my noble friend when he comes to reply tell me one thing? Are we matching resources to commitments or are we matching commitments to resources? What are we doing? No one seems to know. It is not enough to say, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Chalfont, that numbers are continually under review. That is a
688
kind of chant from Ministers which does not add up. It is no good saying that, reprieving two infantry battalions and 3,000 men and paying for it with £80 million from other parts of the defence budget, and at the same time giving the impression that we might do a little more if we press hard enough. I intend to press my noble friend a little harder this afternoon.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, mentioned the Household Division. Why do we not also reprieve the three battalions of Foot-Guards who are doomed to suspended animation? They are superb fighting units and they also have the essential ceremonial role. Ministers seem not to recognise that the Household Division "arms plot" is unmanageable even with the three extra increments for public duties which Ministers have agreed since the announcement of Options for Change. Five battalions—the Grenadiers, the Coldstream, the Scots, Irish and Welsh Guards—are too few. There is no opportunity to train in brigade formations or divisional formations with only five battalions. The First Battalion of the Grenadier Guards is likely to be stuck in London for eight years after two years in Northern Ireland. What is the effect of that? It is very undermining to morale and it enormously increases the pressure on the five battalions and the three increments which Ministers have agreed.
There must be enough battalions to complete the Household Division "arms plot". They have to rotate through training, operations and public duties. There must be no recruit capping, otherwise there is a danger of turning the Household Division into a Protestant Papal Guard. In other words, they will have no role to play as fighting units. That is not the way to look after our finest troops.
I should like to end by quoting to my noble friend the Minister his words to the House of 3rd February 1993:
"For the moment we are content".—[Official Report, 3/2/93; col. 270.]
I must tell my noble friend that we are not content. The Household Division and both Houses of Parliament, as indicated by the Select Committee report, are clearly far from content. Will Ministers accept the advice which the Select Committee gives on page 27 of the report? The final recommendation is that he should look at all this again and change the decisions on the amalgamations of so many fine regiments. I hope that he will look at it again.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, in Options for Change the Government have shown their commitment to a smaller more flexible armed force, one better able to deal with the kind of localised conflicts which increasingly are arising in the world today. Up to now amphibious forces have been an element in the Government's thinking. I do not have to explain to the House the advantages of amphibious forces; the ability to land a force at any time and place of one's choosing; the projection of political power; and indeed the additional advantage of just the threat an amphibious force poses to a potential enemy. It keeps an enemy guessing. This was amply demonstrated in

689
the Gulf War when a large Iraqi force was tied up by an American amphibious force loitering just over the horizon.
Back in the mid-1980s it was generally accepted that we needed two helicopter carriers, two dock landing ships and six logistic landing ships. Options for Change wheedled that down a little. We lost one helicopter carrier and one of the logistic ships. Those were replaced by a converted merchant ship, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Argus". Today we are faced with two dock landing ships, "Fearless" and "Intrepid", both elderly, in a poor state of repair and increasingly costly to maintain. "Fearless" should be in commission at this moment. Instead she is in dock at Portsmouth and not in the Adriatic where she should be. Of the five logistic landing ships, one is relatively new, another was half rebuilt following the Falklands conflict and the other three are rapidly ageing and are expensive to maintain. The three are in need of urgent major refit. In addition there is the planned new helicopter landing ship and two replacements for "Fearless" and "Intrepid".
If we can believe present reports the new helicopter carrier is to be axed. This at a time—I fully appreciate the Government's problems with money—when other countries are turning increasingly to the use of amphibious forces and amphibious ships. I cite the French and US involvement in the Adriatic and US and Italian involvement off Somalia. However efficient aircraft are as a means of transporting a force to a trouble spot quickly, they cannot provide the back-up support needed to sustain that force. That has always gone and will continue to go by sea. More than 90 per cent. of the heavy equipment for Desert Storm went by sea. We have a very efficient amphibious force—the force element—but we are desperately in need of replacement ships to transport that force. If new ships are not ordered then the whole viability of our amphibious force is at stake.
I turn quickly to another maritime element and one that has not been mentioned—our so-called fourth arm of defence, the Merchant Navy. The British registered fleet has been reduced now to a dangerous level. We would no longer be capable of mounting a Falklands-type operation. The Government will say "There are still the beneficially-owned ships which will fill the gap". That may well be so at the moment, but I do not believe that it will be true for very long. The bigger problem is where we are going to get the people to man them.
Perhaps I may return briefly to the situation in Bosnia. There we have HMS "Ark Royal" and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Argus" waiting and ready to try to help the Cheshire Regiment if needed. Neither of those ships is particularly well suited to that task having both been built for different purposes. The fighting ability of the "Ark Royal" is somewhat reduced by the role she is having to perform at the moment. The "Argus" has a deck covered with vehicles and all kinds of equipment. I feel sorry for the crew and extra personnel on board that ship who do not even have room to walk around the deck for exercise.
690
I ask the Minister to re-emphasise the Government's commitment to amphibious forces including the provision of additional ships with which to transport and support them. If there really is no money in the kitty—the recent decision vis-à-vis Plymouth and Rosyth does not help the situation which is a continuing haemorrhage as regards naval funds—is there no way in which we might perhaps obtain a suitable ship from the Americans? I am sure that President Clinton would be only too happy to oblige. Failing that, could we not make some other cuts to enable us to order new ships; for instance, by cutting out a frigate or two?
In conclusion, I cannot overemphasise the importance of the sea element in any rapid reaction force such as the new one now envisaged. Purpose-built amphibious ships provide unrivalled flexibility both militarily and politically and without them we risk not only the future of our amphibious forces, but also further degradation of the fighting efficiency of other ships which are forced increasingly to fill in for them. I urge Her Majesty's Government to consider most carefully indeed any decision which they may be contemplating against proceeding with orders for new amphibious ships.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like briefly to congratulate not only the maiden speakers, both old and young, but also the mature ones who have spoken in many previous defence debates. I believe that we are talking about overstretch. What is clear is that there is overstretch in the number of noble Lords demanding to speak in defence debates. I wonder whether we should make representations to the Procedure Committee that we do not have to keep to six minutes. Everyone was speaking such good sense that we longed to hear more and more constructive ideas from them. I am sure that there is a better way of running defence debates than the one we are currently engaged in.
It is now 30 years since I was Defence Minister. I remember being told then that there were 54 operations in which our Armed Forces had taken part in the past 10 to 20 years. They had only one common factor: not one of the 54 operations was foreseen by the planners and allowed for in any defence plans. So I hesitate to ask for yet another defence review because where is the threat to come from? We need flexibility of deployment and operation because we cannot foresee what is going to happen. People say that there is to be a peace dividend because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. But there are all kinds of fragments of the disabled Soviet Union.
One has only to be reminded from The Times leader today that the Ukraine has the largest operational army deployed in the world. It has 650,000 men under arms and 173 nuclear ballistic missiles. It is a large army. The Ukraine will not negotiate a START treaty. It has not signed START 1 and it will not negotiate START 2. Consequently there is a great deal of potential trouble in the Middle East and in the ex-Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not a good moment to make further cuts.

691
Politicians must be blamed when one looks at the response of successive governments. I remember a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Healey. He said that he and the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, never took the solid political line of their own parties. When the noble Lord, Lord Healey, was Defence Minister I remember him saying "If you do not have enough defence, you do not have houses, you do not have schools and you do not have hospitals; you have heaps of ashes". Perhaps it was the spurs that were scarring his flanks when he said that, but it was a genuine statement. He was under criticism at the time.
Lord Healey: My Lords, they were not senior enough to advise me at that time.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, at this moment we have to deploy our restricted and overstretched defence forces in 31 operations. The forecast from the Foreign Secretary was that under United Nations or other auspices there will be 25 major issues confronting us in the near future or which are currently facing us. As so many people with knowledge have said, we need more trained men and more men on the ground with rifles. We do not need too many sophisticated weapons because we have to think in terms of the bush wars and the flexibility which will allow us to make our commitment in that regard.
The uncertain risks remain. There are four ex-Soviet Union states which still have the deployment capability of nuclear weapons. The dangers persist outside Europe. Armed forces are now to be used—which is very sensible—against the lesser powers who are now developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Those countries can easily provide some threat in the future. Therefore our intelligence service is of supreme importance. If we were unable to forecast Iraq's build-up in those fields we may be missing other potential aggressors.
It was good that the Western European Union should meet in St. Petersburg and decide that in these fields, and under United Nations policies, we can at least deploy, provided that we can actually accept the deployment because we are already overstretched. It was interesting to see, I believe, the Spectator this week questioning whether we are getting a big enough bang for our effort. It pointed out that France—which also has an unemployment level of nearly 3 million and which has not cut back as we have—has 900 combat aircraft against our 500. France also has 700 armed helicopters against rather less than 300 in our forces. We do not seem to be getting the value for money which we are all determined to have. What is forgotten in these tables is that France has conscription, which is very cheap manpower compared with our highly trained and better trained manpower which we deploy under a voluntary system.
I have read the whole of the Select Committee's report which came out yesterday. It is full of good sense. In Options for Change there was a cut back from 73,000 members of the Territorial Army to 63,500. There is no mention in the report of trying to restore some of that manpower. Is that not a field which
692
should be explored? Willing people serve in the Territorials and if they are unemployed it is so much the better to give them jobs. They will be trained to some purpose in the future. It develops a loyalty to the unit which perhaps has been absent from their lives.
Another report which I have seen says that the medical portion of the Territorial Army has very strong, balanced units with up to 100 men, with surgeons and other assets, in East Anglia. They have not been used very much. Each weekend they are on the beaches there and working as a combined unit yet they were not sent to the Gulf and they have not been deployed. Should we not be looking at all the ways for voluntary labour to come forward to add manpower to our Armed Forces?
Finally, we must be at a standstill and examine value for money. We must try in every way to reduce the overstretch. The defence committee states:
"we consider it inappropriate and ill-advised to carry through the proposals for the restructuring of the Army in their entirety, and recommend that the Government cancel all amalgamations or disbandments of UK infantry battalions currently planned".
I believe that everyone here will say "Hear, hear!" to that.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I have little to add to what was said by my old, valued and now noble friend Lord Healey. I shall, however, make one point—in the form of quotations from two recent statements made in Moscow. The first comes from Mr. Pochinok, who is chairman of the budget committee of the Supreme Soviet of Russia. Your Lordships need no reminding that the word "Soviet" has nothing to do with communism, it is simply the Russian word for council. He said:
"Expenditure on defence is increasing. And that is immediately giving rise to an acutely unpleasant situation, but let's take a look at what has happened. As before, we are practically not buying any arms but we have begun a huge programme to provide housing, to release servicemen, to reform the army, to withdraw the army from other republics, and as far as the social protection of servicemen is concerned, we are paying pensions and that is all sharply raising budget expenditure. Take the budget message—it can be seen quite clearly that out of over R2,000bn expenditure on the army, expenditure on armaments accounts for a very insignificant part of this. And the most terrible thing is that very great disarmament expenditure has been added. We have created so many weapons that now simply fantastic spending is required to eliminate these weapons and the implementation of the START treaty will demand huge rouble and hard currency expenditure. This is necessary. That is clear. These weapons are simply dangerous for mankind. But our task is to find how to minimise the expenditure. But for some reason it is said that expenditure on disarming is even less than on maintaining these arms—but that's not the case—of course not—the expenditure is much greater".
That is one statement. Now take it with another, which is from an article in the Russian paper Moskovskiye Novosti:
"The recently secret Smelchak and Santimetr artillery systems have no equal in the world. A laser guidance system corrects the shell during the final sector of its flight … The system needs to see a target for only three seconds in order to be able to hit the 'bullseye'. The systems have now been declassified and have sparked the interest of military circles in a number of countries, and the Russian government has authorised exports of Smelchak; authorisation for exports of

693
the Santimetr system is being finalised. The price is a commercial secret; indeed it is hard to determine since there is no similar weapon in the world."
This, and corresponding developments in other countries, is the threat. It is not on this or that declining middle-rank power keeping 20,000 men more or less under arms that the future of humanity depends. It is on the generality of all states understanding where the world is going and unconditionally accepting the authority of the United Nations, for lack of anything better, and paying their dues.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing this subject to your Lordships' attention today. I wish to concentrate on rather more detailed matters concerning the Army. Currently, the Army faces major commitments in nine different areas around the world, and it is unlikely that it will be faced with fewer commitments, although they may change, over the next decade. If tour intervals of 24 months between emergency tours for infantry battalions are to be retained there would be an overall requirement for 56 battalions. Even with the Government's recent and welcome reprieve of two battalions there will still only be a total of 40 infantry battalions and three Royal Marine Commandos, which is nothing like enough to fulfil our commitments. These figures still produce a shortfall of 16 fighting units if the 24 month interval between emergency tours is to be retained.
If the infantry fighting units are severely overstretched now it is difficult to see how they will not be even more overstretched when reduced to only 40 infantry battalions and three Royal Marine Commandos facing the same number of commitments. This clearly shows an imbalance between our planned resources and our present commitments. We need more fighting units, and all further planned cuts in Options for Change must be stopped now.
One of the current commitments in Bosnia is ideally suited to the role of the Armoured Reconnaissance regiment and its vehicles, which are easier to handle on the mountain roads than the infantry Warrior vehicles. If deployed the regiment would relieve the infantry of some over-commitment which, in turn, would increase the overall tour interval for infantry battalions on emergency tours and relieve their critical overstretch. That will require the retention of one more armoured reconnaissance regiment and must not be at the expense of the eight remaining tank regiments.
There can be few reasons why only one squadron of the 9/12 Royal Lancers is deployed in Bosnia now. The main reason is that Options for Change has cut too many armoured reconnaissance regiments. They are in the process of reducing from five to two. To cope with a six month emergency tour you require a minimum of three regiments if you are going to give any one of them a tour interval of 12 months. In addition, because there will be only two in the future, no regular armoured reconnaissance regiment can be found for the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps
694
reconnaissance commitment, and the Ministry of Defence has had to resort to the provision of a Territorial Army yeomanry regiment.
Superb though the yeomanry are, it is a complete nonsense to commit them to a rapid reaction force in peacetime purely because Her Majesty's Government refuse to concede that there is a distinct military requirement for three regular armoured reconnaissance regiments. The retention of a third armoured reconnaissance regiment was not only strongly recommended in a previous Options for Change Defence Committee report, but it was again stressed in yesterday's Select Committee report on commitments and resources.
For the first time for many decades, from 1997 the majority of the Army will be home based with the exception of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. Surely there is a clear case to reduce the military logistic and administrative support services and to link these with civilian firms whose members could have some form of reserve army or TA liability and be called upon to serve their country in times of tension if necessary. As a result unemployment levels would be lowered by increasing civilian employment in the defence industry and the Army would benefit from a reduction of costs. This in turn would avoid cutting any more fighting units, which are so vital to our present level of commitment.
There is also a requirement to merge the Royal Armoured Corps and the Army Air Corps, whose main roles are the same. For example, both corps have as their primary role the destruction of tanks and the role of reconnaissance. To combine both corps would provide further savings.
Last, but not least, I wish to turn once more to regimental bands. I am not talking about the large state bands found by the Household Division, nor the large corps bands. The regimental bands in cavalry regiments and infantry battalions consist of no more than 22 men. They are the pride and joy of the regiment. They are the spirit of the regiment. They are, my Lords, a pillar of the regimental system, to which the Government have agreed they are completely committed. They perform the duties of stretcher bearer and medical orderly in time of war, and take on guard duties when the regiment is away from barracks. The Royal Armoured Corps stands to lose six bands in any event as a result of Options for Change amalgamations. For the remaining nine Royal Armoured Corps regiments to lose their bands as well is too much to ask. There are no grounds for doing away with regimental bands on cost implications. Cavalry regiments and infantry battalions have suffered enough from the draconian measures in Options for Change: they do not deserve this uncaring and insensitive treatment from the Ministry of Defence.
I can assure your Lordships that in some cases there is greater feeling among officers, NCOs and men about the possible removal of their regimental bands than there was over their recent or proposed amalgamations. The removal of bands will be seen as the start of the destruction of the regimental system and will be in direct conflict with government policy.

695
It will be seen as not being in the spirit of the smaller and better Army which was promised. It will be thought to be a betrayal of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the regimental system.
In conclusion, the Army, with its current commitments, which are unlikely to be reduced, needs a strength of about 130,000 troops. To achieve that, further Options for Change cuts must be abandoned now. Regimental bands should be retained, and a proper defence review carried out forthwith.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, today's debate comes at a very crucial time for the future of the armed forces. Unfortunately, time precludes me from speaking on more than one subject, so I shall concentrate my comments on the Army. However, I should like to echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on landing platform helicopters (LPHs) and landing platform docks (LPDs) and the important role that they have to play in the Navy.
Yesterday we had the publication of the second report by the Select Committee on Defence which, if I may be permitted to say so, was a most revealing report by any standards. It put the problems of the Army into a nutshell—that the Government are yet again trying "to do too much with too few".
While welcoming the extra 5,000 men, whatever way one likes to look at it that does not solve the problem. It is just a chink of light on the horizon. I can confirm that the Army recruiting staff have not been told to recruit another 5,000 men; and the extra 5,000 will just cover "the hump" of those awaiting redundancy. While the Army expects to recruit 10,000 men in the next financial year, this will not significantly increase its manning levels—and if it does so, it will be for infantry, and recruiting in the logistics corps will suffer. A shortage of all-important specialist skills will result.
The problem in the Army today is twofold. First, there are not enough men leaving voluntarily because of the lack of employment in civilian life. Secondly, there are too many men of the wrong age groups and of the wrong trades in the Army today.
I want to touch on just one subject which I do not think has been covered in your Lordships' House in this debate. I refer to the Army's real estate. It is one of the Army's major resources. It is large. Although it amounted to 225,000 hectares last year compared to 240,000 hectares in 1975, the cost has risen dramatically from £394 million in 1975–76 to over £2 billion in 1990–91. The question that I should like to ask the Government is whether they believe that they are making the best use of the real estate that they have. In doing so, I refer to the evidence given by Mr. Brian Hawtin, Assistant Under Secretary (Programmes), to the Select Committee on Defence on 25th November, in which he said:
"Restructuring has also provided an opportunity to make the best use of our modernised estate and as far as possible we are seeking to vacate poor quality accommodation".
I should welcome the proposed disposal of Greenham Common, but wonder whether the
696
Minister can say whether there will be any restraint on the use of that land because I have an interest in that I live close by.
The problem that remains for the Government is the cost of reinstatement. I draw your Lordships' attention to just two properties that I know of - I have heard of many more—which are a problem. The first is the very lovely house at Frimley Park, which has been vacant for some considerable time. The second is the large estate of Bagshot Park, the present home of the Army Chaplain's Department. Those are two lovely properties which I believe that the Government would dearly like to dispose of, but they do not have the finance with which to reinstate those properties so that they can be returned to their owners. I have spent many happy times at Bagshot, but I submit that it is high time that the chaplaincy departments of the three services were merged and, further, that the Ministry of Defence should press the Treasury for sufficient funds for reinstatement purposes otherwise it is a nonsense to keep on properties such as these for which we have no use.
Finally, in the short time remaining to me I have yet again to return to the question of reserves. In his Statement on 3rd February, the Minister said:
"following the publication last year … on the future use of reserves, we have yet to complete our studies of how best to integrate both regular and volunteer reservists into the post-options force structure".—[Official Report, 3/2/93; col. 267.]
The Territorial Army swallowed the large and bitter pill brought about by the recent changes made by the Options for Change cuts. It has responded magnificently and weathered the turbulence that resulted. It is fundamental to the security of this country. Proper equipment, training and manning of units is essential. As long as the Territorial Army has a proper role to play and can be given the chance to prove itself, it will flourish. However, it will not flourish if it is cut by cutting off its resources. If it is a question of the infantry battalions adopting the role of the logistics corps, they will accept it providing the regimental and unit spirit is maintained. Unlike regular forces, reserves do need time to adjust to change. Will the Minister please bear this in mind if a future restructuring of the Territorial Army is yet again envisaged? If financial cuts are to be made to the TA, I ask that they are not made in terms of individual items, such as training days, equipment or supplies, but that an overall budgetary figure is imposed so that the reserve forces are masters of their own destiny.
This country is very fortunate is having loyal, hard-working servicemen who have served the nation well since World War II. Today they face an uncertain future for the many reasons that have already been aired. As shown by the second report of the Select Committee on Defence, the options are either to increase the size of the Army or to reduce our commitments. In view of what was said in the other place, the second option is the only one—that is, to reduce our commitments. However, one must question whether our commitment to such organisations as the Rapid Reaction Corps and the ACE Mobile Force is still viable and whether it should continue in the future.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating this important debate at a critical time when we await decisions on Bosnia. Britain still has a UN commitment with regard to Bosnia and Iraq.
In both places Russia, too, has an important part to play. While President Yeltsin retains power, he will be largely in support of what the Security Council recommends. But what if he were to fall? He is already seriously hampered in what he is trying to do by increasingly powerful, chauvinistic, nationalist forces, orchestrated—or at any rate manipulated—by the old guard who still instinctively fear and resent the West. He has failed to secure the referendum that he wanted. There is real unrest and insecurity. There are murmurings about the need to protect Russian interests in the Baltic States. Russian soldiers are engaged in "fire-fighting" in at least four parts of the former Soviet Union—the Caucasus being an area of particular concern. Russian refugees are coming into Russia in substantial numbers.
In short, there is a thoroughly volatile and unstable internal situation in which, with one-third of the population said to be living below the poverty line, sadly, there can be no lack of people who might be ready to return to an autocratic system if it restored some certainty to their lives. In saying that, I do not belittle the immense steps to freedom that have been taken—the flowering of so much new liberty and enterprise—but it is all very vulnerable.
The clock could be turned back and one more significant sign of possible reversion is the decree published on 1st February governing citizens' rights to travel abroad. This authorises the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to decide whether citizens deemed to be in possession of information constituting a state secret shall have passports and shall have permission to travel abroad. I do not find that a reassuring development.
Whether or not President Yeltsin survives, it is clear that the defence-industrial complex is growing in power and that it is concentrating, apart from converting a very few defence plants to work for the oil and gas industries or to convert to non-military aircraft, on operating on the twin principles of producing new sophisticated armaments for the new, leaner Russian forces and selling them abroad for hard currency and at the same time building military relationships in support of their diplomatic offensive in, particularly, the Middle East and the Far East. To achieve both those ends, the defence industry has been kept largely intact and unprivatised. President Yeltsin, on his return from India, where he recently concluded a military agreement and confirmed that Russia would he supplying the cryogenic rocket motors which could allow India to become a nuclear power, said that India was,
"an immense market for Russian weapons".
Russia would also be supplying conventional submarines to India. In the Middle East, the Russian
698
warship, the "Admiral Tributs", stationed in the Persian Gulf, is to take part in the arms fair due in Abu Dhabi next week,
"in order to show Russia's willingness to co-operate in the military sphere with all nations in the area, not only Iran".
Russia will be displaying firearms previously kept secret. Their "principled stand against aggression" has, they say, brought substantial economic dividends —a 2 billion dollar loan from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Oman—and the base is now being laid for military-technological co-operation.
The state committee for the defence industry is giving great attention to expanding export potential. State orders for arms exports for 1993 amount so far to 2 billion dollars. Russia has largely ceased to supply her old allies, Vietnam, Cuba and Eastern Europe, in favour of India, China and Iran, who are to receive up to 80 per cent. of Russian armaments sold. According to Andrej Kokoshin, the deputy defence Minister, in January this year, larger government orders for defence equipment for Russia's own forces are designed to ensure the provision of the most modern weapons. The defence industry was, he said,
"the main resource for our competitiveness in the world".
Then he went on to say that although stocks of arms were considerable, the proportion of obsolete weapons, ineffective and expensive to operate, was much higher. He said:
"We must rid ourselves of obsolete weapons, a labour-intensive and sometimes expensive process requiring safety measures".
He added that:
"The effectiveness of the nuclear forces and their reliability must be increased, together with high-precision weapons with selective strike properties".
He said that Russia needed military muscle with brains—convincing and effective military power. He said:
"Military might will be among the main means of ensuring Russia's security and its genuine sovereignty".
Thus, for Russia, the destruction of weapons required by START II is a step towards more modern weapons and it must come as no surprise that Admiral Gromov, announcing on 21st January the decommissioning and scrapping of 80 outdated nuclear submarines added that this would not tell on the deterrence potential of the Russian navy since new warships will appear, thanks to a new 10-year shipbuilding programme, in which the Government was giving priority to atomic submarine construction at Severodvinsk.
There are some very disquieting aspects for the world in the programme of scrapping obsolete weapons. Admiral Gromov said that there were insufficient dumps for radioactive waste in the country. 4.1 billion roubles will be needed to destroy the first 45 per cent. of the chemical weapons stored in the country. Seventeen nuclear reactors have in the fairly recent past been dumped in the Arctic Ocean. According to the Russian ecology ministry, three-quarters of the industrial waste is toxic, and some 100,000 people live under unfavourable radioactive conditions.
I doubt very much whether, when our own natural resources and capacity to act in support of our national policies were considered in 1990, the

699
Government envisaged the peace dividend that we now have to live with. There is more at stake than national pride, though that is a quality to be valued and cherished. We really must not dispose of the defence resources needed to support our diplomacy. We need to be perceived to be an effective member of the Security Council and important to NATO if we are to advance our whole national interest, economic and social, as well as military. We are listened to and can influence events because we are one of the few countries with an experienced and effective defence capacity to match our diplomatic experience. I submit that we cannot afford not to have that, and it is cheap at the price.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the perspective I should like to offer the House follows naturally from that which has been presented by the noble Baroness. My perspective is that we should not be too hasty in abandoning defence commitments which serve a real national interest. We should, if necessary, consider increasing the resources in order to meet the commitments.
From our own history it is clear that British governments in the past have done just the opposite and have spent less on defence when the immediate external dangers and pressures were seen to recede. The results of that policy have often been completely disastrous. Perhaps the most notable case in the last century was the reduction of a substantial number of ships in the Royal Navy after the Treaty of Amiens and a brief interlude in the Napoleonic Wars, which cost us dear. There were other cases in the 19th century, of which perhaps the most notable was the Boer War, for which our army was inadequately prepared.
However, perhaps the case which is most recent and most relevant to the situation we are now discussing was the "Geddes axe" in the 1920s, which led to very substantial and savage arbitrary reductions in our defence forces. The effect was very severe. The rearmament of the late 1930s saved us by a whisker only. The absence of an adequate armed force deprived us of the best opportunity of stopping Hitler at the most opportune moment—when he reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936. It also exposed us to the worst and most shameful humiliation we have suffered in this century to date: the Munich agreement.
Of course there were failures of political judgment and will involved, but military weakness was a cardinal factor in the attitudes of those in charge of government at the time. So there is, I suggest, a clear pattern from the past and a disturbing one: the recurrent temptation for British Governments to make defence cuts when there appears to be some diminution of external tension and danger. Of course it is creditable in a democratic state to lower taxes and reduce the burden on the citizen. But the examples I have given show that the benefits are all too often illusory. They have to be put right in a hurry at great expense, and inefficiently, later.
A few general considerations seem to me to arise on
700
the Motion. First, defence technology: this is now so complicated that once a sector is given up it is difficult to resume it in a hurry. If we were to stop producing, say, helicopters, submarines or missiles, we could not press a button and start again as we did with the much simpler military aircraft in the 1930s. The technology is too complex. Sudden needs could only be met by purchase abroad, which means uncertainty, risk and expense.
Secondly, I believe it is wrong to equate our defence effort with the defence of this realm only. Our peace and prosperity may well depend on events far from our shores; for example, in oil-producing states, in the shipping lanes of the world, or the harassment of our citizens or commerce by greedy dictators. Happily, the determination to defend our interests, shown in the Falklands and in the Gulf War, has reduced those risks. Our known capabilities and our readiness to use them if necessary have given us a valuable asset. We should not give up such hard-won advantages by excessive reductions or concentration on defence of our islands only.
Thirdly, defence and international security is now a co-operative, collaborative function, whether in NATO, WEU or the United Nations. We have still an essential part to play in such work. Our armed services are extremely efficient and widely admired for their collaborative military role. That is hardly surprising when we remember that our experience goes back to Marlborough's day. It is a strong national interest of this country that those activities should continue to attract an appropriate national contribution. They represent an investment in peace. British withdrawal from them would be both short-sighted and dangerous.
Fourthly, as others have rightly said, the capability to contribute to such peace-keeping activities is a necessary consequence of our permanent seat on the Security Council. Fifthly, there are the well-known dangers referred to by the noble Baroness of nuclear proliferation and the availability of heavy armaments from the rusting arsenals of the former Warsaw Pact. Those factors make the world more unstable and less predictable than it was even during the Cold War.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont is fully justified in raising the issue. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past for reasons of financial stringency. Defence is a long-term national interest which requires adequate financial provision over the years within reasonable limits of our gross national product. It is the task of responsible governments to make such resources available and to increase them if necessary. I believe that our citizens will understand and support the need to do so.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench listened to it with great care. We must all thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his most timely debate. I agree very much with the general theme of his speech. My only

701
point of difference with him is that I suggest his Motion would have been better expressed had the substantive part of it ended;
"between military commitments and national resources".
Since increased power has been given to the central Ministry of Defence during the past 30 years, it has become accepted tradition, much encouraged by Treasury Ministers and all kinds of non-military officials who have tried to hoodwink service chiefs into accepting it, that increased expenditure on one service is automatically to be offset by equivalent economies in one or both of the other services. The possibility that such a practice may result in an irretrievable reduction in the ability of this country to deter others from seriously damaging essential national interests is calmly ignored by people who apparently do not want to understand the effectiveness of deterrence in safeguarding long-term national economies. Let us hope that such people will read most thoroughly the alarming speech made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth.
I do not attempt to know the pros and cons of having a few more soldiers—and it is only a few—and saving the independence of four infantry regiments. I accept that that is probably necessary. However, like other noble Lords I believe that some of our overseas military commitments could be examined to see whether they are truly in this country's interest. Bosnia comes to mind. However, what does distress me is the bland assumption that the extra soldiers must be balanced immediately by reductions in naval and possibly Air Force expenditure. The capabilities of those services in peace-keeping and deterrence are totally different from those of infantry soldiers. The need for them relates more to deterring the invasion of British territories such as the Falklands and the independent survival of important trading partners such as the Gulf States.
Our particular naval and Royal Marine capability of conducting an opposed assault landing is a priceless asset not only to this country but to all our allies world-wide, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, so clearly explained to your Lordships. It would be folly indeed to let it wither without a clear idea of the future pattern of the quarrels of the world during the next 30 years.
As I reminded your Lordships in a recent debate on dockyards —which I am delighted to see was successful—the Navy's ships take many years to design and build and they have a life of 20 to 30 years. They cannot, like a wheatfield, be set aside one year and planted the next. Their replacement can usually be deferred for two or three years while an economy picks up. But that is a dangerous course mainly because the now small UK warship building capability, with its use as a foreign currency earner, may collapse in the meantime. I thus plead with the Government to think again about seeking to save a few million pounds in cancelling the much-needed Assault helicopter carrier and the diesel-powered shallow water submarines, and in reducing the usable destroyer/frigate strength, which newspaper leaks inform us are all in jeopardy.
The Government could save as much and more by deferring other less important national projects such
702
as public buildings—for example, new court buildings—but what would the construction industry say? On the whole the construction industry does not earn foreign currency but shipbuilding companies do. If the Government must look at the services as well, they could probably make a saving in time by recruiting fewer commissioned officers and using more fully the skill of Chief Petty Officers and Petty Officers, and their equivalents in other services. Those officers should be backed up in times of emergency—as, for example with the naval unit in the Aegean,—with reserve officers and senior ratings. That happened at the beginning of the last war. I remember that the destroyer which I commanded in the late 1950s had exactly twice as many officers as had been the practice for the same type of ship 20 years previously. It made for a very happy wardroom but I had quite a task finding worthwhile responsibilities for my very capable senior ratings. That could happen now. When in the 1930s the ships went to war the reserve officers came in to undertake the watchkeeping and other duties within the ship. That kind of pattern could save a great deal of money but not in the short term and not perhaps in the Air Force, which has extremely expensive aeroplanes. However, it will certainly save money in the Navy and the Army.
I shall conclude by suggesting to my noble friend the Minister that while the economy picks up the Government could do better in offsetting any essential Armed Service expenditure, in billions rather than millions, by judicious temporary tax adjustments across the board rather than by trying to push back the services to an unreal situation from which they may never recover. I am sure that the country would accept that if the need were properly explained.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, many noble Lords will be familiar with an anecdote about the great Duke of Wellington. He was accosted in the street by a total stranger who said, "Mr. Smith, I believe". The Duke of Wellington's reply was, "If you can believe that, you can believe anything". If one can believe that the depredations on the strength of our Armed Forces have been anything but Treasury-inspired one can believe anything.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, rightly reminded us of the history of our occasional neglect to our cost of our Armed Forces. Having carried out research on the subject relating to the inter-war period, I was struck to find in the documents how often ignorant interference from Her Majesty's Treasury had a decisive effect on the way in which programmes of armament were followed both in general and in detail. Nothing that I have learnt since has made me believe that current civil servants in that department are any less ignorant or indeed any less arrogant.
Therefore, it is important to realise that we are confronting a situation in which almost every noble Lord who has contributed to the debate—and most have real experience in the military world—has recognised that there are serious difficulties for our Armed Forces, that they are undermanned and overstretched and that we are placing upon them

703
burdens which it is wholly improper for us to place. The detail of that was spelt out in the report, to which several noble Lords have referred, of the Select Committee on Defence in another place.
My own military career having been short and inglorious, I look at something with which I am more familiar and which has been discussed and illuminated for us by my noble friend Lady Park—that is, the nature of the dangers and the commitments. We have a rag bag of commitments coming from different bits of history and different bits of our past. Some of those are understandable; for example, the Falklands. Some, like Belize, seem to be incomprehensible since an independent country in the Americas should be protected by the organisation of American states and not by a European country. Cyprus represents perhaps an historical connection; but it represents also our willingness from time to time to go on being a maid of all work for a not altogether competent United Nations.
What worries me most now—and I believe that this was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mottistone among others—is the possibility that we are being dragged into further commitments for reasons which are almost beyond our control. Why are our troops in Bosnia performing noble and gallant service? That is because the European Community's policy on the former Yugoslavia was German driven for German national interests, although Germany plays no part in picking up the pieces other than by receiving refugees. We have become involved because of premature recognition of the new republics with no safeguards for the treatment of their minorities.
Now we are told in some quarters that we must further entangle our defence policy and that it should be dictated to us under the Treaty of Maastricht—that ill-gotten document—the European Community and the WEU. I submit that that is not the way to consider the nature of our commitments or what we may have to do in future. It is important, whatever the reduction in this country's world status, that it should be able to look for itself at its own interests. For example, it has been, and rightly been, a legacy of years of experience, including the Second World War, that on the whole we should be close to the United States whenever we are involved in military operations. And yet we know that some elements in the European Community regard the changes that they wish to bring about in the Maastricht Treaty as a way to replace American involvement and a way to separate the defence of Europe from the defence of America.
I am sure that it is in our national interest that we reject anything of that kind. "The special relationship" may be an over-used phrase. It may not, and probably does not, represent the current feeling of the United States. But our connections with North America, which have twice been a saviour of this country, are something we should not abandon in favour of a need for a closer political, military and defence integration of Europe which, alas, as is seen in Bosnia is not only a mirage but a dangerous and bloody mirage.
7.4 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other noble Lords who have said in effect that the Treasury tail must not be allowed to wag the defence dog. Therefore, I implore the Government not to disregard the recommendations of the report by the Select Committee on Defence.
I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to paragraph 6 of the introduction dealing with emergent dangers, and paragraphs 18 to 29, which deal with the emergency tour plot, overstretch and amalgamations, and then to the case set out on pages 46 to 50 for the retention of the Queen's Own Highlanders as a separate regiment instead of being amalgamated with the Gordon Highlanders.
I have a certain family interest in the future of the Gordon Highlanders in which my father, my grandfather and two of my uncles served at one time or another. It is our local regiment and it recruiting area is North-East Scotland from Morayshire to Angus. The recruiting area of the Queen's Own is north and west of Morayshire, through Inverness-shire and out to the Western Isles. From the east coast of Aberdeenshire to the Hebrides is nearly 200 miles as the crow flies. I say that because many people believe that Scotland is about the size of Northumberland but a little bit further on.
The descent, history, culture, outlook and interests of the west highlanders and islanders are quite different from that of the east coasters. I do not believe that it would be possible to retain that family spirit, which is one of the strengths of those two great regiments, in a single regiment with such a huge recruiting ground as the whole of Scotland north of a line approximately from Brechin to Tobermory, containing such a diverse population.
Much of the case in the report for the Queen's Own applies equally to the Gordon Highlanders. However, the Queen's Own was formed in 1961 from the Seaforths and the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders. They have already been amalgamated once. To force a second amalgamation on them only 32 years later is not sensible either from the defence, social, economic or the political point of view.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating this debate and for giving the House an opportunity to consider the whole area of defence and national security at this time. Furthermore, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the wording of the Motion in which a proper balance between commitments and resources is emphasised.
It has always been a cardinal facet of defence planning that if one doubles one's military commitments, one must double the resources to meet them. Conversely, if one halves one's resources, the Government should halve the commitments which

705
those resources are required to meet. That point was argued most effectively by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall.
Options for Change took advantage of the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to reduce significantly our military forces to a level at which we are now, in my view, sailing extremely close to the wind with little chance of being able to combat the unexpected. The Government appear to have cut back our forces because at that time—and I refer to the time at which Options for Change was being formulated —there was no particular threat. However, noble Lords will know well that the human being has almost no ability to foresee what future threats might develop. That has been amply proven by the Gulf War, which started about a week after Options for Change was originally announced. More recently there has been the break up of what was Yugoslavia.
That significant threat to what the late Sir Winston Churchill might have described as the weak underbelly of Europe has now stretched our forces to near breaking point. If another threat, which could not possibly be foreseen today, were to develop, how should we respond to it? I was of course delighted with the recent decision not to amalgamate four infantry regiments. But, whatever has been said in another place, this certainly does not provide the Army with extra manpower. It merely interrupts the process of running manpower down. I was distressed to read recently in The Times that an order for a £170 million helicopter carrier for the navy, due to be made later this year, is expected to be cancelled to meet new demands for defence cuts.
I read in the same article that Ministers may delay the construction of two amphibious assault ships to replace HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid". Those ships represent the backbone of our amphibious capability and their departure from the fleet will further reduce our ability to provide a flexible and speedy response to threats in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, referred to that point.
I am also anxious about the size of the UK Merchant Fleet which has shrunk from over 1,100 ships in 1980 to fewer than 300 today. Reversing the decline of the UK Merchant Fleet would be of invaluable strategic benefit enabling realistic support for our Armed Forces in times of tension and crisis, as well as providing a significant boost to Britain's invisible earnings and increasing still further British shipping's major contribution to the balance of payments.
Finally, I wonder whether we are taking a big risk in failing to pay our insurance premium with regard to defence. I urge the Government to think again about the present planned reductions, to heed the report of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee about the British Army of the 90s, and to acknowledge that Options for Change may be leading to the reduction of our armed forces beyond what is prudent.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the first thing I do when I wake up in the morning is to turn on the radio. That is not a military secret. One never knows what one will hear on the radio. I listened to Radio 4 this morning. That is popular among noble Lords, especially with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I congratulate him on making such a powerful speech today as he enters his 82nd year. Some noble Lords might like to take tuition from him in mountain warfare!
Yesterday morning I turned on the radio to hear, as is so often the case, that an explosion had taken place in Northern Ireland and members of the security forces had been wounded. There had been casualties. On entering your Lordships' House I learnt from the ticker tape of the death of Lance Corporal Beswick. This afternoon I did a little research and discovered that he was the 638th soldier to be killed in Northern Ireland in 23 years.
Many speakers tonight have referred to the defence committee in another place. Many noble Lords have served in another place and those who have done so may visit another place from time to time. We would do well to consider that the 638 soldiers killed in Northern Ireland equal the total membership of another place. Those soldiers have been killed while serving in an infantry role in Northern Ireland. I wish to address the rest of my remarks to that matter.
The motto of Options for Change is to seek an army that is fully manned, properly supported and well-equipped. I understand that the aim of Options for Change is to have 116,000 soldiers serving in the mid-1990s—that is two to three years away—104,000 active soldiers and up to 12,000 in a training role. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, exactly a week ago, in response to the Statement that was presented by my noble friend the Minister,
"The strain and stretch on the individual soldier will remain".—[Official Report, 3/2/93; col. 270.]
I hope that I have quoted the noble and gallant Lord correctly. That comment was made after the great announcement by my noble friend the Minister that two more infantry battalions would be available for duties in the Army. My noble friend the Minister, let alone the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, or any of your Lordships who have any knowledge of infantry training—I acquired such training about 35 years ago—will know of the "work up", as we call it, that is required for emergency tours in Northern Ireland for one infantry battalion alone. There are now more roulement battalions in Northern Ireland serving emergency tours that last on average six months.
Last week my noble friend the Minister said that one of the results of the changes he and his right honourable friend had announced would be that the extra two battalions would increase the average interval between emergency tours to 17 months. My noble friend admitted that at present the interval is 15 months. I hope that I have quoted him correctly. In paragraph 21 of the report of the defence committee of another place the interval would appear to be totally different. At least that is how it appears to me, but I am a simple country boy from Angus.

707
Paragraph 21 refers to the short, one-off deployment. Emergency support is also mentioned. That might comprise an additional platoon, company or similar group on duties in Northern Ireland. The assistant under secretary responsible for programmes from the Ministry of Defence uses the immortal phrase in the report that soldiers serving on extra emergency duties are "volunteers". I take the comments of the assistant under secretary with a gentle pinch of salt.
I was startled to read in the report of the committee of another place that the 24-month target interval between tours was initiated in 1974. My honourable friend the Minister of State states in paragraph 26 that in 1990–91 the interval between emergency tours for battalions was 18 months and that in 1991–92 it rose to 32 months—I do not understand those statistics, but no doubt they will be explained one day—and that for 1992–93 it is 17 months. Last week my noble friend said that at present the interval is 15 months. I understand, however, that it may rise to 16 months. Already eight out of the 10 emergency tour battalions who are scheduled to serve in Northern Ireland next year will have had less than the 24 months interval which is sought by my noble friend. I hope that he can give us some encouraging news on that point. I will not forget the soldiers who are serving in Northern Ireland and I, and I am sure other noble Lords, will not forget the relatives and the regiment of Lance Corporal Beswick.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we are all agreed, of course, that resources and commitments must be matched. The debate has shown that most speakers agree with the Select Committee's view that that must mean increasing the number of infantry battalions beyond that provided for in Options for Change. But all too few of those speakers have ventured an opinion on the three awkward questions that follow that decision. First, should we have a bigger defence budget? Secondly, if we should not, should we make cuts elsewhere in the services? Thirdly, if neither of those things can be done, what commitments should we cut?
Heaven knows, I hold no brief for the Government, but I think it is a little hard to attack them without offering clear alternatives to what the Government are doing. There has been a lack of alternative suggestions in this debate. We on these Benches have not ducked these questions. We think that an increase in defence expenditure would be unnecessary and undesirable. From time to time we put forward suggestions for modest and safe reductions in our naval, air and nuclear programmes. We have maintained that our commitments must be strictly limited. I agree with my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Healey, on that point. I agree with his comments on Brunei and Cyprus. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ridley of Liddesdale. I pay tribute to his maiden speech. Like the noble Lord, Lord Healey, I
708
found those comments a little more to my taste than the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
I recall the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, about the Falkland Islands, which we should consider carefully. I recall him making a speech about leasehold in the other place. I thought then, and I think now, that it was a pity that he was let down on that occasion by his government.
The remarkable feature of our discussion about commitments in the debate and the Select Committee's report is the reluctance to place any limit on our commitments to UN peacekeeping. How can we have a plan for Army manpower unless we lay down—if only for planning purposes—a ceiling on the forces that we can commit to the UN? It is obvious that we cannot have a defence policy or a manpower policy without doing that. That, the Select Committee did not do. Instead, it envisages a wide, open-ended commitment to the UN. Paragraph 16 of its report reads:
"Part of the price of a refusal to reconsider the proposals contained in (Options for Change) will be the inability to respond to requests from the United Nations for military assistance on a scale commensurate with the United Kingdom's position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council".
But when we became a Permanent Member of the Security Council, we were the third most powerful nation in the world. Things have changed. The British Army has become much smaller; the demands on peace-keeping forces have become stronger, and are increasing; and to follow the commitments suggested by the Select Committee would call for increases in Army manpower far beyond those recommended by the Select Committee and rejected by the Government.
Surely it is enough that, today, despite our huge commitment to security in Northern Ireland, and despite deploying other forces on peace keeping in Belize, Brunei and the Falklands, we can still commit more peace keeping troops to the United Nations than the great majority of our fellow members, some of whom are bigger and richer than ourselves. By reason of its training, discipline and experience, the British infantry is probably the finest peace keeper in the world. We owe it to its members not to stretch them too far.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity of participating in the debate. As a maiden speaker from the Front Bench perhaps I may be allowed to extend the courtesies of the House to the two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Annaly, spoke with great personal knowledge, which is clearly of value to the House. I am sorry that my old colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, is not here for the moment. I am sure we all greatly appreciated his speech.
I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and to congratulate him,, first, on his perseverance. He brings this matter to our attention from time to time. I appreciate that greatly, because I have always believed perseverance to be the most

709
important quality in public life. I hope that he will continue to persevere and give us further opportunities to debate these matters. Perhaps I may say, in the presence of the Whips and other people, that I hope that that may be done in a more intelligent and commonsense manner than appears now to be the case when we debate important questions and everyone is restricted to a ludicrously short time in which to express themselves. Coming new to the Dispatch Box, that seems to me a matter that the appropriate committees of the House should be noting.
I also express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his impeccable timing of the debate, coming, as it does, one day after the publication of the report of the Select Committee on Defence of the other place and one week after the Government's announcement which was no doubt intended to anticipate the report we all received yesterday.
There has been a remarkable degree of unanimity on all sides of the House that we need a fundamental review of defence policy. We should review it with regard to matching resources to commitments and relating the economic and financial considerations and constraints to those two factors. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, quoted the Foreign Secretary, and I shall not repeat what he said. I noticed this week, making the point that I wish to make, that General Sir Michael Gow was reported to have said:
"Soldiers cannot understand why the Government and the Ministry of Defence experts do not assess commitments first and then determine an army to meet them".
I believe that most of us would have to agree with that sentiment. It is, in a nutshell, the case that I wish to make from these Benches, especially as it is something for which the Labour Party has been calling for some two or three years now. An example of the opposite approach is illustrated by the £80 million needed to meet the small number of additional forces announced last week. It is clear that the Government have not thought through that addition. They cannot tell us where the £80 million will come from. They could bring us no comfort as to whether it would be at the cost of helicopter landing ships, RAF mid-term refits or anything else. The Government showed that they had no strategic review of our defence forces in mind when they made that announcement last week.
Yesterday, the Select Committee on Defence published what can only be described as a devastating, scathing, almost contemptuous report. I shall not go through it all again. In palmier days, if a Select Committee or party in this place produced such a unanimous report, Ministers responsible would have been considering their position. They should still do so. I except the Minister, because I do not hold him responsible for those strategic decisions.
I do not wish to recite all our existing commitments because I agree with almost every dot and comma of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, and with what my noble friend Lord Healey said about finance and economic considerations. I adopt everything said by the Select Committee about our existing commitments. I pay from these Benches my tribute to
710
our forces in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and elsewhere for the superb job that they are doing on behalf of this nation.
There are new questions about commitments. Some changes are being urged upon us which are almost breathtaking. New attitudes are emerging from the most unexpected sources. They seem to make an overwhelming case for a strategic and fundamental review. Who would have thought, for example, that last week we would have heard the Secretary-General of NATO, Manfred WOrner, speak about Yugoslavia in these terms:
"The peace process may require the ultimate sanction of enforcement to succeed … We must not shirk from the legitimate use of force if we are to remain credible"?
That is an astonishing statement. Was the Secretary General of NATO speaking on our behalf or with our authority? Whatever comes of that speech it will require a commitment of forces well outside anything which Options for Change ever contemplated.
There is another new factor. President Clinton talks of withdrawing a sizeable proportion of US forces from within Europe. On the subject of Yugoslavia we also have the question—it has not been raised today —on the Owen-Vance peace plan. If it succeeds, how many thousands of troops will it take to police it? If the plan does not succeed, what will be the consequences for our forces then? Those are absolutely critical questions which have to be contemplated in any defence review.
Finally we have to consider the situation of the United Nations. The Secretary General told us only the other day that in four years 13 new commitments world-wide have been undertaken by the UN. That was as many as in all the preceding years.
A fundamental review has to consider the contribution made by Germany and Japan, in particular since they aspire to be permanent members of the Security Council, in which case they have to accept the permanent responsibilities for world peace and make their proper contribution. In the Charter of the United Nations they are still referred to as "enemy states", along with Spain, Bulgaria, and Finland of all countries. That needs to be reviewed.
The case made out by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is overwhelming. It has the support of all of us on this side of the House.
7.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I feel more than my usual sense of pleasure in extending what is more than a conventional welcome to our three maidens today. I very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to the Front Bench—I shall not refer to it as the bear pit of the Front Bench—and I look forward to his future contributions from it.
I also extend my heartfelt congratulations to our other two maiden speakers. My noble friend Lord Ridley is well known in the body politic. His particular style made a great impression on me when I was briefly in another place. That style has lost none of its point or pith. Your Lordships will surely agree that our House will be greatly enriched by his future contributions. My noble friend made a most helpful

711
and notably scholarly contribution. I refer to his suggestion as to how the defence budget might be further helped by a referral to commercial enterprises. If we were to ask Scots to pay a right of passage across Hadrian's Wall I hope that as a former Treasury Minister he would make sure that the Treasury did not pinch the money from the defence budget.
My noble friend Lord Annaly spoke with great experience as a commander in the cavalry. We greatly look forward to his contributions in your Lordships' House. It is a constant source, not of surprise but of satisfaction, to me as a relative newcomer to your Lordships' debates to find the extraordinary depth of experience of noble Lords who sit on these Benches.
Many points have been made during the course of debate. As usual I shall do my best to cover them. If I fail I hope that your Lordships will forgive me and allow me to write in due course. However, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his initiative in yet again proposing a Motion for us to debate on national security policy. I was grateful when he did so in October and I am grateful to him today, as I suspect are your Lordships.
The previous debate enabled me to lay before your Lordships, as I began to do in May last year, the basis of Her Majesty's Government's security policy. In doing so I stressed the fundamental importance of the NATO alliance and attempted to summarise the progress that the nations have made in adapting to a changing world since 1990, and in building basic machinery for a new security system—the alphabet soup with which we are now becoming so familiar; CSCE, CFE, NACC, and so on.
I shall not risk boring your Lordships by repeating what I said then except to reiterate that our fundamental approach remains the same now as in May and October of last year and as it has since the collapse of the Berlin wall. It is perhaps a good example of why Opposition accusations that the Government have a passion for U-turns are, as in so many of their pronouncements, greatly exaggerated. That may be of some consolation to my noble friend, Lord Ridley.
Your Lordships would expect me to reassure you therefore that the objectives of our defence policy are consistent with our overall security policy. Indeed, I took great comfort from the ringing endorsement that Her Majesty's Government received, in that respect at least if no other, from my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall when, in referring to the Ministry of Defence objectives set out in the statement on Defence Estimates 92/3, he said in our October debate:
"I doubt whether one can do … better than that as a guide to what the Armed Forces ought to be able to do."—[Official Report, 21/10/92; col. 791.]
I may be wrong, but neither the Opposition spokesmen nor the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, despite what he has said today, have shown any sign whatever of quarrelling with the framework and the objectives of security policy we have tried to establish and which I attempted to describe in May and October last year. Equally, I have not detected any fundamental criticism by your Lordships of the objectives of defence policy as set out in last year's
712
SDE; indeed, rather the reverse. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in correspondence with my right honourable friend said—I quoted it in a previous debate—that my right honourable friend had addressed a number of specific concerns in the Statement on Defence Estimates. I am glad to see that the noble Lord nods.
I welcome that fundamental agreement. In itself it adds a great deal of credibility to our security arrangements. Indeed, I think I observed in our previous debate that that was so. That is why I must confess to a measure of disappointment that in talking about the wider framework of security policy the noble Lord did not address himself to the substantial achievements of the past two years.
I do not wish to say more than that on our objectives. Where, unsurprisingly, there is disagreement it is on how those objectives are to be achieved. That is why the noble Lord's Motion is so apt. For it is over how much money should be devoted to defence and to what programmes that money should be distributed that the argument arises.
I hope therefore your Lordships will allow me to concentrate most of the remainder of my remarks on the important question of money. I hope that I shall manage to satisfy my noble friend Lord Fanshawe about the anxieties that he expressed. Somehow I rather doubt it.
During the course of the debate some noble Lords have drawn attention to the economic argument. The noble Lord, Lord Healey, and my noble friend Lord Ridley were notable in that respect. Indeed, I have argued in the past that the United Kingdom's relative economic decline at least in part can be attributed to the proportion of national resources which we devote to defence. As the noble Lord pointed out, Germany and Japan were defeated in 1945. But they are now great economic powers and, after all, spent next to nothing on defence on the early crucial years of reconstruction.
Clearly that is not the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, nor indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. As I understand it, they believe that we should, if necessary, increase our defence expenditure to match what they feel our position in the world should be.
Unlike those noble Lords, the voices to which I referred deplore the results of devoting a substantial proportion of gross national product to defence in both the United Kingdom and the USA. They point to what they regard as too much research and development expenditure being devoted to defence matters, to the dependence of national industry on foreign and domestic defence sales—the noble Lord, Lord Healey, referred to that—and to the crowding out of investment for civil and commercial purposes.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to a large extent I can recognise all those arguments in theory and I take them extremely seriously. To that extent, perhaps, trade does not always follow the flag, which seems to be the underlying argument of many noble Lords this evening. In practice, however, like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Beloff, I believe that we have to start from where we

713
are. The price of inadequate defence, particularly in a nuclear age—as your Lordships have often pointed out —is extraordinarily high. Just as in the past the Soviet empire had to be faced down, today we face an uncertain world and we as a trading nation have a strong interest in that world's security. Nevertheless, it is at least arguable that a level of defence expenditure higher than that of competing economies can put a nation such as ours at a serious competitive disadvantage in the long term. Perhaps that is a reason —and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and to my noble friend Lord Ridley—for asking Germany and Japan to shoulder a bigger share of the burden. Back to the level playing fields my Lords? I use that expression with due caution in view of the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the Liberal Benches. She reproved me eloquently some weeks ago for using it to the extent of rendering it a cliché.
Nevertheless, our security and defence objectives commit us to a substantial defence effort. That is something about which I may be able to reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It is something that we accept, but the expenditure that that commitment implies must be rigorously allocated and accounted for.
As noble Lords know, resources are allocated to government departments through the annual Public Expenditure Survey—the famous PES round. On it, noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Healey, have batted on both sides of the wicket throughout their careers, usually gaining a reputation as a cutter rather than a spender. Like other departments, we put forward a programme and argue our case strongly throughout the negotiations. I am sure that it is right in a system of representative government, with competing demands on the public purse, that we should have to do so.
The enormous changes for the better in the strategic setting mean that defence budgets are no longer sustainable at previous levels. That, I hope, is common ground among your Lordships, although listening to the debate this evening I began somehow to doubt it. I point out to your Lordships that this is as true of our allies as it is of us. Between the year 1990–91 and the year 1995–96, we in the United Kingdom expect our underlying defence budget to decline by 11 per cent. in real terms.
Other NATO nations have been even more drastic, both in cash and capability. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Healey, referred to that. In 1992 average NATO defence expenditure was 2.9 per cent. of GDP, compared with the United Kingdom which plans to spend 4.1 per cent. of GDP. Some of our NATO allies such as Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are contemplating force level reductions of the order of 50 per cent. compared with our 20 per cent. And our troops are trained professionals, as a number of your Lordships pointed out during the course of this evening's debate.
What we have to do is to try to decide what is the proper balance between the demands of defence policy and other demands on the taxpayer. Although it is not something to which I am altogether accustomed, here I have to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord
714
Mayhew. I am grateful for his clear recognition of that fact. Despite what my noble friend Lady Park says—and she knows that I have considerable sympathy for her knowledge and experience of the former Soviet Union—and despite what my noble friend Lord Beloff said, given the security climate I think I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that it would be highly unrealistic to expect an increase in our defence expenditure for the foreseeable future.
I could go on about these matters at some length but I would risk being accused by your Lordships of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. There is one point, however, which I should like to make in the context of resources which I believe is important. We build hospitals and keep them open because we believe that there is good reason to build them—at least I hope that is the reason. The same applies and should apply to defence programmes. We initiate them or persist with them because they make sense for defence. As we reduce our defence expenditure, rightly or wrongly, the consequential adjustments that follow have distressing consequences for employment and the coherence of long-established communities and industries. We saw that particularly coming through in the recent defence debate on the future of Rosyth and Devonport initiated in your Lordships' House.
However, if those consequences are to have a call on government resources they should not have a call on the Defence Budget but on the budgets of other government departments. Our concern is and must remain to bring the most cost-effective defence capability consistent with our aims from inevitably scarce defence pounds. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made the point more cogently than I am able to. Cost-effectiveness is extremely important. I have already mentioned that the support area plays a big part in our efforts in that direction. I do not wish again to repeat what I said to your Lordships last week in the debate on Rosyth.
I wish to mention two other areas which make great contributions in that respect and I suspect that outside the rather arcane world of the sixth floor of the Ministry of Defence their effect has been greatly underestimated, both in the press and—dare I say it? —in Parliament. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, out of the great depth of his experience, is highly sceptical of the accuracy of what I am about to say.
First, we have introduced a whole range of efficiency measures. It is always difficult to measure efficiency, but it is fair to say that at a conservative estimate the efficiency programme is anticipated to provide savings of about £300 million per year throughout the PES period. In that respect, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, for mentioning the defence estate—an area of the activity of the Ministry of Defence for which I happen to be responsible. One of the first actions I took when I entered that august building was to ask my officials to begin to prepare for a review of the overall strategy of the defence estate. We have now come a long way down the road towards producing it. It is important not only in the context of making the best use of resources but also in view of the increasing

715
interest which the public take in the land which the Ministry of Defence occupies. I hope that fairly shortly I shall be able to share with the public our thoughts on the subject and also to invite comments. In that context, I announced yesterday that we have a plan for the sale of Greenham Common and I can reassure the noble Viscount on that.
Secondly, on efficiency, I believe that we ought to give due credit to the new management strategy which has caused such grief and angst within the Ministry of Defence. It is already proving a substantial contributor to efficient management and that contribution can but increase with time.
There is little time left to me. The other half of that to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, addressed himself during the course of his speech was the important question of commitments. I wish first to address the subject of manpower. That is what a number of your Lordships expressed understandable worry about, including the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, my noble friends Lord Vivian and Lord Beloff, and others, notably the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall.
At a rough guess, I would say that if we were to implement all the proposals which the House of Commons Defence Committee suggested for manpower it would cost the Ministry of Defence budget approximately another £2 billion over a 10-year period. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, advocated the complete implementation of that budget. If I may make a party political point for one moment, it perhaps comes ill from a representative of a party which for many years has advocated a decrease in the defence budget to advocate that kind of increase in the present climate.
There are many ways, your Lordships invariably suggest, in which we should preserve the capabilities. Many suggestions have been made by noble Lords, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, over our amphibious capability. Amphibious capability is something in which we are at the moment well engaged. So far as the LPH is concerned, tenders are at present being evaluated. HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid" will run on until their replacements are available.
In this context I would say that your Lordships' reasons for taking up these matters are always cogent and well argued in isolation. But I am also bound to say that a balanced programme is not just the sum of its parts. It is a sum of the balance struck between and the integration of its parts. Striking that balance is substantially a matter of judgment. And matters of judgment are, almost by definition, susceptible to challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made that point. We go to great lengths to ensure that we strike the right balance. The world has changed and with it the full structures that we need to ensure the security of the nation and its ability to pursue its legitimate interests have changed as well.
I say to my noble friend Lord Beloff, and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, that I wholly accept that if the present budget proves inadequate to perform the task
716
demanded of it, despite all the efficiency gains we may make, either we have to increase the budget or we have to cut commitments. To do otherwise would be to destroy the morale and capability of the best and most professional armed forces in existence. I was much moved, as I am sure your Lordships were, by the tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Lyell to the hundreds of soldiers who over the years have been killed in Northern Ireland. He asked by implication whether we would rather loose 638 Members of another place, or 638 soldiers. All I would say is: please do not tempt me.
The Armed Forces are one of the things that are demonstrably excellent in our nation. Were the Government to destroy that excellence we would not be quickly forgiven. In that respect, I take very much to heart the strictures of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on defence reviews and their effect. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lords, Lord Healey and Lord Shackleton, spoke about the importance of the long term and continuity. In that context I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will take to heart the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and realise that chopping and changing constantly is sometimes as dangerous as persisting in the long term.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question about hydrography and hydrographic ships?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am well aware of the constraints of time. I had intended to answer that question. We recognise the importance of specialist hydrographic capability. I am the Minister responsible for the hydrographer. We regard it as absolutely essential to retain the specialist hydrographic personnel in the Navy. I have the greatest admiration, for the reasons that the noble Lord gave, for the work that they do.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks for the Government, and it is not just his responsibility. Are the hydrographic ships to be phased out?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, at the moment, there are no plans to do that. That is all I can say to the noble Lord.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, all of whom made extremely valuable contributions sometimes against the irksome constraints of time.
Perhaps I might take mild exception to one aspect; namely, the suggestion that I had omitted the economic factor from the equation. I had thought that the whole of my proposition was based on the economic factor. Either the economic resources must be reallocated to meet commitment, or commitment must be reduced to match the available economic resources. I am delighted that the noble Viscount, when he answered the debate, seemed to agree that we had to do one of those two things. We may do either of them, but to do neither will invite disaster.

717
Finally, I thank the Minister for his courteous and, perhaps I might say, ingenious defence of his government's policy. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Mentally Disordered Offenders: Social Services Review
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take in response to the review of health and social services for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services (Cm 2088).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask what steps the Government propose to take in regard to the most impressive report of the committee presided over by Dr. Reed on the treatment of mentally disordered offenders.
When I look at the list of speakers—it includes the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, at whom I am gazing directly—I remember what the Duke of Wellington is supposed to have said on one occasion. I suppose that after the military debate he is in the minds of all of us. Looking at his own troops, he said: "I don't know what effect these people will have on the enemy, but by God they terrify me". I am afraid that that is what I feel about my supporters this evening. I am particularly nervous of the maiden speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, (I hope that he is a little nervous too). I am always frightened of Law Lords until I get to know them. Then I realise that they are much like the rest of us. I wish him every success in his maiden effort.
I hope that the Minister who will reply, who is so exceptionally well qualified for the task, will be as kind to me as usual. But I cannot hope that my luck in that respect will hold.
We can all agree that the report is a tremendous step forward in the attempt to co-ordinate the various efforts coming from so many different quarters to cope with mentally disordered offenders. I recognise, however, as the Minister knows, that two further reports from committees under the chairmanship of Dr. Reed are yet to come. They will be published later. Of those two, the one that is crucial for our purpose tonight is the one which deals with high security mental offenders—which means in practice, I suppose, that it is largely a question of taking a good look at the future of the special hospitals. That does not prevent the rest of us offering views which may be particularly appropriate. It may help the committee in its work. But I realise that it is too much to expect that the Minister will tonight say anything positive about that subject. Nevertheless, I hope that she will be able to be a good deal more forthcoming than the Government were, not surprisingly, when the report was first published.
In a general sense the Government are prepared to share the standpoint of the committee. The report says that the starting point for the committee was to determine the future services on a multi-agency basis.
718
It goes on to say that decisions should be based on clinical needs and public safety. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach to mentally disordered offenders. But if we were to speak of offenders generally, we would have to pay some attention to deterrents and retribution. I take it that in this case those factors are not considered appropriate.
In the foreword to the report M r. Yeo, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, and Michael Jack, Minister of State, Home Office, say,
"The Government has reaffirmed in the course of the review that, wherever possible, mentally disordered offenders should receive care and treatment from health and social services, rather than the criminal justice system".
I am sure that all those speaking tonight would agree with that. But the decision regarding who is mentally disordered and who is not is a delicate one. Sometimes one cannot help admitting that it is wrongly taken. It is taken on the advice of doctors and psychiatrists, who are not infallible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has been kind enough before now to mention my book about mentally disordered offenders, Prisoner or Patient? which was published in April. In the book I describe a number of visits I paid to men convicted of murder and who are now in special hospitals after spending some years in prison. Obviously in their cases the decisions could be borderline. Nevertheless, we must make the best we can of the psychological and other resources available.
The House will be aware that the report contains 276 recommendations, and I shall not go through them all. I am sorry that the Reed Committee did not follow the excellent example of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's committee which looked at Ashworth and which set out a number of recommendations which were to be given top priority. The Minister may correct me, but as far as I can see all 276 recommendations stand on the same footing. However, that is only a comment in passing.
The great majority of the recommendations could be put into operation without much or any increase of resources. In that sense therefore, the Government could have no defence or excuse for not putting them into operation if they agreed with them. They could not say that it would cost a lot of money. On the face of it most, but perhaps not all, of the recommendations which would involve the transfer of prisoners into hospitals, could be effected without an increase of resources. However, I realise that if the courts are allowed to insist that a specific offender be transferred to hospital, that would need more hospital space and inevitably some increase in resources would be involved. The question of how one transfers people from prison to hospital is an important aspect of the report and a number of valid speakers may deal with it.
Another matter with which I shall not deal is the increase of psychiatric facilities in prisons. We have discussed that before today and no one knows more about that than my noble friend Lord Ennals. I do not know what he intends to say but he may deal with that aspect. I and many other noble Lords have stated in this House that one cannot obtain a really satisfactory provision of psychiatric services in prison until the

719
prison medical services are integrated into the National Health Service. But that matter is for another day or another speaker.
I shall concentrate my remarks on those recommendations which, on balance, must ultimately involve a specific increase of resources. I shall mention four recommendations from the report which I believe will, in the end, produce a new scenario. The first recommendation is that a considerable number of sentenced prisoners—somewhere between 750 and 1,400—should be transferred from prison to hospital. Secondly, that a considerable number of patients should be transferred from special hospitals to conditions of lesser security. The movement would be from prisons into hospitals and from special hospitals to conditions of less security. Thirdly, the places for people in secure units should be increased from 600 to 1,500. That is the most striking feature of the report. Fourthly, community care for mental patients should be much improved both for existing mental patients and for a significant number who will be moved from mental hospitals into the community.
Other speakers may deal with community care. In my eyes it is often a farce, but it represents an ideal which I suppose most of us share. For what my opinion is worth and whatever the precise figure, I offer my support to the broad scenario outlined by the committee. Broadly speaking I agree with its vision. At the end of my speech I shall press the Government to indicate how far they accept the picture of movement from one form of custody to another and finally out of custody into the community. Do they agree in principle with the basic findings of the committee? I shall want to know what steps they are taking to begin moving in that direction.
I shall spend the rest of my time—I will not be speaking forever—discussing regional secure units. As I said, the committee wished to see an increase from 600 to 1,500 patients. One can only call that a dramatic—or even traumatic—development. Even 1,500 would leave us short of the 2,000 recommended by the Butler Committee in the mid-1970s.
What are the special virtues of the regional secure units? I am sure that at one time or another most noble Lords present will have visited one. I have certainly visited a number and recently I visited the largest one, the Reaside Unit near Birmingham, presided over by the eminent Professor Bluglass.
Were the professor speaking to the House I believe that he would give four reasons why he believes that the regional secure units should attract strong support. First, making a comparison with special hospitals as we know them today, the regional units are smaller. Secondly, they have regional rather than national links. That means that they are less remote from the patient's home. I was particularly impressed by the work being done at the Reaside Unit to keep in touch with patients in their homes after they have left the unit. Thirdly, the regional secure units provide a high level of specialised care. Fourthly—which may be controversial—staff are members of nursing unions rather than members of the Prison Officers' Association, about which I have spoken more than
720
once in your Lordships' House. The last issue is perhaps too hot a potato for me to deal with tonight. I shall leave such matters to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who knows a great deal about the Prison Officers' Association.
I must say a few words on some of these points. Is there an ideal size for a regional secure unit? Professor Bluglass's unit has beds for 100 but when I visited it not so long ago only 77 beds were occupied. The staff had overflowed into the space which would otherwise have been used by the patients. The new building will eliminate that difficulty. There will be 100 there before long. One gets the feeling from Professor Bluglass that 100 is about the right size but in my own south-east Thames region, which is well known to the Minister, the regional secure units usually contain about 15 beds. That was true of Maidstone, which I visited not long ago, and I believe it is true of the others.
So, on the face of it, there does not appear to be an ideal size for regional secure units. In the south-east Thames region, 15 is the preferred number. Professor Bluglass prefers 100. I think that Professor Bluglass himself would say that it should depend on local conditions and that in country districts smaller units are more desirable. The Minister may have something to say about the desirable size of these units. It is fairly obvious that there is a wide range of choices.
One of the important recommendations of the committee is that patients in regional secure units should be retained for as long as it is necessary for their treatment. That has not happened up to now; it has not happened often enough up to now. In my opinion that would be a very desirable step in the future. In that connection, when I was at the Maidstone regional secure unit the idea was put to me that there should be two kinds of regional secure unit; those for fairly short-stay people—up to two years —and those for people who need to stay for longer periods. I mentioned that to Professor Bluglass who seemed to be in favour of the idea. Perhaps the Government will have something to say on whether people should stay in regional secure units for as long as it is judged necessary for their treatment.
The subject that I shall become involved in now is very tricky. I do not know whether the Minister, with all her resources, will be able to speak dogmatically about it. What about the ratio of staff to patients, including specialists such as forensic psychiatrists? I found it impossible to arrive at satisfying figures. At Reaside the total staff based on the centre were 300 and there were 77 patients. It may be said that that figure will rise to 100 but 300 is not a fair indication of the ratio because for one reason or another a good many staff have responsibilities outside the unit. That was also the position in Maidstone. I hope that the Minister will agree with the general statement—I do not know whether she will be able to say anything about the precise figures—that the ratio of staff is a good deal higher in regional secure units than it is in the special hospitals. If we are making a comparison between regional secure units and special hospitals we must realise that the regional secure units have a considerable advantage in staff and above all in specialised staff.
It is right to point out, before I leave this point, that in an article in the British Medical Journal not so long ago Professor Bluglass looked forward to the disappearance of the special hospitals. He said that he would like to see them disappear altogether. He takes the view that that kind of high security is unnecessary for more than 100 patients, instead of the 1,700 now retained in the hospitals. In the British Medical Journal he certainly looks forward to the abolition of the special hospitals. He sent me word to say that those who cannot be transferred to regional secure units in the first place should be in regional high secure units. That is what he has asked me to indicate.
I have quoted one high authority, Professor Bluglass. I shall quote another, Mr. Charles Kaye, director of the Special Hospitals Service Authority. The House will not be surprised to hear that he disagrees with Professor Bluglass's desire to bring special hospitals to an end. I want to record that because noble Lords might say, "He would, wouldn't he?" or they might say that Professor Bluglass would naturally want to see an expansion of regional secure units. At any rate there is a difference of opinion between these two eminent men.
I shall not cover again the ground that I covered in the debate on Ashworth. I expressed then a belief that special hospitals reformed have a very promising future. I shall not go over that ground again.
Mr. Kaye has been kind enough to give me some idea of the evidence he has been submitting to the further Reed Report on high security patients. I wish that I were a fly on the wall and could hear the arguments going on between him and Professor Bluglass. There were rumours that they were drawing closer together, but if they are closer together they must both have moved a good deal since I interviewed them. At any rate there are these two eminent men. If asked I shall only reply what Winston Churchill said during the Spanish civil war when asked which side he was on. He said, "I am on both sides." Up to a point that is true about me, but I am not in favour of the abolition of the special hospitals.
Without going into details I wish to say briefly that Mr. Kaye defends the maintenance of special hospitals but not as they are today. He would look forward to a time when there might be more than half a dozen special hospitals, each with no more than 200 patients. Three of the existing sites could be used. They would not be special hospitals as we know them but they would still be special hospitals. Professor Bluglass says that in principle he does not object to that formulation. He is not going to commit himself as to the national form of organisation that would result. I should mention also that Mr. Peter Thompson, of the Matthew Trust, who speaks with poignant first-hand experience of these matters, would like to see the special hospitals continue more or less as they are now. So there are various views that can be held.
I shall not go any further as there are many experts to follow me. I have not dealt with a proposal which would certainly be very costly if it was carried out within the terms of the Reed Report. It represents a desirable long-term aim. The committee would like to
722
see the numbers of forensic psychiatrists more than doubled and it would like to see other major increases in the same field.
One could ask questions about the advisory body but my time is up. I shall only ask the Minister to be as forthcoming as she can when she comes to reply. I know that she would wish to be forthcoming. There are limitations on any government at the moment. I hope that she will be forthcoming because she cares, as we all care, so tremendously about this subject. I look forward greatly to everything that will follow.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Bone: My Lords, I, and I am sure all noble Lords in the House tonight, are deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this debate. Nobody in your Lordships' House could introduce a debate on this subject with more knowledge or caring than he. I would like to pay a compliment to him and thank him for all that he does. We shall have the pleasure of hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, making his maiden speech. It is a great honour for us to have him with us tonight. I am sure that we shall all listen to everything he has to say both now and in the future. I would also like to compliment Dr. John Reed and all the members of his committee, for this magnificent report. I found it not only illuminating but also sometimes absolutely riveting. Despite the 270 recommendations everything seemed to be pertinent. An enormous amount of time and effort has gone into the report. I offer my congratulations to all of them.
This report has opened our eyes to the possibilities of care in the community for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services. But before looking at the proposals we should realise that there will always be people who will need in-patient care whether they are offenders or people who, through stress or other reasons, become mentally disordered. The health service and sometimes the Home Office, must be responsible for these people.
There are over 70,000 in-patient beds for people with mental illness or learning difficulties, but through the new government initiative more people are being released into the community.
One hospital that I know well—perhaps I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as president of its housing association—has had over 1,000 beds. The number now is just over 400. The men and women patients have not just been thrown out as some sections of the press would have us believe. Their release has been very carefully planned and organised by all the staff of the hospital, local authorities, social services and the voluntary sector.
There are two houses within the hospital grounds which are used to assess whether the chosen patients —usually six or seven—like living together. At the end of the probation period they are moved to a house outside the grounds. They usually work; they pay rent and always have their own front door key. The houses are provided by local authorities within the catchment area. Social workers and the support team are always on call if anything is needed. If absolutely necessary, they can always return to the hospital. However, if all

723
goes well and their reintegration into a normal lifestyle is complete, they then move on to independent accommodation. We now have 18 homes. Perhaps I may add that I am proud to tell your Lordships that the most recent home is now bearing my name.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I tell noble Lords about this because I believe that we should all be aware that a great deal is being done by all the dedicated professions involved. I have also been in touch with Rampton Hospital, one of the special hospitals which I expect most of your Lordships know. I was relieved to hear that the present number of patients is 521 of whom 120 are women. In the year 1990–91, 57 patients were discharged. Last year there was an increase to 71 in the number of people who were able to leave. The disposals included being returned to prison to await sentence; transfer to a regional secure unit which we have heard so much about from the noble Earl; transfer to a psychiatric hospital and discharge into the community.
I am assured that in all cases the authorities concerned are aware of the movements of the patients until they are granted an absolute discharge. But with the best will in the world, there will always be people who are not included in statistics and who have not been found; those who are lonely, depressed, often unemployed and who gradually become mentally ill. They are usually homeless as well.
They must be desperately unhappy. Crisis at Christmas, a charity for the single homeless, has an open Christmas at which we welcome up to 1,000 men and women for seven days and nights at Christmastime. Quite a number of our guests need medical and psychiatric help but have slipped through the net. It is our duty to help those people before they decline into a life of crime. The Government have supplied finance for many more housing units to try to accommodate those who are now sleeping rough. We hope that in time cardboard city will be a part of the past.
Taking care in the community in all these cases will involve people who genuinely do care. It will be a challenge to all of us and one which we shall meet. I am sure that we shall succeed.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Mustill: My Lords, to make a maiden speech is an ordeal for anybody. My forebodings have been multiplied by looking down the list of speakers and seeing the names of noble Baronesses and noble Lords whose experience in addressing the House and in addressing the intellectual, moral and practical problems in the field of mental health are so much greater than my own. But appreciating seeing that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was to bring a splendid report before the House tonight, I felt that I must take the plunge because anything that can be done for a mentally disordered offender must at least be attempted.
Maiden speakers are urged to eschew controversy. But there can be nothing controversial in suggesting that among all the shipwrecked of our society, the
724
mentally disordered offenders are as far away as any from a lifeline. They raise the most intractable human and professional problems; human because, unlike other unfortunates, they raise in the breasts of very few an instinctive tide of sympathy. They are doubly alienated from the ordinary world and they are sensed by many as a threat to the precarious balance of the society in which we have to live. So there is no widespread impulse to help them or indeed even to recognise that they need to be helped. They are also odd men out and odd women out. They do not fit into pigeonholes. Put bluntly, I suggest that to many professionals they are a nuisance.
Those who run prisons or bail hostels have a difficult task. They feel, understandably, that the presence of someone mentally disordered upsets the balance—often rather precarious—of their establishment and makes things worse not only for the staff, but for the non-disordered people for whom they already cater. Conversely, those concerned with the practice of mental health do not welcome the potentially disruptive presence of a convicted criminal. However magnanimous and sincere, I believe that there are many professionals who wish that the mentally disordered offender were somewhere else.
Again, the mentally disordered offender is nobody's job. One has only to list a few of the agencies with whom he or she may brush into contact; namely, the police, social services, the medical profession, the prosecution services, judges, the prison service, the probation service and voluntary agencies of various kinds. He or she has contact with these and more, but is nobody's business. No person or body has central responsibility for the mentally disordered offender. No single body or agency combines in itself the unique mixture of skills that this particularly difficult subject demands. These factors mean that the mentally disordered offender simply falls through the gaps between agencies.
These are serious problems, but they are essentially emotional and administrative and ought to be susceptible of cure in time by education and efficient reorganisation. But behind them lie much deeper problems of law and philosophy. The substantive laws governing the relationship between mental disorder and guilt, and governing the powers and duties of the sentencing judge, are outside the scope of the steering committee's report, and I must therefore say nothing about them, deeply unsatisfactory though they are.
But I may perhaps be permitted one brief comment on the philosophy of punishment. Unless society has at least some idea of what it is trying to do when sentencing offenders in general, and, just as important, why it is trying to do it, there is no chance of making a deep impression on the problem of the special class of offenders who are mentally disordered. The time when society formulates and agrees a consistent, comprehensible and democratically underpinned policy on those deep issues seems to me a long way in the future.
Meanwhile, the most we can look for are piecemeal and practical gains, and here at least the picture is much brighter, as the report makes clear. Three trends

725
are particularly encouraging. First, the confluence of two movements for change. That is to say, the long running impetus towards the non-institutional treatment of the mentally ill, and in addition the more recent emphasis on the non-custodial disposal of offenders. Acting together these two streams of movement have led to a commendable pressure for the treatment of the mentally disordered offender outside compulsory residential institutions.
I use that dry and contorted phrase as I prefer not to say "in the community". To liberate these people into the community and expect the community to sustain them unassisted will not be enough. They will sink. The mentally disordered offender will require continuous professional and administrative support, and if that is not made available on a proper scale his position will be worse and not better through the change, and the position of his fellow citizens will be worse as well. Nevertheless, I venture to repeat that the initiative is to be warmly welcomed.
The second theme is the diversion of the mentally disordered offender away from the criminal justice system before they ever get into it. Of course once they get into it the cogwheels of the system grind inexorably on, and once in you never get out. In principle that is fine and I applaud it, but I would briefly draw attention to a constitutional problem that seems scarcely to have been mentioned in the literature and the debates.
We have in this country a statutory system of criminal law, criminal courts, and penal measures that apply to everyone. What seems to be proposed is that some people will be short circuited out of the system before they ever enter it. This may well be the right way ahead, but it is possible that the House will think that if it is the right way ahead the system should be formally legitimised and that standards and mechanisms should be formally established even if informally administered, otherwise we shall get inconsistencies. And, as we all know, inconsistency is one of the most potent varieties of unfairness.
Finally, I would particularly draw the attention of the House to the importance attached in chapter 10 of the report to inter-agency co-operation. That is already well under way. The Home Office and the Department of Health have given a powerful impetus. Also, nationally and locally and at all levels, the bodies and persons concerned have taken to it with enthusiasm. But the enthusiasm needs to be guided, and the initiatives need a solid framework if they are to unite the efforts of all who want to help these unfortunates, and also—and this is important—to get rid of the fragmentation and incoherence that is the curse of provision for the mentally disordered offender.
The steering committee, in paragraph 10.4 of its report, states that the progress already made,
"needs to be nurtured and supported from the top."
I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government will put their weight behind this report, and carry forward the substantial gains which at long last are being made.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is my particular privilege both to thank and congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, on his maiden speech. I suppose even for a very senior and experienced Lord Justice of Appeal it is perhaps still a certain task to make a maiden speech in this place. The noble and learned Lord has got it over now, and I hope that he feels comfortable and relaxed. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Longford that too many Lords all at once can be daunting, but it is frequent that we have debates in which we would like to have a legal input and we do not have it. So to have one all on our own just for this debate is a great privilege, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will want to join in our debates again even after dinner time. It was a thoughtful and sensitive speech.
The subject introduced by my noble friend Lord Longford is one of growing interest. In the last two months I have taken part in two conferences on subjects relating to this report—something which I warmly welcomed. One of them was at the London School of Economics and the other was in Oxford organised by the College of Occupational Therapists, of which I admit to being president. But the interest in the subject owes a great deal to my noble friend Lord Longford. Month after month and year after year he has kept this issue before your Lordships' House. There have been occasions when I have been proud to follow him and there have been occasions when I have not been able to do so, but I and the whole House are grateful to him for keeping our eyes on this difficult subject.
I have to admit that reading the report brought back vivid recollections of my experience when I was Secretary of State for Social Services, and the time I spent prodding regional health authorities to construct regional secure units. Now, 15 years later, only three regions have in place the number of required beds in secure units—the North West, the South East Thames, and the South West region. Many are significantly below the target figure, and this must be of concern to the Secretary of State.
In this debate I declare my interest as president of MIND, which has made a great contribution to thinking, training and comment on this issue. MIND welcomed the report of Dr. Reed's committee and has called on the Department to secure as early as possible implementation of the bulk of the 276 proposals for action. It is an important report, and we should congratulate Dr. Reed on it. It is good news that he is to continue with an advisory committee. The review has uncovered a vast gulf between the treatment and care that individuals need and are entitled to receive, and in fact the level, range and extent of services currently available to provide this treatment.
The Reed Committee was able to draw on several important and recent studies. Paragraph 2.12 refers to the Efficiency Scrutiny of the Prison Medical Service (1990) which
"proposed that health care should be contracted in to prisons, predominantly from the NHS".

727
I entirely agree with the comments made by my noble friend on this subject. The paragraph also refers to the Woolf Report on disturbances at Manchester (Strangeways) Prison and elsewhere in 1991 which
"made far-reaching recommendations for the improvement of prison regimes".
In addition it states that the
"Chief Inspector of Prisons brought into sharp focus concerns about suicide and self-harm among prisoners".
At its disposal the Committee had research suggesting that
"upwards of 700 sentenced prisoners might require transfer to psychiatric care in NHS hopsitals".
There is much else of value in the report. Paragraph 4.5 states that other offenders
"are in the wrong place (for example, in prison when they need a secure hospital place, in a hospital with higher security than their treatment requires, or in hospital when they should be in the community)".
Paragraph 5.26 refers to special hospitals and to the 1,700 patients who are held in three locations. It points out:
"Recent research suggests that between 35 per cent and 50 per cent of existing patients may not require high security…although a number of sentenced prisoners may need to be transferred to such provision… In July 1992, about 100 Special Hospital patients were awaiting a move to a more local facility. About 40 of these had been waiting for more than a year despite the requirement for mentally ill and mentally impaired (or severely mentally impaired) patients in Department of Health Circular (88)".
The report paints a picture of—perhaps it is not fair to use the word "neglect"—inadequate provision and of a provision which does not suit the needs of patients. Hundreds of patients are not receiving the treatment and care that they need. Taken together with the inadequate supply of medium-secure provisions, to which I have referred, we have a very disturbing situation which should be commanding urgent Government attention. Like others, I await the Minister's reply with eager interest.
The review blames restrictive legal provision and perverse financial arrangements. It also blames the development of the NHS purchaser-provider relationship. It concludes that although court-based psychiatric assessment and diversion schemes can assist in preventing inappropriate imprisonment, provision for the diversion of "mentally disordered offenders" is currently planned in fewer than half of all district health authorities. It is a very serious fact that half of all district health authorities have not yet made any such provision.
Some of your Lordships may have read a recent article in November 1992 in the British Medical Journal, headed, "National Survey of Current Arrangements for Diversion from Custody in England and Wales", which concluded:
"When diversion is necessary the commonest obstacle when cited by the NHS is the lack of resources. However, as the Probation Service frequently cites a lack of interest by the mental health services as a barrier to further developments, it remains to he seen whether lack of resources or interest is the real obstacle to the future development of services".
I suppose that it is part of each, but we must not simply conclude that it is only a lack of resources.
MIND agrees with the review's conclusion that practice falls a long way short of what is desirable —desperately short for those people (and their
728
families) held for years in the wrong form of custody. MIND believes that current services, being excessively custodial and institutional, are often quite unable to address the individual needs of those required to use or to be detained in them.
We broadly support the review's proposals for reform and for the development of a range of services able to respect the human rights and health care needs of offenders with mental health problems and their families. I know that in his maiden speech the noble and learned Lord said that some people would prefer them not to be there, but they are there and we have to treat them with all the respect for their human rights, needs and welfare which they and their families deserve.
MIND also recognises the importance of introducing new mechanisms which will accurately assess unmet needs, ensure effective diversion from inappropriate custody, guarantee constructive joint working between agencies and authorities, remove legal and financial disincentives, and guarantee equal opportunities and freedom from discrimination on grounds of race and gender in the allocation or operation of services. It certainly welcomes the creation of a national advisory committee.
MIND hopes that the review's work will lead to a more effective and a fairer service and that important decisions will be taken. Health and Home Office Ministers must match the review's thorough and realistic analysis with commitments. I should like to list six. The first is to regulate strictly the NHS internal market, where necessary, to guarantee the purchase and provision of an appropriate range of local, regional and national services of high quality. The second is to make district health authorities assume financial responsibility for purchasing all secure mental health services, including those in high security. The third is to guarantee the creation of psychiatric assessment and diversion schemes to serve each magistrates' court area. The fourth is to fix a date by which mental health care in prisons will be entirely provided by NHS staff working to NHS standards. That was a point made in different words by my noble friend Lord Longford. The fifth is to maintain the momentum for change by publishing a five-year action plan with clear targets for reforms and service development. The sixth is to implement the recommendations to redress the racism and inequality which were described in the race and culture report.
No amount of its careful phrasing can conceal the human misery and waste that the Reed Report has documented. In prison, hospital and the community, current services have been shown often to fail the very people that they exist to help. Respecting their human rights may have a high price, but in a civilised society it must be paid. I hope that the Minister will respond in a positive way to the recommendations of the report and to the comments made by noble Lords.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we must all thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for tabling this important Unstarred Question at such a timely occasion. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord

729
Mustill, on what I would call—and what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has already called—a most thoughtful speech. I hope that we shall be able to hear him often in the future. Perhaps I should say that this is the first time in a debate of this kind that I have agreed with practically everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said. I usually find that I disagree with him slightly and with MIND a lot. This time, however, I thought that what he had to say was splendid.
The Reed Report is indeed a most useful assessment of the problems facing us in the handling of mentally disordered offenders. Like others, I was keen that this debate should take place. I shall endeavour to pick out just a few points from what is a very comprehensive report but, before doing so, I must emphasise that I see Dr. Reed's report as most useful for future planning which, according to paragraph 1.4, was the intention. However, I do not see it as trying to deal with the present day situation in which there are clearly not the adequate or suitable facilities that are needed by many mentally ill people in this country, including many mentally disordered offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made a great point of that, and I agree, but I do not see the report as tackling that matter. It is looking forward, rather than looking at the present and although it is not the subject of this debate, I feel that it is the present which is most important.
I had the good fortune recently to meet, at their request, the trustees of the newly-formed Isle of Wight Community Health Service Trust (which is starting up on 1st April) to learn about its activities generally. We touched upon the subject of this Unstarred Question as well as on other mental illness problems.
As regards the latter, I should perhaps tell your Lordships that during the past five years in my county we have shut down our 19th century mental hospital and opened a new modern one near to our new large general hospital. Sadly—and here I turn to present-day difficulties—I have been told that in planning the new mental hospital 10 years or so ago our district health authority and the region made a significant underestimate of the type and extent of accommodation needed. That is so notwithstanding the excellent arrangements that we have had for many years for care in the community in the Isle of Wight and for inter-agency consultation, long before it had become a statutory requirement. It seems that mental illness, requiring some in-patient treatment, including secure accommodation, is on the increase, certainly in my small part of the kingdom. Without speculating about its causes, I hope that the Government will recognise it as a fact.
I turn now to the comments made to me on the Reed Report by the Isle of Wight director-designate of mental health services. He drew my attention particularly to "next steps" set out in paragraph 10.16 of the report and commented that, fortunately, there seems to be widespread agreement on what needs to be done, but that is for the future. However, it is clear to me and to my adviser that services for the mentally ill generally are being stretched to full capacity. The Isle
730
of Wight does not now have specialist facilities for the care and treatment of persons exhibiting disturbed behaviour as a result of mental health problems.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to contain these people even for short times because of their recent dramatic increase, as mentioned earlier. I suspect that this applies elsewhere in the country as well. If more people are going to be diverted from the courts there will have to be more central government support to provide the increased facilities. My honourable friend, Mr. Tim Yeo, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, in presenting the Reed Report last November, said that capital expenditure on medium secure psychiatric units would be increased from £3 million in 1991–92 to £18 million. Sadly, from the current practical experience at local level, this is nothing like enough. But perhaps I can be more generous and say that it is a very good start, if only a start. I hope that my noble friend the Minister, in replying, will be able to enlarge on that and tell us that it is in fact a start and not the end of the moneys that are to be made available.
In the same way, I think we can say that the Reed Report is a very good start and that we can look forward to more helpful assessments of national needs for mentally disordered offenders and recommendations from the continuing advisory committees under Dr Reed's obviously excellent chairmanship.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, on his splendid maiden speech. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for asking this important Question on the Government's response to the Reed Committee's review of health and social services for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services.
One of the five guiding principles set out in paragraph 3.3 of the Reed Report is that patients should be cared for,
"as far as possible in the community, rather than in institutional settings."
The goal of care in the community runs throughout this admirable report. I draw your Lordships' attention in particular to paragraph 8.12 under the sub-headings of "Community Services" and "Local Authorities" on page 34. The paragraph states:
"We are particularly concerned that the transfer to local authorities from 1993–94 of social security funds currently used to meet the cost of accommodation should not work to the disadvantage of mentally disordered offenders."
It continues:
"We welcome the intention of the Department of Health to issue guidance on 'ordinary residence' which may be helpful in some potentially difficult cases. However, looking at the broader issue, the concerns expressed to us by voluntary oganisations and others are such that we believe the Government may need to consider taking positive action, possibly through the introduction of a specific grant, to ensure that access to services is safeguarded."
The transfer of funds referred to is under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and is to take place on 1st April, just seven weeks from now. The question of the "ordinary residence" of a special hospital patient in a local authority area may be fraught with difficulty and may lead to endless

731
disputes between local authorities as to where a mentally disordered offender is ordinarily resident. Take the example of a man who has been in a special hospital for a decade. Suppose he was born and brought up in Taunton; he worked for some years in Plymouth; he committed an offence in Wolverhampton and he was staying in London at the time he was detained. What local authority is responsible for him? Where is he ordinarily resident? A team of barristers specialising in the conflict of laws could argue the case for months. Local authorities are likely to maintain that the mentally disordered offender belongs to another authority. The intention of the Department of Health to issue guidance on "ordinary residence" is, of course, welcome. But apparently the department has not yet done so, and 1st April is awfully soon. Moreover, guidelines are only guidelines and are by no means guaranteed to resolve disputes.
For some mentally disordered offenders ready to be released from special hospitals, the resolution of "ordinary residence" is likely to lead to delay and thus delay the continued rehabilitation of the individual, which is of course the goal of the Reed Report. If a mentally disordered offender does establish ordinary residence in the area of a given local authority, he or she may require a place in a high-care residential home. The person will have to approach his or her local authority for an assessment of need. The local authority may then decide to pay for placing the patient in a residential home. However, the grave danger exists that many local authorities may decide not to pay for that accommodation. Mentally disordered offenders will have to compete with others in need for scarce local authority money. As the Matthew Trust, which in the last 17 years has given £195,000 to help former special hospital patients, says in its briefing:
"There is a problem of attempting to negotiate resources for a group of people, who many see as undeserving and of low priority in local authority community care planning".
This point goes to the heart of the matter. The danger is that mentally disordered offenders will rank so low in a local authority's list of priorities that the high-care accommodation which is essential for the former patient's wellbeing will not be forthcoming. Presumably they will then swell the ranks of the homeless. Disaster is likely to ensue if former special hospital patients do not get the necessary accommodation and care. They may harm themselves; they may harm others; they may commit some other crime; they may go to prison; they may find their way into a mental hospital, or indeed a special hospital all over again.
What is a hospital supposed to do? If it rehabilitates the man or woman again and again releases the person to the local authority, the fear exists of an endless chain of release and return to an institution—much to the frustration of the institution and the mentally disordered offender alike.
In the past three years special hospitals have discharged a yearly average of 56 former patients into the community. An average of 51 former patients who will later be discharged into the community have gone
732
from special hospitals to regional secure units. Allowing for some individuals returning to their families, up to 100 patients each year will become the responsibility of local authorities.
There are approximately 1,700 mentally disordered offenders currently in special hospitals. They divide into two broad categories. The first group comprises those who are restricted and cannot be discharged unless the Home Secretary is satisfied as to a scheme for their future. Clearly, if no local authority will take responsibility for them or if the relevant authority will not provide the necessary accommodation, the Home Secretary should not release them.
The danger must exist that the whole system will silt up. The Reed plan that patients ultimately should be cared for in the community will come to nothing. The walls of the special hospitals will bulge and eventually more space will be required. As of February 1991 the Special Hospitals Service Authority intimated that each patient in its hospitals cost £826 per week. In the community the cost of residence for a former patient would be around £300 a week.
The second group coming out of special hospitals consists of those who are now legally unrestricted. If the Mental Health Tribunal is satisfied that such patients should be released they automatically will be. Released to what, my Lords? To homelessness and to the danger of consequent self-harm, of harm to others, of prison, or of return to hospital.
The special hospitals depend on voluntary organisations to provide much after-care accommodation. There is widespread apprehension that the transfer of funds after 1st April from the Department of Social Security to local authorities will lead to such a reduction of cash flow that the number of places available for mentally disordered offenders will greatly diminish. For example, the Inner London Probation Service points out that six hostels which are currently designated registered care homes will be at risk under the new system. Those homes provide inner London with 191 bed spaces.
The EFRA Trust takes a similar view. It put the number of relevant bed spaces in inner London at risk at the slightly higher figure of 200. Certainly, the outlook of the organisations on that aspect is profoundly gloomy.
I turn now to the suggestion in paragraph 8.12 of the Reed Report for a specific grant to meet the cost of accommodation for mentally disordered offenders. The argument in favour of ear-marking funds—or "ring fencing", in the current jargon—to provide residential care facilities for those suffering from alcohol and drug problems applies with equal force to the unpopular but desperately needy former special hospital patients. Without ring fencing they risk being squeezed out by other groups of the needy.
I have read ministerial speeches, press statements and copies of Hansard about ring fencing. If I understand it aright, the Government argue that because they are ring fencing the total amount of community care funds they no longer see any need to ring fence funds for the accommodation of individual groups such as those suffering from alcohol and drug problems.

733
Applying that reasoning to mentally disordered offenders means that the local authority may say to the individual former special hospital patient, "We have decided not to pay for the cost of accommodation for you. But be of good cheer, the Government's total community care fund is ring fenced." How that is supposed to console the former special hospital patient is beyond me. So vital is accommodation for those individuals, and so short is the time before 1st April, that I ask the Government to consider with utmost speed ring fencing the funds given to local authorities for this purpose.
An alternative that the Government could consider is a centrally administered specific grant. Specific grants have been made in recent years for the targeted homeless mentally ill initiative and for the rough sleepers initiative. Thus, precedents do exist. If the Government preferred that solution the obvious way ahead would be for the Special Hospitals Service Authority to administer a specific grant centrally. After all, the authority is already concerned with the patients and that related role would save overhead costs.
If local authorities fail to pay for accommodation for former special hospital patients the Matthew Trust and other voluntary organisations simply are not in a position to raise the necessary funds. To avert the dangers that I have spelled out the Government should urgently either ring fence money given to local authorities for this purpose or set up a centrally-administered specific grant.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we all read the Reed Report with interest, admiration and respect. We read it in conjunction with the report entitled The Health of the Nation. We are deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for bringing the debate to this House. However, I fear that I shall disappoint him because I do not propose to talk about the individual recommendations in the report, which were so ably supported. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, for his speech, particularly as I hope to take up a number of points which he made.
During the speeches of noble Lords who have spoken on the recommendations of the Reed Report, I have realised that I want to talk about planning and structure before the recommendations of that report are implemented. I do not believe that they can be implemented until there is a background report which deals with the overall situation in this country regarding the mentally disordered.
First, there appears to me to be no up to date co-ordinated overall government policy for those suffering from a mental disorder. The departments involved are the Department of Health—health on one side and social services on the other—the Home Office and, to some extent, the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for housing and the problems of homelessness.
Secondly, a structured policy should be based on an overall inquiry and statistics. The noble and learned
734
Lord, Lord Mustill, made reference to the many organisations and people concerned. They need to be brought together in one co-ordinated policy.
I tabled a Question for Written Answer in Hansard some weeks ago which asked how many of those convicted of an offence and sent to prison had been previous patients in a mental hospital. The Written Answer was that the figures were not available.
Lord Mottistone: Oh no!
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, yes! I respect the Home Office research department and therefore I was surprised by that reply—all the more so because at paragraph 5 on page 24 of the report reference is made to government research which found —and other noble Lords have quoted this figure—that between 750 and 1,400 sentenced prisoners may currently require transfer to hospitals for psychiatric treatment. I realise that a proportion of those prisoners may not previously have been in mental hospitals, but I suggest that many of them would have been. I must point out that the Reed Report was commissioned by both the Department of Health and the Home Office. Therefore, the reply that I received to my Question was extraordinary.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, referred to the homeless. How many of them have been discharged from mental hospitals and have no support within the community? Supporting, counselling and helping mental patients in the community is an incredibly difficult task. It is time-consuming and sometimes it is well nigh impossible. I know because I have done it. It is particularly difficult when dealing with schizophrenics. Some directors of mental hospitals were discharging patients because they said that they were not treatable. I should like to know from the Minister whether that still applies.
When I worked in Oxford, the Church Army and colleagues from the probation service worked hard to set up a hostel for the homeless. That hostel was built and we thought that perhaps we had contributed to diminishing the problem of homelessness in Oxford because we hoped that the hostel would be able to offer a rehabilitation service to the homeless. I now find that the hostel which was intended for the homeless is now full to the brim of men discharged from mental hospitals. Therefore, it is a mental hospital in the community; but it has no trained staff to administer medication or psychiatric help. Can that be right? It is surprising that the Charity Commission does not ask questions because the hostel is not being used for the purpose for which it was built and for which it is registered as a charity. We are not the only people who have found that to happen. It is happening all over the country. Of course there are also mental patients in prisons who should not be there.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I have visited many prisons. I know that the prison warders have great compassion, great patience and great understanding for men who have been sent to prison who they are quite sure should be in mental hospitals. Warders have complained to me that they do not have adequate training to give the men the help they should receive.

735
We have prisons, hostels for the homeless, the homeless themselves and the community care system. I support community care. However, before we attempt to implement the recommendations of the Reed Report, we should conduct a survey that covers all the methods of treating patients. We do not have a set of co-ordinated statistics from all the departments involved in this matter. However good the Reed Report is, its recommendations cannot be implemented successfully unless a survey of the type I have mentioned takes place.
I have become a little carried away and I have deviated from my script. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, spoke of fragmentation. I believe that is the thing that has held us back in this area more than anything else. I believe the Reed Report recommends that a committee should be established. I hope that if such a committee is established, it will first consider what is happening in this area—the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, are relevant in this regard—before it attempts to implement the recommendations of the Reed Report. The Reed Report cannot and will not be successfully implemented unless a policy is established that covers all government departments. We should gain accurate statistics on this matter from the Salvation Army, hostels, prisons, social services and from psychiatric hospitals. I beg my noble friend the Minister to talk to everyone involved in this matter so that a good policy is adopted for the United Kingdom as a whole.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, one of the reasons I retired from the Whitehall Theatre a few hundred yards up the road after 27 years and some 12,000 performances was that my social life had rather gone for a burton. I am delighted to note that noble Lords at this end of Whitehall, in Westminster, are also prepared to let their social lives go for a burton. There is no doubt that noble Lords' devotion to the cause we are discussing this evening, and to other causes, results in their being in this Chamber at unsocial hours and being away from their homes and loved ones. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate.
Last week the noble Earl, Lord Longford, paid me a gracious and generous compliment. I should like to return that compliment this evening. The noble Earl has made tonight's issue peculiarly his own. We all owe him a great debt, not only for the opportunities provided by this debate but also for the fact that the needs of mentally disordered offenders have got on to, and remained on, the public agenda.
I know that the noble Earl has over a very long period taken a personal interest not only in the theories but also in the welfare of individual offenders, so much so that it is rumoured that some patients believed that a visit by the noble Earl was a form of treatment prescribed under Section 58A of the 1983 Mental Health Act. Noble Lords may not be aware that Section 58 deals with treatments requiring a second opinion. The published statistics do not tell us
736
whether any detained patients have had recourse to a second opinion after the noble Earl's visits, but I think that extremely unlikely.
Perhaps it is a little late in the debate for me to offer my congratulations to my noble and learned friend Lord Mustill. It is good to know that we have at least one noble and learned Lord on our side—I believe there are others—and I particularly appreciated my noble and learned friend's remarks on care in the community for I know that some view that endeavour with profound and pessimistic gloom.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. John Reed of the Department of Health and his colleagues for the string of reports about services for mentally disordered offenders and those with similar needs. From my point of view the report —still at the consultative stage—on the needs of people with learning disabilities or autism is not the least important of that string of reports. It chimes in well with the recently published Mansell Report on the needs of people with learning disabilities and what the professionals call challenging behaviour, and those who have to cope with it sometimes describe with more colour and passion.
I want in this short intervention to make just four points. The first is a reminder that learning disability is not the same as mental illness. I am sure that noble Lords present are well aware of that fact, but I should like to record it for others who may read the debate. Crudely put, learning disability is a limitation with which one is either born or acquires very early in life. Mental illness is a disturbance of the mind which may affect anyone at any age, and, sooner or later, does affect many of us. Some people with learning disability have superimposed mental illness. Most do not. I am still surprised at the extent to which people, eminent in public life—some of them with medical qualifications and some of them with political ambitions—still confuse mental illness and mental handicap or learning disability. Perhaps an advantage of the new-speak "learning disability" is that there may be rather less confusion.
My second point is that since learning disability is distinct from mental illness, it is vitally important that there should be consultants, psychologists, psychotherapists, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physiotherapists, and teachers with expertise in learning disability and dedicated to working with those people with learning disabilities who fall into the offender and related categories. I am very much in favour of giving people with learning disabilities nice houses in which to live and a map showing the way to the nearest leisure centre, and asking the milkman to keep an eye open for their interests, but that does not constitute a service strategy for people with special needs.
The Department of Health has had time to consider the recommendations of the Reed Committee on extra places and additional qualified and specialist staff. I am glad to see that some extra funding for new places has been announced, and to know that new medium-secure units are in mind for Chase Farm and other places. I should like to know whether Ministers

737
accept the full implications of what the Reed Committee had to say about the need for places and staff.
Thirdly, I recognise that where people have a dual diagnosis —learning disability and mental illness—and especially where the learning disability is mild and the mental illness is the dominant factor the appropriate service may be a mental illness service; but where that happens, it is important that people with learning disability should be supported by staff who have some understanding of their extra needs. Those needs may be for a slower pace of treatment. I am apprehensive about what I suspect is a macho tendency in the health service to measure success in terms of turnover. If the door by which one came in is still spinning when one leaves, that is deemed success. Some detained patients in areas where beds are few and needs are many seem to be detained just long enough to send them on leave, so that bed occupancy can be not 100 per cent., but 120 per cent. People with learning disability need, in many cases, a slower and surer approach to rehabilitation.
It also needs saying, under this same heading, that the Ashworth Inquiry and wider experience show the vulnerability of patients with learning disability to situations in which they can be the victims both of staff and of other patients who trade on their vulnerability. If they are to be supported in "mixed" settings, alongside patients with personality disorder or mental illness, and by staff without special training in learning disability, general training has to take much more account of their needs than it does at present.
Fourthly, and finally, there are the mentally disordered offenders who happen to fall the wrong side of a line drawn by the law: it is a fairly arbitrary line. The same behaviour in other settings would not necessarily produce the same consequences.
We inflict on people with a mental handicap or learning disability a combination of deprivation. The least that we can do is to provide a first-class service for those who experience and cause problems as a result. I hope that we shall also improve our community services to spare our fellow citizens the problems in the first place. My noble friend Lord Acton referred to the "jargon" words, ring-fencing. Jargon they may be, but they simply will not go away.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I express my appreciation to my noble friend and colleague Lord Longford for again introducing a debate in your Lordships' House on a difficult problem which does not always receive the mileage that it should. My noble friend has brought many issues before your Lordships for debate over the years. No case which is left to the efforts of my noble friend goes by default. He is to be congratulated again for giving us the opportunity to debate the problem.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, on his maiden speech. In the few moments that we have spoken I found that we have a tenuous connection. He came from Leeds and went to Manchester for a legal career; I went from Manchester to Leeds to start a political career. We have both
738
ended up in this Chamber. However, having heard his speech on this very human problem I am sure that I speak for all Members of your Lordships' House when I say that we are delighted to welcome him and his support on this subject. He is someone who has been mainly concerned with dispensing the law. His speech indicated great compassion from a person who wished to achieve the best for people, many of whom in some respects cannot help themselves.
One of the main themes underlying this subject is resources. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, who spoke of the efforts by the people with whom she is associated. I sensed a note of optimism in the figures that she quoted. Although I fully accept her point, that is not what I believe. From the figures produced there is undeniably an increase in the numbers of people, many of them young, who have been removed from institutional care and sent out into the community without adequate resources to start a new life. The figures published by non-political bodies show that in London, and to a lesser degree in other major cities, an increasing number of people are now sleeping rough and suffering the rigours of winter, sleeping on the Embankment, in the shop doorways of the Strand, and down Victoria Street. One passes them when walking in those areas. An increasing number of people who have been sent back into society from hospital find themselves in the same difficult situation of those unregistered homeless people.
My background has been in local government. I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said regarding her former career as a director of social services. She hit the nail on the head. If the social service departments of local authorities are allowed adequate funding specifically to deal with the situation, I have no doubt that they will do that. When I first entered local government, the social service departments took care of many people who needed it, some of whom were not, in the strictest sense of the term, able to look after themselves.
What is worrying me is the great publicity being given at present to the Government's round of cuts and whether we are living above our means. We all know that although we have taken the trouble to be here tonight and most Members of your Lordships' House, wherever they sit, are sympathetic to the cause, it is not the most popular one with other people. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the difficult dividing line between the person who comes before the court because he is evil and the person who is sick. Where does the division lie?
People outside who have been the victim of an attack by someone who is a borderline case do not see it that way at all. We all know that when a risk is taken in favour of people doing a custodial sentence by allowing them back into the community on the recommendations of medical staff there is the possibility that they may commit another crime of enormous dimensions—perhaps murder or rape. In that case, the first question put by the victim or the public to the people involved with the wrongdoer is why it was allowed to happen. Someone is at fault and

739
the victims or the public do not wish to err on the side of the person with problems; their sympathy is with the victim and his or her family.
We must take all those calculations into account when we deal with the situation. I was delighted to hear the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the subject because no one has been closer to it in the past than she has. It was also interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rix, speak of the Whitehall farces in which he appeared for 27 years. He now graces a new stage in coming to this place, but he has already earned a reputation for being listened to and for speaking forcefully, powerfully and knowledgeably on behalf of people who need champions of his stature so that the case will not go by default.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the staff who have to deal with the problems. Just before Christmas, he introduced a debate on another facet of the prison service and its problems. Very often the prison officers and staff do an excellent job but they are always at the sharp end if something goes wrong. Prison officers know, more than anyone, that the resources they are given to carry out their job are less than adequate. If the job is not done, they are blamed.
The disgraceful scenes at Strangeways Prison were mentioned. I happen to be a Mancunian and I think that very little of the riot was to do with people who were mentally ill. Possibly the most brutal section of the prison community was involved. I could say that I have a feeling of déjà vu, I have said this previously in your Lordships' House. Had the prison officers themselves been allowed to get on with the job, that disgraceful event would have ended after 48 hours and would not have gone on; but they were prevented from acting by people from the Home Department in London who thought that they knew better how to deal with the problem. I understand that the eventual bill for what took place was between £60 million and £80 million in a service which we know is short of money because of its lack of appeal to the public. I am worried, as are a lot of other people, that if massive and swingeing cuts in public expenditure are on the way, we may well be talking tonight of a door that has already closed. I hope I am wrong.
I should like to say a few words regarding prison officers and the staff who deal with these offenders. They are not prison officers, although they are members of the prison officers' union. People ask: should they not have a union of their own? But there is nothing new in an association or a union having divisions which cater for people doing a special job. The transport and general workers, the agricultural workers, the building section and the transport sector are autonomous under one umbrella. The Prison Officers' Association members in those particular types of institution are, in fact, not prison officers. They are highly qualified, highly trained and highly dedicated nurses who have been trained in that specific profession and trained to deal with such problems. From the reports I am given, their talents and ability are considered to be amongst the finest, if not the finest, in Europe.
740
The Prison Officers' Association itself is on record as being critical of the Government. It is always easy to be critical of the Government. But everybody is saying—and I believe that Members of your Lordships' House would say—that the situation we are dealing with is grossly under-funded. In an ideal world it would not be under-funded, but we do not live in an ideal world. The Prison Officers' Association has been in the forefront of the identification of problems, which of course are many and varied—problems which are created in the main by the mentally disturbed offender and those with personality disorders who have to be contained within the prison system.
The association also recognises the need for change and calls for the resources to be made available in order to administer the correct level of psychiatric intervention and diversion to the mental health care areas, be this at court, police custody, remand or sentenced prisons. So it covers the full spectrum of places where people have to be incarcerated, very often for the protection of the public and very often for their own protection. The association continues to call for a full public inquiry into the management of special hospitals and sees a need, following correct and proper assessment, to examine the way forward for these very valuable assets, and their use, that currently exist.
The POA was also the first to call for the closure of the disgustingly inadequate psychiatric provision at Brixton Prison. In calling for the closure of F Wing it was noted that neither the prison service management nor other pressure groups of any kind had seen fit to call for this closure. The Prison Officers' Association and its members concerned in that particular service did so.
To conclude, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has opened a tremendous discussion on a difficult subject that will never go away. There are ways of dealing with it and Reed has suggested some of them. But it is an ongoing problem. Other proposals will come forward. The people in the service who are specially trained in dealing with the situation have a dedication as high as any. But they do not have the privilege of coming to this House to put their case. I stress that they must be given the resources to match the job given to them in the discharge of people into the community. I tremble at what is going on, because I cannot for the life of me see the present policy succeeding, though I wish it well. As the noble Lord, Lord Acton, said when he spoke about ringfencing, unless more adequate resources than the Government even dream of at present are released to local authorities and other bodies charged with looking after this section of the community, I can only see it being a tragic failure. I put the following question: if it does fail—I hope it does not, but I think it will—where do we go from there? What do we do if we have tens of thousands of people living out in the open? That is not a stupid exaggeration. The situation is moving that way. What do we do with them when the institutions have all gone? How shall we cater for them? As far as I can see Dr. Reed has not been able to give an opinion on that point.

741
Within the next few years we shall be debating the situation again. With the Government's present policy on housing and the discharging of people into the community, I can only see the number of people requiring special training, special medical treatment and special care increasing. However, on behalf of the members of the Prison Officers' Association I can say that whatever can be humanly done, they will do it. But they will do it a lot better, and for more people, if they are given adequate resources to get on with the job.
Some people criticise the members of the Prison Officers' Association in an almost run-of-the-mill way without being aware of the problems. But the POA will do the job. Sadly, however, with the present round of cuts that the Government are to announce, we are already talking to a closed door.
We have heard some wonderful speeches this evening. The number of noble Lords who put down their names to speak in the debate is an indication of the feeling on the subject in your Lordships' House. Once again I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for giving us an opportunity to debate the problem.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I refuse to be left out of those in the House who have expressed their admiration, and I add my own affection, to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for all that he has done for us over many years in bringing penal affairs and the affairs of those whom we are addressing tonight before the House. He cajoled me to speak on this subject when I did not feel like doing so and thus inflicted a few extra minutes on the House before the speech of the Minister, to which we are all looking forward.
I say straightaway that I have nothing but praise for Dr. Reed and his colleagues for the final and interim reports. Of course I give credit to the Government for appointing him. It was an imaginative act and I am sure that we shall all benefit from it over the years.
My noble friend Lord Acton mentioned money and ring-fencing. I have great sympathy with him. However, I must say—I may be anticipating the Minister—that the recommendations of the Reed Committee are so many, so vast and so expensive that we can only hope for them to be implemented over a long period of years.
I am particularly glad that Dr. Reed and some of his colleagues are being kept in commission and I hope that he will give us some indication of his priorities. There are almost 300 recommendations and they are not prioritised. I hope that his continuance on the committee will enable him to indicate which recommendations he feels are the most important. In that regard I would expect him to highlight those which are the least expensive. Later I shall raise one point—perhaps my major point—which I should like to press on the Government. It may improve the situation overall and yet it should cost next to nothing.
In the first instance we look forward to the recommendations which cost least. Foremost among them will be the recommendation which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned. Mentally disordered
742
offenders who are kept in prison rather than in hospital and those who are in maximum security conditions who could be kept in less secure conditions should be looked at straight away. I very much hope that that will be done because it has the blessing, I believe, of the Parliamentary Secretary for Health. He has said that in public. I should hope that the recommendations of the Reed Committee would have the wholly admirable consequence of depleting the prison population by the provision of alternative extra custodial care or other local authority provision. The prison population is already going down and this should give a boost to that decline. I strongly welcome that.
My next point has hardly been mentioned by other speakers. I am very pleased with the guiding principles for service provision, which again have been endorsed by Ministers. That is welcome progress. I very much hope that these guiding principles or something very like them will also be promulgated and endorsed by Ministers for the prison service. It would do that service a world of good and would help to improve the atmosphere in the ways recommended by Lord Justice Woolf and the Inspector of Prisons. Young offenders, as well as the offenders whom we are discussing today —the mentally disordered offenders—should be able to benefit. If we cannot make progress in keeping young people out of custody we shall make very little progress in the criminal justice system.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, who made a most sensitive speech which we all appreciated, mentioned the paragraphs in the report about the interface between the professions. I want to concentrate on that. The report says that a study of the interface between the professions is of the utmost importance and should lead to,
"growing commonality of interests",
which is a pregnant phrase. That includes training needs and in particular,
"contact between general psychiatry and the criminal justice system",
which is generously characterised in the report as widespread though patchy. We hope to make good use of that recommendation which should, incidentally, cost either nothing or very little.
That leads me to my main interest arising out of the recommendation that there should be a study of the interface between the professions. It is perhaps not mentioned in Reed because it is outside his terms of reference but it is quite definitely relevant and also, I would hope, cheap and therefore capable of being introduced soon if there is the will. I refer to the amalgamation of the prison medical service and the National Health Service. That is indeed a breaking down of interface between two professions. I am convinced—the noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned this but he had so many other things to say that he did not pursue this line—that nothing but good could come from such a step. There might even be financial savings as a result of that integration. There certainly would be better delivery of health services for those in custody, especially for mentally disordered offenders, as recommended in paragraph 11. But I very much doubt if anything substantial will come of these recommendations unless and until the National

743
Health Service extends its service to embrace the work now done behind the walls of the prisons by the prison medical service.
I wish to refer to one particular instance. Members of the House may be aware that in a certain weekly periodical there is an article every week by someone who purports to be a prison doctor. He writes on happenings in custody and therefore one must presume that he belongs, or is attached, to the prison medical service. His sentiments are light-years away from those of Dr. Reed and his committee. One can hardly believe that they belong to the same profession.
He clearly has no use—indeed he has open contempt—for what he calls the "mentally subnormal and chronically hallucinated" prisoners who come before him. Fortunately, I realise that he is not exactly typical of the prison medical service, but he gives it a bad name. I question whether any doctor in his right mind would regard it as ethically correct to write anecdotally of his patients, as he does or, as he likes to term them, "clients". But they might as well be his victims.
I wonder whether the prison medical service is content that it retains in the service a man who regularly mocks his patients in a sick, mordant and sardonic way and holds them up to contempt, ridicule and hatred. A service which retains a man of that kind should be looked at. Indeed, I very much hope that it will be and that as a result the National Health Service will extend its bailiwick, as it should do in any case, to cover those who are in custody in the prison service.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I also add my grateful thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having introduced our debate tonight. As we all know, it is a subject to which he has devoted his life. We are privileged to have him in this House to remind us of what our responsibilities are in relation to the problems raised in the Reed Report.
I welcome its publication and the comprehensive analysis of what needs to be done. As has been said by many noble Lords, the report has produced 276 proposals which it states need early implementation if we are to solve the problem of inadequate treatment of mentally disordered offenders. It is an enormous task. I wish to take up the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. There are certain matters in the report that I would like to see implemented before others. There is no doubt that too many prisoners are detained in prison who should be receiving care and treatment from NHS specialist psychiatric services. The figure mentioned by many noble Lords is between 750 and 1,700 prisoners.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised a question that I also should like to mention. The policy of emptying psychiatric hospitals in this country and moving the patients into the community is altogether an admirable aim so long as the services in the community are there to take care of them. I should like to know—if the noble Baroness the Minister can answer—how many of these 1,700 prisoners are former inmates of psychiatric hospitals who have only
744
become criminals because they were released into a community where there was no one to look after them. It would be interesting to have that figure.
The report states that there are too many patients detained in high security hospitals for longer than their treatment requires because of a lack of development of medium secure units and a lack of community services. The treatment of a mentally disordered offender should have an aim in the sense that you move from the highly secure unit to the medium secure unit, and in the end, when the treatment has been successful, you are allowed to live in the community again. Those are essential elements of hope for people—not the feeling that they are never going to be released because there are not the services for them to be passed on to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, gave a marvellous example of what has happened in the psychiatric hospital in Hertfordshire with which she is involved. That is a wonderful example. But I must say to the noble Baroness that it is not a common experience in my view. Too many psychiatric hospitals have been emptied without there being the community services to look after the patients when they have been released. Therefore, I believe that that figure would be of great interest. It is essential that we have a system that gives hope to people. The report clearly states the three stages that are necessary.
If you are going to start from the beginning—and we must do that—one of the most important recommendations that the report makes is that we should have psychiatric assessment and diversion schemes to serve every magistrates' court in the country. There are only 40 such schemes in operation at present. It has been mentioned that fewer than half of district health authorities have a plan for the introduction of such diversion schemes. Those schemes, properly implemented, are probably the best means of preventing inappropriate prison sentences for mentally disordered offenders, so that we would not be starting at the prison but at the psychiatric or regional hospital secure unit.
The report puts great emphasis on the fact that regional health authorities will have to take on the responsibility for ensuring that adequate services, both secure and medium secure hospital places, are purchased by district health authorities in their regions. We had a wonderful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Acton, about the provision of community services and how they are to be funded. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about the enormous extra effort that the community services have to make to deal with and give adequate support to the people coming out of secure units.
I agree very much with the recommendation in the report that there should be a move towards mental health care being provided by NHS staff in all prisons. However, I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that there should be an amalgamation of the medical service that is at present provided in the prisons with that provided by the NHS. All this needs monitoring. I am pleased that a

745
new advisory committee will be set up to monitor the implementation, and that Dr. Reed is likely to be the chairman of that committee.
However, I believe that the biggest stumbling block of all is the question of funding. Various Members of your Lordships' House have indicated that perhaps not all of the recommendations are financially demanding. But a lot of them are. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who said that Mr. Tim Yeo, the junior health Minister, had announced that the Government have boosted their support for secure units from £3 million to 18 million but, as the
746
noble Lord also said, another £18 million will be necessary the following year. What worries me much more is that in that same announcement Mr. Yeo said that
"progress in the care and treatment of mentally disordered offenders can be achieved by better use of existing services and resources and by improved co-ordination of the responsible agencies".
I am not saying that that cannot happen, but I should like to emphasise that that in itself will not be enough; the problem is much too great. We need improved funding, particularly for community services.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at this late hour let me first thank my noble friend Lord Longford. As on the previous occasion on 18th November when we debated the Ashworth Hospital, he has once again drawn our attention to a very important problem which he has spent a lot of time studying. We are grateful to him for giving us the opportunity of this debate and the benefit of his thoughts.
As I have said on previous occasions, I rise to speak with probably the least knowledge and experience of all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I shall therefore fall back on trying to do what an academic can do, which is to give a little pedagogic lecture on the problem and to hope that I say something of use.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, said in his most excellent maiden speech—which I hope will be one of many that he will make to us—we are faced with a difficult problem. Because of the very nature of people who are mentally disordered and who are likely to become offenders, the public are not likely to feel sympathy for them but, as my noble friend Lord Dean has said, for their victims. When local authorities decide to apportion money for various uses, these people are not likely to be at the top of the list because they will not be able to lobby for the money and they may not have friends who can do so.
Faced with this difficult problem, let us also acknowledge that there are many dedicated people in the prison service, in hospitals and among social workers who do a most difficult job excellently. We only hear of them when something goes wrong, which is a great pity; but from day to day they do an excellent job in adverse circumstances.
The spirit of this excellent report by Dr. Reed is captured by what I might call two displacements, which are at the heart of this problem. One problem which has not been mentioned so far, if my memory is correct, is a horizontal displacement. It is the problem of people who are in prison but who are not properly identified as being mentally disordered. In that respect, the numbers that we hear of are understated regarding the number of mentally disturbed offenders.
Some interesting research by Professor Gunn, which is mentioned in the report, showed that over 20 per cent. of male prisoners had acute or chronic mental disorder which had not been diagnosed as such. On the one hand, we have fewer people who are correctly identified as having a mental disorder. The report would like us to go for a vertical displacement, by which I mean they would like people to be classified further down the list of acuteness or seriousness. The report would like us to use what is called divergent and discontinuance mechanisms as a means of ensuring that offenders do not get caught up needlessly in the criminal justice system.
Here I must acknowledge that I was somewhat perturbed by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, seemed to say: that perhaps in looking for ways of avoiding the possibility of these people going into the criminal justice system we should be consistent as regards those who are classified as mentally disordered and those who are not. However,
748
I presume that as long as we are careful, that is not likely to happen. However, down the line we want people to be in milder and milder forms of incarceration, if I may call it that: from high to medium security and from medium to low security, and so on.
As is pointed out in paragraph 4.3, the problem is,
"the range of hospital provision, in particular that in conditions of low to medium security, is inadequate overall to meet existing and projected need."
At the same time, it is not all that good to send these people out into the community, diverting people away from where they should be. The report says in paragraph 4.4:
"There is little point in 'diverting' someone if he or she has nowhere to go or if the placement is unsuitable or inadequate. This may simply lead to a deterioration, with the risk of further offending or resort to crisis intervention: the so-called 'revolving door' syndrome. It may also be a poor use of resources."
We should like people to be diverted from the most serious imprisonment; but at the same time one has to be careful about where they go and about the costs imposed upon society if they are prematurely released, badly classified or put into a low security facility before the right time. In this respect, I draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of resources and costs, especially for the National Health Service. Paragraph 8.8 of the report says that underlying these issues are two important principles. It reads:
"planning decisions about services for mentally disordered offenders should take account of the cost to all agencies"—
and they italicise "all agencies"—
"including the future cost of deterioration in a person's condition if needs are not met properly".
I think that is a very important principle. When we talk about resources and about how much we are spending on national health or how much we have achieved, there is a tendency to think in terms of money or in simple terms of bed space, and so on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out, it is tempting to exaggerate output or performance. We should like the throughput (if I may call it that) to be smaller; but each person will cost more money if one is going to do the job properly. What is important is not the quantity of health, but the quality of health, as we are witnessing in the case of the elderly. As we learn more we should like to do a better job for those people than we have done so far; but to do a proper job costs a great deal of money. There is nothing we can do about that. We must face up to the fact that such provisions cost a lot of money.
One of my responses to reading the excellent report was almost of despair. MIND summarised the recommendations by stating:
"The report recognises the importance of introducing new mechanisms which will accurately assess unmet needs, ensure effective diversion from inappropriate custody, guarantee constructive joint working between agencies and authorities, remove legal and financial disincentives and guarantee equal opportunities and freedom from discrimination on grounds of race and gender in allocation or operational services".
My noble friend Lord Ennals also referred to that statement. That is a tall order given the kind of facilities which are likely to be available. All the same, one should like to see those recommendations put into

749
effect; one should like to see all the proper things happen for these people. The fact that they will cost resources is taken as read.
Many noble Lords have pointed out various aspects of the problem and therefore I wish to point out only two which have not yet been mentioned. The first is the problem of racial discrimination. The British Association of Social Workers has in its briefing summarised the various NACRO reports on the problem. In that respect, the problem is the opposite of that which I described as horizontal displacement. It is that many more black people are classified as being mentally disordered than is strictly warranted. That is partly due to cultural barriers, prejudice or whatever. We must watch that matter carefully. As regards issues of race and culture, the Reed Report states at page 8:
"funding should be made available to establish an action research project on the diversion from custody of people from ethnic minority communities".
It further states:
"Health and local authorities should enable agencies from black and ethnic minority communities to develop and provide services for mentally disordered offenders".
There is serious and concrete action to be taken in terms of research liaison with ethnic minority active groups and in re-examining the procedures under which people are classified as mentally disordered.
The second problem is that of gender discrimination, which has not been mentioned tonight. We should take note of what was said by the British Association of Social Workers. In addition, the report points out the extreme disproportionality in sending women to special treatment hospitals once they are in prison. The numbers are so striking that it must be something more than an accident or randomness which causes it. The problem of gender discrimination also points to the need for monitoring as well as extra research.
Finally, I share the strong feelings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Acton. Given that the total numbers involved are rather small, that it is not possible to assign some of those people to a particular local authority, and that those people will not win their proper share of resources in any battle for local authority money, we may need to think about what the noble Lord called a centrally-administered specific grant scheme. That is a more elevated version of ring-fencing. It is ring-fencing at a national rather than a local level.
The entitlements which those people require to ensure adequate provision and attention to their problems will not come to them by them fighting for it because they are not capable of doing so. It will not come to them through the generosity of local authorities because they no longer have the funds to be generous. Logically, it must come by following the recommendations in the reports of enlightened people in this field like Dr. John Reed. Logic points to the fact that those people are entitled to funds and those funds can only be centrally guaranteed.
10.17 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware that the hour is late and that everybody wants to go home. I shall be as brief as I possibly can but it has been such an interesting and wide-ranging debate that I should like to try to do justice to it. I should like to associate myself with other noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate. It is the second time in less than three months that the noble Earl has given us the opportunity to consider the complex needs of mentally disordered offenders. That says much for his interest in and knowledge of the subject and his determination, which the Government share, to see improvements in the provision of health and social care in this area.
I also add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, on his maiden speech. I thought that it was a remarkable speech which was perceptive, knowledgeable and challenging and no doubt in the tradition of the Duke of Wellington. We look forward to hearing more from the noble and learned Lord on this and other subjects.
In November your Lordships looked specifically at the relatively small number of patients who need psychiatric care in conditions of high security. Today we have been considering a much broader group, the majority of whom have much less severe mental health problems, but who nevertheless need the right kind of assessment, care and support. If they do not receive that support, there is a danger that they will become part of the criminal justice system, or fall victim in the community to what has become known as the "revolving door" syndrome.
The joint Department of Health and Home Office review—the Reed review as it has become widely known—was the most thorough examination of services for mentally disordered offenders since the late Lord Butler reported in the mid-1970s. Like my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, I found the report not only interesting but gripping. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that the quality of the report was outstanding. The Government have already expressed their thanks to Dr. John Reed and his colleagues for their painstaking work. I am happy to do so again today. Their output in the space of 18 months was quite prodigious. In addition to their final summary report, published on 27th November, they produced 10 consultative reports which covered: services in the community, in hospital and in prison; staffing; training and financial issues; academic development; research; mentally disordered offenders with special needs; offenders with learning disabilities or autism; and racial and cultural issues. As the noble Earl has said, this work represents an immense fund of knowledge likely to be referred to for some years to come. For that reason we recently arranged for the formal publication by HMSO of those earlier reports to which I have referred. These are now available for public sale in four volumes.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the large number of recommendations made by the various advisory and working groups—276 in all. The

751
Government said, when the final report was published, that they would be making decisions in due course about which of the recommendations they could accept, and the pace at which these recommendations could be implemented. Available resources will obviously be a factor, although many of the recommendations are mainly to do with better practice and closer working between the various agencies. In a formal sense that is still the Government's position, but I can give your Lordships a flavour of how we are approaching some of the main issues and describe the action that is already being taken nationally and at local level.
As the committee said in its final report, each recommendation represents a piece of a very large jigsaw. It may be helpful if I draw attention specifically to Chapter 10 of the final report, as this was evidently intended to summarise the review findings as a whole and to identify what the committee saw as the fundamental issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has drawn to the attention of your Lordships the guiding principles set out in that chapter. The Government have already accepted that those principles should be adopted. I have sympathy with the noble Lord's view that those principles may well have a wider application. They are fivefold. They state that patients should be cared for and treated with regard being given to the quality of care and proper attention being given to the needs of individuals. That is important. Patients should be treated as far as possible in the community rather than in institutional settings. They should also be treated under conditions of no greater security than is justified by the degree of danger they present to themselves or others and in such a way as to maximise rehabilitation and their chances of sustaining an independent life. Finally, they should be treated as near as possible to their own homes or families, if they have them.
The committee then went on to identify a number of fundamental issues. These are: a positive approach to individual needs, including those of women and people from ethnic minorities—the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned that; a multi-agency and multi-professional approach at all levels—this was mentioned by many speakers including my noble friend Lady Faithfull; the complementary role of mainstream and specialised services, the majority of patients being seen by the former, but needing access where necessary to the latter; and closer working at the court and pre-court stages between criminal justice agencies, the NHS and local authorities to divert people where necessary to health and social services. The identified issues also included an improved range of secure and non-secure health and social services, including those to meet the needs of homeless people; better mental health care services for prisoners; and, finally, a broader training, academic and research base to underpin all this activity.
Giving effect to these aspirations will be no easy task, and, as the report itself makes clear, where major deficiencies exist, significant progress is unlikely to be
752
made overnight. That point was also made today by many speakers. However, there are, I believe, grounds for optimism on a number of counts.
One of the distinguishing features of the review was the inter-active and relatively public way in which it was conducted. I have referred already to the range of consultative reports, the broad direction of which were overwhelmingly supported by the 200 or more bodies and individuals who responded to them. In addition, officials working with the review from both departments undertook an intensive programme of visits which included meeting people from a range of agencies, including the criminal justice system and the voluntary sector, in each of the 14 health regions. On the local authority side there was a series of seminars to which representatives of virtually all social services departments contributed, together with a major Home Office circular highlighting the opportunities for diverting offenders, which was issued shortly before the review began. This whole process has stimulated considerable practical interest in the subject. It is already beginning to bear fruit on the ground through a range of local initiatives.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, and other noble Lords expressed concern that people may be sent to prison when that is not appropriate. I believe he used the term "horizontal displacement". I am sure that those noble Lords will be pleased to learn of the growth of court assessment and diversion schemes now taking place. When the review began there was only a handful of them. There are now over 40 operating in England and the number continues to increase. We want to see still wider coverage, and so funding is now available from the Home Office to meet the sessional costs or fees of psychiatrists or community psychiatric nurses who attend magistrates' courts to provide professional advice. Agencies have been invited to submit bids for such support.
Another area to which we are contributing directly is the medium—or regional—secure unit programme, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, devoted part of his speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who expressed his impatience at the rate of development. We agree with noble Lords and the Reed committee that the number of beds in those units needs to be increased. Accordingly, we have made available in the current financial year £17 million for the capital development of new places. That represents nearly a six-fold increase on last year. In the next financial year, the sum available will be £22 million, a further increase of about 30 per cent., which I hope will reassure some noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Dean of Beswick. That will enable speedy progress to achieve the existing target of 1,000 medium secure beds. As the noble Earl said, the Reed Committee envisaged further progress to a national minimum of 1,500 beds. It also wanted to see, as we do, greater diversity in the type of places to include better provision for, among others, those with longer-term needs and people with learning disabilities, a point made so cogently by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Rix. We shall obviously be looking at those recommendations very carefully,

753
but, in the meantime, I emphasise our commitment to the growth of the programme, matched as it is by substantial increases in funding.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, all mentioned prison care. The Reed review supported the intention that the Health Care Service for Prisoners, as the former Prison Medical Service is now known, should become a purchaser rather than a provider of services. In particular, it welcomed the proposed contracting-in to prisons of a full mental health care service and the closer alignment with the NHS that that would entail. That would be valuable, not least for effective discharge and care programme planning. I am conscious that that proposition raises other issues which go far beyond the scope of our debate today. Indeed, the noble Earl raised some of them during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. Suffice to say that we want to see prisoners with mental health care needs receiving effective treatment—where necessary outside prison altogether. I am pleased to say that there has been a steady growth in recent years of transfers from prison to hospital under Sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. In 1990 there were 325 transfers; in 1991, 450; and last year the figure rose to 611. We hope to continue that trend in 1993 and beyond.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the subject of compliance with Department of Health guidance on maximum waiting times (one year) for the move from special hospitals to other services. That is being monitored by the NHS Management Executive and details of patients waiting and moved from special hospitals are being made available for that purpose. The projected growth of the medium secure programme—only part of the picture, of course—will help that process. These, as I say, are transfers under existing provisions. The review made various suggestions for legal changes which might assist both hospital transfers and more suitable disposals by the courts. However, it recognises also that any changes would need to go hand in hand with service development, and any amendments to the Mental Health Act, in particular, would need to be approached with great care, given the careful balance struck by Parliament when it formulated the legislation 10 years ago. We shall be looking carefully at the various possibilities and will need to involve other bodies which may have an interest.
I should perhaps mention the recent initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in asking officials of the Department of Health to consider urgently whether new legal powers are needed to ensure that mentally ill people in the community receive the care they need and whether the present powers in the Mental Health Act are being used effectively. The timescale for that work is about six months and I know that many noble Lords are keenly awaiting the outcome.
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve spoke movingly of the success of community care schemes. Should the view be taken that there is scope for further
754
powers in terms of a new community supervision order, it might be possible for more people to live in happiness in the community.
On a broader front, the Health of the Nation White Paper identifies mental illness as one of five priority areas. What happens with general mental health services is crucially important to the majority of mentally disordered offenders. That includes applying the new care programme arrangements to which the review report made frequent reference. I wish to emphasise in particular that those apply specifically to patients in special hospitals and hence to those transferring to other places. We also wish to see more effective arrangements for discharge prisoners with mental health needs. To that end, we are hoping to fund a pilot project in Wessex region to which a number of agencies are also contributing.
Within the Health of the Nation there is a specific task for mentally disordered offender services. We shall be requiring that the strategic and purchasing plans of all health authorities include the necessary range of health and social services, both secure and non-secure, to enable them to respond to the special needs of this group. The message is set out also in the Key Area Handbook on Mental Illness that we published last month.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will take comfort from our determination not to forget those offenders with learning disabilities. He will be aware that the review report issued for consultation in November was specific on the subject. We have already received constructive comments from MENCAP and other bodies. We recognise that there needs to be better access to secure services other than in special hospitals and action to identify the needs of the majority of learning disabled offenders who have mild to moderate disabilities.
It is important that service developments based on needs assessment take full account of the staffing and training implications. I listened with deep concern, and indeed anger, to the incident—I hope that it is an isolated one —concerning a particular psychiatrist, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It is important that we have good training. I have referred also this evening to the need for a better academic base in an area which in many respects is under developed.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the projected increase in forensic psychiatrist numbers. It may be worth noting, as Reed does, that 30 years ago there were just two forensic consultants. Today there are 70. We are in touch with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others about the proposed further increases to which the noble Earl referred. However, I wish to emphasise that those projections are based on major service changes which, on the most optimistic plans, will necessarily take several years to effect. They do not represent a level of medical staffing that is required for services in place here and now.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, expressed concern for those whose place of residence is unclear. It is a very complex area and because of that the department is about to give guidance to local authorities on the general issue of determination of financial responsibility for social services provided under the National

755
Assistance Act 1948 in circumstances where local authorities are unclear about where that responsibility lies.
The noble Lord also returned to the arguments for ring-fencing. He was quite correct in saying that the Government have included the whole of the social security transfer within a ring-fenced special transitional grant to local authorities next year. We do not believe that it would be helpful to ring-fence sums within that for particular groups or services. To do so would restrict authorities' ability to match resources to need. Therefore it is up to local authorities to decide how much to spend on those services, using not only the special grant and the specific grant, but also money from their mainstream funds. I should love to go into the issue but at present there is a case pending and it would be unwise for me to go further, I understand.
Lord Acton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the case pending is on the matter of alcohol. That is not what we are discussing this evening.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am prepared to go on. The noble Lord is quite right. The burden of the argument up to now has been borne by the drug and alcohol services. But the suggestion being made tonight is that the services for the mentally disordered offenders should now also have money ring fenced for their services. This illustrates the problem very clearly. If we are to ring-fence for these groups, why do we not ring-fence for people with learning disabilities, the elderly, children, and so on. There are a number of needy groups. In the end, what takes place is that the Government make the local decisions which, in my experience, is not in the interests of local people.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull drew your Lordships' attention to the difficulties of supporting people in the community. In no way do I underestimate the challenges, but I believe that the new care programme approach applied explicitly to special hospital patients will go a long way to meeting some of those needs. No patient should be discharged without proper arrangements being made for him or her, including a place to live. That is an intrinsic part of the care programme approach.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the groups under Dr. Reed's chairmanship that are currently looking at high security and related provision and at services for people with psychopathic or personality disorders. These will report in the spring. I hope that the noble Earl will understand if I resist his invitation to comment at present on Dr. Reed's work. Like him, I have not been a fly on the wall.
However, as I indicated to your Lordships last November, the guiding principles of the review have obvious implications for the current centralised pattern of special hospital provision. Indeed, as the noble Earl said, the special hospitals service authority
756
is not wedded to the status quo. That was clear from the presentation made by the authority at last autumn's ministerial review. I am sure that the working group will be looking closely at all the various options and we await with interest their conclusions.
I should like to turn to the issue of homelessness, so sensitively raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I know that he will be encouraged by the £20 million programme for the 150 short-term hostel places that we are putting into place, as well as a lot of other provisions. My noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, were concerned about the fragmentation of services. It is a picture some of us will recognise. But the Reed Committee was a fine example of inter-departmental working. It was an outstanding example of co-operation between departments and I think will lead the way for further developments. The noble Earl mentioned the national advisory committee which will provide a continuing forum and will also link with other departments which have interests and responsibilities in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, asked a specific question as to how many people in prison had formerly been in mental institutions. I regret to say that we do not have that information. The total figures quoted —750 to 1,400—are extrapolated from a very small sample survey. Not all will have previously been patients in hospital. So that is further work that we clearly need to do.
In conclusion, the profile of mentally disordered offenders is now much higher than it has been for many years. The interest shown by your Lordships in this debate and our debate in November on the Ashworth Hospital report is an illustration. We need to build on that interest and enthusiasm to ensure that this vulnerable group of people receives the right kind of help when they need it. I believe that the Reed review has provided a strong lead which we must do our best to follow.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Charities Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eleven o'clock.