Lords Sitting of 16 March 1994

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

The Lord Monkswell
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received notification from the Clerk to the Justices of the Manchester City Magistrates' Court to the effect that Lord Monkswell was, on 14th March 1994, convicted at that court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to 14 weeks' imprisonment and ordered to pay £150 compensation.

Food and Medicine Labelling
2.39 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking under the provisions of existing United Kingdom and European Community law to ensure that medicine dosage and food cooking instructions are clearly legible for those with normal eyesight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, it is already a requirement of both United Kingdom and European Community law that all labelling of medicinal products and all information required for foods, including cooking instructions, must be easy to understand, clearly legible, indelible and easily visible.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, can she say why the Government do not enforce that legislation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if there is a failure to comply with the requirements in regard to medicinal products, it is up to the Medicines Control Agency to enforce the legislation. With regard to food products, it is for the local authority, through either the trading standards or environmental health departments, to take action.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend suggest, through the Medicines Control Agency, that the expiry date of medicines be printed on the container? That would mean a considerable saving in money for the National Health Service, because people would know whether tablets were still good to be used.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is an excellent suggestion and I will willingly take it up with the Medicines Control Agency.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it is a long-term date, can my noble friend ask the agency to add the requirement that the label should state what the pills are for so that one can remember?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is already a requirement that the date must be printed on the bottle or the box.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as the requirement to provide information increases alongside the trend in some products to reduce the size of the packaging, the manufacturer is forced to print an increased number of words in a smaller and smaller area? Will the deregulation Bill help with that problem by simplifying the requirements? Is the noble Baroness further aware that a noble Lord showed me only yesterday a bottle of nail varnish, the instructions for which neither of us could read, even when wearing our glasses?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not an expert in nail varnish. However, when it comes to medicinal products under the new EC directive 92/27, it will be a requirement in future to provide a leaflet with the medicine giving a full explanation of what it is needed for and how it should be taken.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to enforce those arrangements?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when breaches of the regulations occur, then clearly the matter must be taken up with the Medicines Control Agency and the local authority concerned.

Ronald McDonald House
2.42 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis Lord Lovell-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the family house (Ronald McDonald House) next to Guy's hospital, which enables families to live near their sick children and which provides accommodation for children receiving post-surgical treatment, will be replaced with equivalent accommodation after the proposed merger of Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is a matter for the Guy's and St. Thomas's National Health Service Trust Board.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but it will give no comfort to the Evelina Children's Family Trust which raised over £4 million to build, equip and run the Ronald McDonald House only four years ago. Is the noble Baroness saying that having made the major decision to move Guy's paediatric services to the St. Thomas's site, without any consultation whatever with the Evelina Children's

231
Family Trust, the Government have no responsibility to ensure that the level of service provided by the house will be maintained on the new site?
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, it is a question. I am framing my remarks as a question. Can the noble Baroness say also whether or not the £2 million of charitable funding will simply be wasted?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are full of admiration for the work of the trust and what it has achieved. We know how important it is for children to have at least one member of their family near them when they are receiving treatment and care. Likewise, it is equally important for parents to be near their sick children. The trust board recognises the immense contribution the unit makes to those objectives and to ensuring that paediatric services are efficiently and effectively used. The board is working closely with the Evelina Children's Family Trust to try to meet its concerns.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that under Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 the welfare of the child is paramount? Does that consideration not also apply to the National Health Service, so enabling parents to be near their children for as long as possible when they are in hospital, partly for the child's sake, partly for the parents' sake, but also partly for the nurses' sake, as children make much better progress when that happens? Therefore, is it not the policy of the National Health Service overall to support the help that such a house would give for both hospitals, St. Thomas's and Guy's?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I agree entirely with my noble friend. That is why the trust is working hard with the Evelina Children's Family Trust in order to ensure that this unit is transferred to the St. Thomas's site and that it will continue to exist, albeit in a different form.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at King's College Hospital parents are allowed to sleep on camp beds by the beds of the children? Do the Government generally encourage trusts and hospital authorities to make such facilities available?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. In nearly every paediatric unit provision is increasingly made for parents and families of the children to stay with them when they are sick.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem goes far wider than Guy's or any other hospital in London? Many poor parents throughout the country cannot afford to visit their children in hospital, to the detriment of the child and the family. Cannot some special provision be made to pay for these families to visit their children in hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is preferable, if possible, to ensure that provision is made on the hospital
232
site so that travelling is cut to a minimum. With regard to travel allowances, that is the remit of my noble friend Lord Astor who deals with social security.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in a previous answer regarding the Guy's and St. Thomas's trust the noble Baroness said that Guy's would be developed in association with community services. Are not children's services particularly allied to community services? Would it not be appropriate therefore for the renowned paediatric unit at Guy's, made famous by the pioneer work of Professor Ronald McKeith, to be kept on the site at Guy's, liaising with the back-up services in the community and having the additional benefit of being close to the residential unit for parents mentioned in the Question?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the exact details of the provision of services at Guy's and St. Thomas's have not yet been decided. The trust is working on that at the moment. I suspect that there will be out-patient facilities for children at the Guy's site. In-patient facilities at the moment, I believe, are planned to be on the St. Thomas's site. Once the trust reaches some decisions there will be consultation. That is a requirement in the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many organisations and individuals are concerned about what will happen, when hospitals close, to the charitable donations which they have made in good faith in order to improve hospital services? Will the Government in future discourage such donations to hospitals that are under threat?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. The Government encourage as much community support for hospital facilities as they can. We recognise that there is an issue with regard to charitable organisations which have donated money. We know it is important that the trust for St. Thomas's and Guy's should work closely with those who have been major donors and with the special trustees. That is what it is doing at the moment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the case, in relation to my noble friend's last answer, that the general law of charities makes provision by the doctrine known as cy pres for precisely the kind of question which was addressed to her?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is correct. I wish that he was at the Dispatch Box.

Right-to-Buy: Retirement Houses
2.50 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to stop the purchase of public sector retirement houses by families of the tenants for later resale.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran)My Lords, most public sector housing for the elderly is excluded from the right-to-buy scheme. Landlords are not therefore obliged to sell it. Where a landlord chooses to allow elderly tenants to buy their homes, we believe that those tenants should have the same freedom as other homebuyers to finance their purchase.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that, while I am primarily concerned with the shortage of affordable rural housing, the situation in the cities is exactly the same? In this case, there is no question of the parents wishing to have the satisfaction of owning their own house; it is purely for the benefit of their children, who may otherwise have a house and who may use the new house as a second home. If I remember the Bill when it went through this House, it was full of enabling clauses. Does the Minister agree that the Government may well be able to allow local councils to prohibit the sale of one and two-roomed apartments in rural areas?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, all I can do is add to the original Answer which I gave. It is not the Government's job to say how people should raise finance for any particular acquisition, nor is it their job to tell people how to dispose of their property.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is not housing, other than sheltered housing built for the elderly, a special case? Does the Minister agree that it often costs more to build to mobility standards? Is it not true that those elderly tenants to whom the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred only occupy such bungalows precisely because the previous elderly tenants did not buy? Does the Minister further agree that therefore we should seek to protect such a precious asset within the local community?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we look very carefully after the circumstances which the noble Baroness has outlined. It is the job and the responsibility of the local authorities to respond to the needs and the sensitivities concerning the housing stock in their areas.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we certainly endorse that sentiment. But will the Minister permit local authorities to recycle the capital assets which follow from such sales in order to replace the lost housing.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is another matter altogether. I have said that it is the responsibility of the local authorities to act according to appropriate circumstances.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister defending a situation where families of tenants purchase public sector housing? Is it not illegal for families of tenants to purchase public sector housing? Is it not the case that the legislation lays down that only the tenant can purchase the house? How does the Minister come to the Dispatch Box to defend a situation which is technically illegal?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not come to the Dispatch Box to defend situations which are technically
234
illegal. The noble Lord knows full well the legality surrounding these circumstances. But I say once again that it is up to the local authorities to make their decisions as they think appropriate.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his attitude is very disappointing? The local authorities have to face a very large problem. If by a device these houses are purchased, does the Minister agree that that is not fulfilling the original purpose of the Act which the Government expressed so often and tediously in this House? Perhaps the legislation is quite different.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I regret it if the noble Lord finds my Answer disappointing. But it is my job to give responsible answers as the circumstances at the moment dictate.

State Hospitals (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Huntly, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the National Health Service (Scotland) Act. 1978 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 in relation to the provision, control and management of state hospitals in Scotland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates This Day
2.55 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Jay of Paddington set down for this day shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel to 2½ hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, by way of support and in brief explanation, as colleagues will have seen on the Order Paper, there are about 60 noble Lords wishing to speak in the three items of business before us. The reason why the timing for these debates has been put down somewhat late is because of the anxiety to try to get the best balance of time between the two debates which lie within the gift of these Benches. As far as we are concerned, we are exercising our right under the changing rule which the Procedure Committee has taken into account; namely, the number of speakers and how best to use them between debates on a particular day. It is a vexed question and no doubt one which will continue to be referred to the Procedure Committee I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for tabling this Motion, which is in accordance, I believe, with the best wishes of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
2.57 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I hope that most of the report is self-explanatory. I should like to refer briefly to the two matters raised in the report where changes are proposed; namely items 4 and 5, concerned with balloted short debates and other time-limited debates.
Balloted short debates were introduced in your Lordships' House in 1972, and since 1982 time limits have also been applied by order of the House to many other debates. The success of time-limited debates has been shown by the fact that the procedures have been gradually extended, so that now there is freedom to apply time limits of any length.
Nevertheless, on a number of occasions a large number of noble Lords have put their names down to speak in balloted short debates, and as a consequence speeches have on occasion been limited to five minutes or even less. As a result there have been calls for reviews of the procedure, and these have frequently taken place.
In 1987 the group on the working of the House considered various changes which would have provided more time for speakers in popular debates, but rejected them. The group commented that,
"all these expedients might encourage motions covering broad subject matter ill suited to Short Debates".
Since then the Procedure Committee has returned to this matter on several occasions, and has always taken the same view as the group on the working of the House: namely, that the subject matter of short debates should be tailored to the time allotted, rather than the other way round.
In item 4 in this report the committee has adhered to that approach, and has recommended only one change—that there should be an indication on the list of speakers in the Government Whip's Office of the time available for each speaker, so that noble Lords considering adding their names to an already long list will be made aware of the consequent limit on speaking time which will apply both to themselves and to all other Back-Bench speakers.
Item 5 of the report is concerned with the application of time limits to debates by order of the House. The committee suggests that it would be for the convenience of the House that on Wednesdays when there are two debates, both debates should always be time-limited and that the sum of the two time limits should not exceed six hours. This guidance should be helpful both to Lords speaking in the debates and to those taking part in any following business.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 29).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
1. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has been informed by the Leader of the House that he has consulted the other party leaders, and the Convenor of
236
the Cross-bench Peers, and has reached agreement on the setting up of a group of five members to consider "the practices and procedures of the House in so far as they affect the sittings of the House". It is hoped that the group will report in time for its findings to be considered by the Committee before the summer recess.
2. DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL
The Committee has given preliminary consideration to those provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, now in Standing Committee in the House of Commons, which give ministers power by order, made by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution procedure, to amend or repeal primary legislation which imposes a burden. The bill provides for a forty-day period, supplementary to the normal affirmative resolution procedure, during which the House would have an opportunity to scrutinise a proposal made under the power.
The Committee has appointed a sub-committee to take evidence and report on the procedures the House should adopt for making use of the additional opportunity for scrutiny in the event of the relevant provisions being enacted.
3. HYBRID INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE
The Committee has considered whether any changes are desirable in the procedures of the House relating to hybrid instruments. This procedure, which exists only in this House and not in the House of Commons, was introduced in 1924. In 1973 the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation concluded that it had "for nearly 50 years provided valuable safeguards for private interests affected by delegated legislation, and should be retained" (First Report, 1972–73, paragraph 55).
The Committee notes that the setting up of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has ensured that careful scrutiny is given to any provision in a bill which disapplies hybrid instrument procedure. The Committee reaffirms the value of this procedure and recommends no change.
4. SHORT DEBATES
The Committee last reported in March 1993 (Third Report, 1992–93) on the difficulties which arise when there are a large number of speakers in a balloted short debate, limited to 2½ hours. Since then, notwithstanding the Committee's recommendation that the subject matter of short debates "should be limited in scope, and should not seek to raise fundamental or wide-ranging issues which cannot be properly explored in the time allotted", there has been one short debate where speaking time was limited to 4 minutes, and another where it was limited to 5 minutes.
The Committee does not recommend any change in the rules governing short debates, but recommends that the list of speakers kept in the Government Whip's Office should indicate the time available to each speaker, so that Lords considering adding their names to an already long list will be made aware of the consequent limit on speaking time which will apply to them and other speakers.
5. TIME-LIMITED DEBATES
The Committee considers that it would be helpful for guidance to be given on the time limits to be applied by order of the House on Wednesdays when there are two debates (other than balloted short debates). The Committee accordingly recommends:

(1) that on Wednesdays when there are two debates, both debates should always be time-limited; and

(2) that the sum of the two time limits should not exceed six hours.

As the actual time limits applying to each debate arc not usually known until shortly before the debates take place, this guidance should be helpful in giving greater certainty both to those speaking in the debates and to those taking part in any following business, such as a private member's bill or an unstarred question.
6. TIME ALLOWED FOR DISCUSSION OF STATEMENTS
Since the House's agreement to the First Report from the Committee, 1989–90, on 12 February 1990, there has been a maximum time of 20 minutes for discussion of statements, beginning when the minister has replied to the Opposition spokesmen.
The Committee has considered whether any change in the arrangements is desirable, in the light of the fact that, on occasion, not all back-benchers who wished to speak have been able to do so because others have filled all of the 20-minute period. This situation arose on 13 December 1993, when the Leader of the House agreed that the matter should be considered by the appropriate committee (Official Report, col. 143).

237
The Committee does not consider that any change in the arrangements is desirable. The problem could largely be avoided if all Lords (including ministers and front-bench spokesmen) were to keep their interventions brief.
7. REVIEW OF SESSION 1992–93
Pursuant to a recommendation of the Group on the Working of the House, the Committee agreed in 1988 "to give annual consideration, at the beginning of each session, to the proceedings of the House in the previous session and, where appropriate, to make a report on procedural difficulties which may have arisen" (First Report, 1987–88). The Committee has accordingly reviewed the proceedings of the House in Session 1992–93.
In general, the Committee has reported on difficulties as they have arisen. This review does, however, provide an appropriate opportunity for the Committee to refer briefly to three bills which were in different ways exceptional.
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
The proceedings on this Bill were exceptional in so far as a bill which was itself quite narrow in purpose raised highly significant and controversial issues. While some of the amendments which were tabled were of doubtful relevance to the subject-matter of the Bill, the Committee considers that the circumstances are unlikely to recur in the near future and that it is unnecessary to change the rules of the House in relation to the relevance of amendments.
Railways Bill
The controversy over provisions of this bill led to the Government being defeated on 3 November 1993 on consideration of the Commons amendments and reasons in reply to the Lords amendments. In consequence the House was adjourned during pleasure for discussions through the usual channels on the timetable for further stages. The Leader of the House then moved that the House should adjourn again until 11 p.m. in order to enable any further Commons message to be considered the same day. This motion was agreed to on division after considerable debate, but in the event no Commons message had been received by 11 p.m. and the House adjourned until the following day.
The Committee doubts whether these proceedings, and the failure of the usual channels to reach agreement, could have been avoided by means of any change in the House's practice or procedure, and therefore recommends none.
Education Bill
This bill was debated for seven days in committee, for three days on report and for one day at third reading. Proceedings continued until after midnight on nine of these eleven days, until after 2 a.m. on seven days, and until after 3 a.m. on five days.
The Committee suggests that the question how to avoid a repetition of such proceedings might usefully be considered by the Leader's group on sittings of the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as regards paragraph 4 of the report on balloted debates, and as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, it is ordained that the allotted time of two-and-a-half hours must stand and that the speaking time for each noble Lord must be tailored to two-and-a-half hours irrespective of the number of speakers in a debate.
This rigid application of an inflexible rule from which there is no derogation possible prohibits any voluntary transfer between two debates, as your Lordships will appreciate is possible for all other time-limited debates as proposed in paragraph 5 of the report.
There is no wish to alter the 12 o'clock rule by which that is the time at which the list of speakers is closed. However, if two noble Lords can make a voluntary accommodation, say, after Question Time or before three o'clock, to transfer time between their debates when there are to be many more speakers in one debate than in the other, surely that should not be prohibited. Indeed, such an arrangement was made between the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and myself on 15th December. The noble Lord very generously offered
238
speakers in my debate 10 minutes instead of seven and asked me whether that would be all right. I asked him if was satisfied that noble Lords wishing to speak in his debate would be satisfied as well, and he said that he was. I put that to the usual channels. At first they made no objection because it would not affect the business of the House; it was a matter between noble Lords and all were content. But the arrangement was struck down by this inflexible rule.
I gave notice to the Leader of the House, the Chairman of Committees and the Government Chief Whip that I intended to raise the matter on the Floor of the House because to me it seems a ridiculous and pointless restriction. It is an inflexibility which destroys the essence of debate. As speakers tend to gallop for the record against the time limit of four or five minutes there is no inclination on the part of any noble Lord to give way. As the Select Committee on Procedure is to reconvene on 23rd May I have raised the matter now so that, whether or not your Lordships think that there is any sense in what I am saying, your Lordships can at least consider it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to support the views that have just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. When one compares paragraphs 4 and 5, there appears to be an undue amount of inflexibility about paragraph 4. Paragraph 5 implies that if on the day of a debate rather more noble Lords wish to speak than had been anticipated (which can always happen however limited the subject might be because a subject might be topical but also limited) there is flexibility to adjust time limits within a period of six hours. I fail to see why there could not at least be flexibility up to three hours in the case of short debates. I think that it is wrong that a noble Lord who may want to participate in a debate might be deterred by being told, "If you participate you will be able to speak for only three minutes and you will limit other speeches to three minutes". I do not think that that is the attitude that we should adopt in this House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will pay great attention to the two speeches that have just been made which indicate considerable defects in the working of the system of short debates.
I should like to raise two other points. First, I find paragraph 4 of the report by the Select Committee on Procedure very unsatisfactory. It refers quite properly to the desire to limit the subject matter of such debates to matters which are relatively unimportant and relatively uncomplicated and which can thus be discussed properly within two-and-a-half or three hours. However, no proposal for enforcing that has been put forward. I suggest that your Lordships might consider the proposition that the Leader of the House should be expected to notice what subjects are being chosen for the short debates; that where a major subject is proposed, which plainly cannot be properly discussed in that short period and in four-minute speeches, he should be able to rule it out of order and suggest either that

239
another less wide-ranging subject be chosen or that the mover of that particular debate should be passed over in favour of another.
The only other point that I do not follow relates to the last part of paragraph 4 and the suggestion that was made that some advance notice of the time that is likely to be allowed to speakers should be given when noble Lords put down their names to speak in such debates. That does not seem feasible because, as I understand it, names can be put down until midday on the day of the debate. As I understand it, it is not uncommon for quite a lot of names to be put down on the day of the debate or the previous evening. If one is sticking to the three-hour time limit, that will affect the time available to all speakers.
These are the conclusive points against such debates. If they are on major subjects of major importance and if, as a result of the number of speakers, speeches are confined to five or six minutes, that means, first, that the subject is not properly discussed and, secondly and perhaps evenly more importantly, that there is not a real debate. Those of your Lordships who have participated in such debates know that with only five or six minutes you cannot give way to an intervention or deal with an interruption. You have to read —I am afraid that "read" is generally the word—your speech quickly to get it into the few minutes that are allowed. In other words, such debates are not "debates" as most of your Lordships would understand that word, but tend to become essay-reading societies.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I wonder whether the Chairman of Committees can help me, and perhaps the House, in regard to paragraph 5. It is understood that this is an Opposition day. The Opposition have decided to have two debates and are therefore governed by this rule. However, supposing that today was a Liberal Democrat day and that that party had placed one Motion on the Order Paper and that some noble Lord—for mischief, shall we say—intended to seek another debate, would paragraph 5 then apply?
On reading the provisions, it seems that one could circumvent a major debate merely by putting down on the Order Paper another subject for debate. There may be some provision of which I am not aware that could prevent that, but I have always understood that the Order Paper is always open for Motions to be tabled. It is only by convention and good manners that we make arrangements for the convenience of the House. It seems to me that unless we tie this up fairly tightly in standing orders we might find ourselves in some difficulty.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, questions have been raised and criticisms have been offered in connection with short debates. I should like to add my support to the proposition that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and to his plea for greater flexibility.
The problem arose in a debate which I sponsored on the subject of forestry. It was a short, time-limited debate, but 25 noble Lords had put down their names to speak. Many had travelled from the far corners of this country to speak on that day, but on arrival they
240
discovered that they had only five minutes in which to contribute, having come from Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and other distant places. However, the preceding short debate on the same day was under-subscribed. The speakers in that debate did not take all the time that was allotted to them. I sought on that day to get some flexibility whereby a noble Lord who has initiated a debate that is under-subscribed could cut the time that is available for that debate. However, I was advised that we were limited to two-and-a-half hours for our debate on forestry and that no flexibility was possible.
I suggest that the Select Committee on Procedure should look again at this question. Under the new arrangements which provide three hours, noble Lords might be allowed six minutes instead of five, but I suggest that the committee responds to the request that there should be greater flexibility.
I have only one other point to make. It relates to the paragraph on Statements. I note that the committee has not been moved by the suggestion that more time should be allotted to Back-Benchers wishing to ask questions on government Statements. Whenever we have a Statement in the House, it is generally on a matter of national importance. There is a great deal of experience and knowledge of and concern for such matters, but under the present arrangements all the Back-Benchers in the House are allowed only 20 minutes to intervene on questions of national importance which are the subject of the government's Statement. I suggest that Back-Benchers may have something to contribute on those matters, and may wish to express their concern. I hope that the committee will look again at the possibility of Back-Benchers having an extended opportunity to comment upon government Statements.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Lord Chairman of Committees said that when one asks about a debate one is able to be told roughly the time allotted. I did just that yesterday about this afternoon's first debate. At that time I thought that the debate would be a two-and-a-half hour debate. There were already a great many speakers, and so I did not put down my name. When I asked how many Conservatives were speaking, I was told that there were 16 names down of which only three were Conservatives. For a debate in the House to be a good one we must have speakers from all parts of the House. I wonder what procedure could be introduced, perhaps through the usual channels, because it seems to me to be inappropriate to end up with a one-sided debate, whichever side that happens to be. That is another point into which I hope the noble Lord will look.
I like time-limited debates, because if I put down my name I sit through the whole debate. That is the tradition of the House. But the longer the debate the fewer people one sees in the Chamber for the whole debate. That is a great argument for retaining the shorter debates.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly on one point; that is, the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I hope that the Leader of the House will resist any suggestion—I am sure that he will—that he should be able to—
Noble Lords: Lord Boyd-Carpenter!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I apologise to both noble Lords. I meant the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Perhaps I should start again. I want merely to raise the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I hope that the Leader of the House will resist the noble Lord's suggestion that he should have some veto over what subjects are discussed in your Lordships' House. We are a self-regulating House. Although the usual channels may use their good offices to persuade people not to put down particular subjects because they are too large to be debated in a short debate, any sense that the Leader of the House should have the power to veto should be resisted. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will wish to resist that suggestion.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I should like to express my view that the procedure committee is right about balloted debates. I do not believe that we should make any changes. I was privileged to sit on the committee that first recommended that they should be introduced. They represented an enormous step forward for Back-Benchers who before that were able only to ask questions, either Starred or Unstarred. The short debates have been a tremendous success, especially for those who sit mostly on the Back-Benches. I believe that one essence of that success is the simplicity of the rules. We all know that there are two-and-a-half hours for each debate: we know when they start; we know when they end; we can plan our day. There is a great deal of merit in not tinkering with the rules.
I realise that some of the shorter time limits may be rather upsetting. I believe that they are more upsetting to the speakers than they are to the listeners. When I sat on the Woolsack and listened to the short debates I always found it stimulating when the debate was moving along at a fairly smart pace. One could look forward to a change of face, a change of voice and a change of opinion. I think that we should leave well alone.
The real trouble, as has already been said, is that the subjects are sometimes far too wide for a short debate. I am sure that that could be pointed out to the mover of the debate, if not by the usual channels perhaps by the Clerks They might suggest that although a debate on forestry is a good one, it is not suitable for a short debate and that the wording could be tightened to draw attention to one particular aspect of forestry which might be better suited to a debate of two-and-a-half hours. As regards the debates on days allotted to parties, the suggestion seems sensible. Those debates are different from the balloted debates.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, before my noble friend the Lord Chairman responds to the points raised, as a number have been directed at me perhaps I could say just a word or two about balloted debates and time-limited debates. The procedure committee has given consideration to those matters on a number of occasions, and the fact that on this occasion it has not recommended a change does not mean that they have not been given serious consideration. It has recommended a small change; that is to say, the third report of the Procedure Committee of the 1992–93 Session indicated
242
that the Clerks now scrutinise the subjects for debate to advise noble Lords as to whether they think they are suitable for a short debate.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested that that procedure should, in a sense, be strengthened by the Leader of the House ruling that a subject was too substantial for a two-and-a-half hour debate. I view that with some considerable trepidation. The proposition that a subject is too important to be debated in two-and-a-half hours puts the whole issue of Questions and Answers in the House into some perspective. Of course, if that is what the House wanted I have no doubt that the Leader of the House would have to get on and would have to try and do it, but I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I shall not be recommending to the House that it go down that road.
However there is a central point which your Lordships should bear in mind, and that is on the nature of balloted short debates. I stand, of course, to be corrected by those of your Lordships' House with greater experience than I have, but my understanding of the purpose of the ballot is that it provides a chance for Back-Benchers to place before your Lordships issues which they deem to be worthy of debate. In that sense, the balloted debate is an important safeguard for the rights of individual Members of your Lordships' House.
By contrast, other Wednesday debates are, as your Lordships know, usually put forward after discussion within individual parties and noble Lords on the Cross-Benches. While I understand fully why my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway feels that there should be some flexibility in the two-and-a-half hour allocation —although he was unable to be present at the meeting of the Procedure Committee that discussed that matter, my noble friend the Chief Whip ensured that his views were fully understood by the committee—there is a danger that individual Peers might, on some occasions, be pressurised into agreeing to a shorter time limit for their debates than they would otherwise hope to have. It might happen, for instance, that a debate raised a number of extremely important matters and a number of Peers had indicated that they wanted to speak in it. In those circumstances, a Peer sponsoring a debate of a rather more individual character might feel pressurised into restricting his debate. I can imagine other circumstances in which the same result might occur.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is the rather special nature of balloted debates, safeguarding the rights of individual Peers, that indicates that they should have different treatment from that afforded to debates on a Wednesday, which are normally time-limited. That is one of the reasons why I support the report.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one issue before the Chairman of Committees replies. At first blush I had some sympathy with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, the difficulty is that if the allocation of two two-and-a-half hours is to be altered by agreement between the sponsors of the debates it is too late to do so after 12 o'clock on the day. I speak for myself in saying that when the matter came before the Procedure

243
Committee I was struck by the fact that in trying to cure the fault raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which is a decent, fair and legitimate point, one would create a greater difficulty. If one moves away from the limit of 12 o'clock on the day of the debate one would have to make it the day before. The upset caused to the House in noble Lords being unable to put their names on the list after 12 o'clock on the day before the debate would be greater than the difficulties which occasionally arise in respect of two two-and-a-half hour debates.
On the whole, noble Lords participating in the two two-and-a-half hour debates make arrangements and organise their diaries around them. If one were speaking in the second debate, arrived on time and discovered that, by agreement over the heads of noble Lords who were mere participants and not sponsors, the first debate had been extended to four hours and the second debate cut to only one some vexation of spirit would be occasioned.
The problem is difficult and I do not deny that. However, I believe that on balance it is better to leave the situation as it is with noble Lords having until 12 o'clock on the day of the debate to add their names to the list rather than to move in the opposite direction.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. I am perhaps even more grateful to my predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who lived through this intractable problem for a great many years.
Before dealing with the subject of the balloted debates, perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, about the time allotted to government Statements. The matter was considered at the latest meeting of the procedure committee. It was recognised that, as has happened in respect of Starred Questions, if one allocates extra time that will be taken up regardless of whether the time is needed. It is a value judgment about what is important. The noble Lord the Leader of the House is unwilling to undertake the task of making a decision as to what is important. I do not believe that any noble Lord will wish to undertake it and to make a value judgment. It is not for him nor for anyone else; it is for the House as a whole to decide such matters. I do not believe that an extension by 10 minutes, which perhaps is what the noble Lord has in mind, will resolve the problem. There will be occasions when the House feels frustrated that it has had insufficient time but I believe that it is better to leave the position as it is. We have not frequently felt that there is pressure to extend a debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was worried about the list which is now in use in the Government Whip's Office and asked whether it would of help to speakers. I do not know whether he has seen the way in which the list is now set out. It merely indicates to a noble Lord who puts his name down at, say, number 10 on the list that he will have nine minutes in which to speak, as will all others. When one reaches number 15 the time allocated will be six minutes and at number 20
244
it will be four minutes. It is supposed to be a guide to your Lordships to indicate that they will be depriving not only themselves of an opportunity to speak at length but others whose names are already on the list. It will not solve the problem but it might be a small help. The suggestion came from noble Lords on the Cross Benches and it was thought by the committee to be worthy. It was decided to give the idea a trial in order to see whether it helped.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was worried about the party days. I do not know why he chose the Liberal Democrats to be given the benefit of the day, suggesting that someone might intervene with another Motion which would upset that great party. Perhaps he was making a party political point, but I do not think so. The Order Paper is open, but not indefinitely. The Order Paper is closed at a certain stage and I do not believe that the noble Lord's worry is founded. It is observed by all quarters of the House that on a party day it is for that party to occupy that day in the manner that it chooses, either with one full debate or with two debates, which can now be divided up between any timescale within six hours. That is working well.
What continues to give cause for concern is the matter of the two-and-a-half hour balloted debates. The Procedure Committee has gone over this ground innumerable times. It has come to the conclusion that there is no way in which it can fairly make a variation on the fixed nature of those two debates. It brings into question someone exercising a judgment as to what is important and I do not believe that anyone wishes to undertake that decision. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was able to negotiate with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. His debate had more speakers and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was more than willing to devote time out of his debate. It was a negotiation of complexity which, in the event, would not have made a great deal of difference. Although the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that it would have made a difference of some minutes, the statistics of the debate indicate that only 14 minutes could have been stolen from the second debate and added to his debate. In the light of the number of speakers in that debate there would have been less than one minute extra for each speaker.
I understand the frustrations but the problem is almost insoluble—in fact, I believe that it is insoluble. I strongly commend to the House the recommendations of the noble Lords the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition; that we continue to regard it as the right course of action for noble Lords not to put down subjects for the balloted debates which cannot properly be dealt with within two-and-a-half hours. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Care
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to call attention to the state of care in the community, and to the case for a national evaluation of organisation and services one

245
year after the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing the Motion standing in my name, I am grateful that in a previous discussion on procedure your Lordships appeared to agree that substantial subjects should not be excluded from short debates. The subject of community care is substantial and complex but my purpose in bringing forward this debate is simple. The community care provision of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 were implemented in April 1993, and one year later it is appropriate to review what is happening. During this past year your Lordships have shown concern about the implementation of what was a very controversial piece of legislation by raising many specific and related issues through Questions and Unstarred Questions. But since my noble friend Lord Carter introduced. a debate in 1992, today is the first time that your Lordships have had the opportunity generally to discuss the broad and complex subject of care in the community.
I am pleased that we shall have contributions from noble Lords who speak with authority about different groups of people who need care and, most importantly, that their remarks will be based on experience in different parts of the country. I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Minister that a national evaluation will be useful in enabling local health and social service authorities to organise funding and services more effectively in the future.
I believe that we start from the agreed position that we all wish community care to succeed. My noble friends on these Benches supported the general thrust of the community care provisions in the National Health Service and Community Care Act. However, they consistently introduced amendments designed to improve it. Those amendments, had they been accepted, could have solved some of the difficulties seen in the first year of implementation.
There is no dispute about the broad principle of community care: looking after the elderly and physically and mentally disabled as far as possible in their own homes outside traditional institutions; and providing seamless care between hospital and home. In the last debate on this issue, my noble friend Lord Carter emphasised that the perspective of each user of the service must be paramount. He said that community care was something of a misnomer and that we should be thinking about individual care and examining individuals' needs and planning the services required to meet them.
That was the theory behind the 1990 Act. This afternoon we should focus on the extent to which, in practice, those individual needs are being well served by the new arrangements. As I said, it is such a vast subject that it is easy to be defeated by generalities and it is difficult to be sure that examples of personal experiences are anything more than specific anecdotes. But within the past month, the Ritchie Report on the tragic case of Christopher Clunis has highlighted some
246
general anxieties about community care policy in an authoritative and disturbing way. It is worth examining and drawing lessons from that report.
Noble Lords will remember that Christopher Clunis, a man suffering from schizophrenia, killed. Jonathan Zito. At that time, Christopher Clunis was supposedly being cared for in the community after discharge from hospital. I am aware that that terrible event took place a few months before the new financial systems were introduced but we must remember that the mental health provision has been seen by the Government for many years as a model for extending community care. The Ritchie Report confirms what many people have long suspected; namely, that mental health is not a good example to follow.
The report described the community provision for Christopher Clunis as virtually non-existent and as a catalogue of failure and missed opportunity. The report said:
"It has been noticeable how little routine attention appears to have been paid, by anybody, to the quality or outcome measurement of community management of mentally ill people".
It concluded:
"It is essential that the Department of Health sets up proper procedures for effective monitoring of psychiatric services in the community".
The report concluded also that Clunis himself sought help but did not know how to ask for it. He remembered,
"lack of explanation as to what he was suffering from; frustration that he was not being involved in decisions that were being made for him; [and) an absence of planned help towards settling in a home of his own".
Lack of information, lack of co-ordination, lack of consultation and lack of monitoring were all problems underlined by the inquiry into the Christopher Clunis case. They are all problems, I fear, which emerge from the first year reports of carers and users straggling with other aspects of community care.
Since the Motion that we are debating was tabled, I have been contacted by many statutory and voluntary organisations, informal carer groups and users of community services. There are, of course, success stories. I have been told about imaginative care packages which would have been impossible to arrange before the Act came into force. But the variation in local standards, between the good, the bad and the indifferent, is causing great alarm. The overall impression is of anxiety that vulnerable people will be inadequately or inappropriately looked after.
Perhaps I may select a few illustrations. Help the Aged has published a detailed first impression of how older people are faring under the new system. No Time to Lose includes many examples of confusing leaflets about care plans which are particularly unsuitable for minority ethnic elders; long waits for assessments for care; increased charges for day care and respite services which "harshly penalise" many people; and restrictive criteria for other domiciliary services.
The Local Government Drugs Forum, and Turning Point, the largest voluntary agency dealing with drug and alcohol abuse, have both expressed concern that local assessment procedures are still not fast or flexible enough to deal with their clients who are often in crisis situations. The addiction organisations' own monitoring also shows considerable confusions about practical care

247
arrangements and funding opportunities. Significantly, a report by KPMG Peat Marwick, commissioned by the Department of Health, on implementing community care concluded:
"Our discussions with users and carers do not suggest that they are knowledgeable, well-informed and exercising greater choice in the community care process. Indeed we were struck by how little people knew about assessment, charging and care plans. Many did not know what to expect of access and assessment processes, service standards and specifications because often these did not exist. Generally people had too little information. No one told us they had too much".
That conclusion in an official report to the Department of Health seems to make the cogent and simple case for government intervention to get the system working properly. Evaluation followed by action must be what is needed.
One of the major problems identified by many working in the field is the lack of any national standards for community care. With the best will in the world, how can local authorities, voluntary agencies and individual carers identify how well or badly they are doing if there are no objective targets to work to? The BMA, together with the major voluntary organisations, has proposed a series of national standards which it feels would help achieve a uniform level of high quality care across the country. The proposed national standards include undertaking assessments within one week of referral; information about constraints on services (such as their financial costs to users) to be clearly presented and openly available; and carers to be involved in the planning and assessment process and to be offered a separate assessment in their own right. That last proposal is very important. The needs and rights of carers are too often overlooked. I know that other noble Lords will speak specifically about the role that carers play in making community care possible. I look forward to those contributions.
I wish only to say that the Labour Party has this month published its own commitment to carers document to ensure that carers are treated as equal partners in service provisions and not as cheap alternatives to statutory care. Under our system all carers will have the right, for example, to flexible, affordable respite care to suit their needs.
I think respite care is crucial to success. I was appalled when I saw a recent survey by the National Federation of Women's Institutes which showed that more than half of carers were never able to take even an occasional one week break. In addition to the commitment to carers document, my honourable friend in another place, Mr. David Hinchliffe, is introducing an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Act to include a statutory provision for separate assessment of carers' needs for services.
When the Minister replies I should be grateful if she could expand on the reasons for the Government's opposition to national standards for community care which she has indicated in answer to questions in your Lordships' House and also if she could tell your Lordships whether or not the Government will be able to support Mr. Hinchliffe's amendment.
248
As so often in social policy, major anxieties about community care are rooted in anxieties about levels and distribution of funding. Throughout all the debates in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill in 1990, noble Lords from all parts of the House warned that the new systems must be properly funded with new money and that to expect financially pressed local authorities to absorb additional responsibilities for care without substantial financial support was to invite disastrously inadequate services.
The implementation of the Act, as your Lordships will recall, was delayed for two years, until last April, precisely to allow funding and management arrangements to be appropriately agreed. And yet, because the Government used an extraordinary formula to calculate the first year's special transitional grant the majority of local authorities —68 out of a total of 108—lost substantially last year. Sheffield lost over £2 million, Leeds lost £1.3 million and the London boroughs lost nearly £25 million.
The Government have now conceded that the original distribution formula was wrong and have changed it. But many local authorities are still suffering from the first-year arrangements which weighted allocations towards rural areas rather than inner cities and thus left many of those most in need of community care worse off. That bungled start-up affected everyone (both those who lost and those who gained) and made consistent year on year local planning a total impossibility.
However, while the mistake about distribution has been acknowledged, the Government are still insisting that 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant for the next financial year—that is 1994–95—is spent in the independent sector. That requirement is shackling the development of genuine community care by restricting choices for individual users. It is difficult to see that perverse incentive as anything other than ideological.
Local authority associations, social service directors and voluntary organisations have all urged the Government to review the 85 per cent. requirement because those with experience know full well that the independent sector does not pretend to offer domiciliary care in the community. Private care providers have always concentrated on residential care. Recent inquiries across the country conducted by the Labour Party show that unnecessary, expensive institutions are still being used inappropriately because local authorities are not allowed to use their STG to extend and improve care for people at home. If, as the local authority associations have suggested, there was a 50–50 split of the grant between public and private sectors, that would enable more flexible care choices to be offered by all local providers.
We also need to monitor and review the growing practice of charging for basic care services, previously freely provided. In some parts of the country, parents of young people with learning disabilities are now being charged for day care. Other care users report charges for home helps and meals on wheels.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society has published chilling evidence about the impact of stringent means testing on carers of people with dementia. The society is deeply concerned about the financial hardship faced by

249
carers who have sometimes had to give up their occupational pensions to pay for a partner's private nursing home bed. It estimates that 70 per cent. of district health authorities are failing to provide appropriate continuing care beds in the National Health Service.
Once again, the picture is patchy and inconsistent. The overall impression is that whether or not someone receives appropriate community care depends more on where they live rather than on what they need. That cannot be the right approach. Care in the community should be organisation the basis of national standards and equitable funding. We cannot expect local health authorities and social service departments to organise a successful, seamless service unless they are given secure, sustained funding and clear guidance on good practice.
Mrs. Jayne Zito, whose husband was killed by the schizophrenic Christopher Clunis, has said that her husband's murderer had been reduced to a life of degradation and poverty. As your Lordships will know, since her husband's death, Mrs. Zito has campaigned very courageously for proper help and care for the mentally ill. None of us who want community care to succeed can afford more cases like that of Christopher Clunis. After one year, care in the community systems must he both evaluated and improved. I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, not for the first time—and, I expect, it will not be the last—I shall concentrate on one issue. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay who rightly said that it would be taken up by other speakers. I refer to the position of carers. However, perhaps I may say, first, how grateful we are to the noble Baroness for raising the subject. It is of very wide concern to a large number of people in all parts of the country. The question of carers, upon which I wish to focus, is absolutely fundamental to the whole issue as to whether or not community care will be a success.
I am sure that the Minister will agree with me when I say that the success of community care will depend on the extent to which the informal carers will be able to cope. Whatever else is provided, the fact is that in the vast majority of cases it is the relations—that is, families and close friends—who will carry the burden of dealing with people who need care in the community. Therefore, the emphasis has to be on how those carers can be enabled to make a success of the job. Whatever else is done, if the burden is too heavy and they break down under the strain, community care will not work. The only alternative then will be to put the whole process into reverse. It is as central as that: without proper attention to the carers, we can say goodbye to any effective scheme of community care.
One year after the legislation came into force—indeed, it is not quite a year yet—is, I suppose, rather early to be trying to form any real judgment on what has happened. However, there are indicators from the information that we have received as to where the strengths and weaknesses can be found, where it looks
250
as if the schemes are working satisfactorily and where it looks as if they, quite emphatically, are riot working satisfactorily.
So far as concerns carers, there are at least two areas of vital importance. First, in the home where they are looking after people and giving the care, carers should be able to have adequate, competent, reliable and affordable support and assistance. That is what they are not getting. Of course, there are very good examples of cases where such help is being received, but they are the exception and not the rule. Until this becomes the rule, we cannot be at all confident that the community care programme will work.
The reports that are received, especially by the Carers' National Association (of which I have the honour to be president), show that in many parts of the country the support coming into the borne reflects none of the virtues to which I referred. There are accounts where promised domiciliary care comes at the wrong time, does not come at all, or, indeed, comes at very erratic intervals. It does not take very much imagination to realise that, if you are looking after a very disabled person—for example, a person with Alzheimer's Disease—who is infirm and needs help with all his or her physical movements, it is not much good having someone to help with the nursing who arrives five hours late. Nor is it much good if you want the sort of help at domiciliary level that so many people really need, even if they are not dealing with acutely disabled people. I refer to help with the ordinary domestic chores. There used to be a home help service which provided people who were prepared to clean the floors and do the washing up. Of course, in theory, that help still exists. That is the kind of help that a great many carers want. They want relief from such responsibility so that they can concentrate on the needs of the person for whom they are caring.
One case came to the attention of the Carers' National Association of a man who was looking after his disabled wife. He wanted help with the housework—that is, the plain chores involved in keeping the house clean and tidy. He was told that he could not have that because it was not available, but he could have someone to get his wife out of bed in the morning and wash her. However, both he and his wife preferred that he should do that part of the work. They wanted to leave the house cleaning to someone else, but they were told that that service was not available. In other words, they could have help that they did not want but could not have the help that they needed. Such examples exasperate people beyond belief and are calculated to bring the whole scheme into disrepute.
We must look very carefully at the mundane tasks that need to be done. Here, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is very much concerned with the development of a scheme for the registration of people in the private sector who will help with such domiciliary care. I believe that to be most important. We shall not get the type of care that we need if we rely entirely upon the public sector. There is no reason why there should not be good private care but it must be good care. There must be a temptation for people in the private sector—or sometimes in the public sector for that matter—to

251
offer these services on a profit-making basis and to fail to give what is required. If we are to obtain the amount of care that is needed, it must be available in the private as well as the public sector but we need to be absolutely certain that the care is of a good standard and not of an exploitative kind. Carers and the people they are caring for are vulnerable and they are not in a position to carry on battles with the people who are helping them, because they need them too badly. Carers and their patients are weak negotiating partners and they need to be strengthened.
Secondly, the other kind of help which carers need above all else is respite care. Carers must be able to have a period of relaxation away from their heavy burden of caring. Proper respite care must be provided at a price that people can afford. It is no good telling the person who requires respite care—there have been cases of this—that he or she can have it the next week as by then it is too late for the carer to make sensible arrangements if he has to put the person for whom he is caring into care by the following week. By that stage alternative arrangements cannot be made satisfactorily.
In the moment that is left to me I must say that there are two major areas we need to look at. One is the carer's right to have an assessment properly and quickly carried out when he wants it, and for the carer's concerns to be taken on board in the making of that assessment. Secondly, the care provided should be needs based. It should be what is required on the basis of the assessment and not what is available because it suits the local authority to provide it. I am not suggesting that there should be unlimited resources but that the spending priorities should be based on what the carer and the patient need and not on what the local authority finds it convenient to provide.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the state of care in the community.
Working in a district health authority as I do which now concentrates entirely on all the ramifications of purchasing, or commissioning as we prefer to call it, I have been close to the changed approach to care in the community from the outset.
It was not a question of blowing a whistle on 1st April 1993, with all the new arrangements neatly in place and smoothly and effortlessly moving into different ways of providing care. A huge amount of work had to be done in the run-up to April last year. In fact, the implementation of the new arrangements had to be put back from an earlier date in order to allow the authorities, both local and health, more time to prepare. A glance at some of the literature that was produced for national consumption and guidance by the Department of Health, the Audit Commission, NAHAT and others, and material that will have been commissioned locally, gives an idea of the effort that was put into getting ready.
What has happened has been described as a community revolution, as local authority social services
252
departments have had to undergo the transformation from being suppliers of a range of services to adopting a lead agency role. This has involved arranging services tailored to the individual which will meet his needs, and then commissioning these services. Therefore, community care, as has already been said, has become focused on the service user, not on the service itself.
The four main groups of users are: elderly people, people with physical and sensory disabilities, people with learning disabilities and people with mental health problems. Obviously providing these services involves a multi-agency approach. Health authorities, of course, play an important part, both district and family; but also housing agencies and voluntary bodies, which both provide services and represent users and carers, play a part in the preparation of social services departments' community care plans.
Individual care plans are of course of key importance and need to pass through the process of assessment, to provision of services needed by the individual and to monitoring that these services are being provided and remain relevant. It is particularly important that the NHS and local authorities work together closely in order to develop complementary community health and social care that makes good use of joint resources in the best interests of the user and avoids gaps, duplication in services or bureaucracy.
That is a brief outline of some of the background and aspirations with which we launched ourselves into community care a year ago. Although it is still early days, the most vociferous prophets of doom have been confounded and a growing number of practical improvements are visible locally. In my district I have noticed better planning of hospital care for elderly people so that they and their relatives are more involved in examining options for after care. I have also noticed that more people are able to live at home with support. The local authority and health authority have been stimulated to promote investment in new nursing homes so that people can be cared for locally and not sent to homes a long way away; the role of the voluntary sector has been strengthened—for instance, home bathing services, jointly funded by the local authority and the health authority, are being delivered by Age Concern. There is consumer choice in that people with long-term physical disability now have complex care packages organised and financed by the health and local authorities so that they can live in a supported home environment rather than be admitted to an institution.
The more general benefits of the care in the community reforms which can be identified so far are: a clearer joint approach to the care of individual patients; a closer working relationship to planning third party provision; and a stronger realisation of the potential benefit of strengthening the voluntary sector locally. It is true that these arrangements need time for the new opportunities to be more thoroughly developed. Different parts of the country inherited differently developed services as well as varying degrees of co-operation between their health and local authorities and the voluntary sector. In my district we welcome greater local autonomy within the NHS and the opportunity to work with local authorities and our

253
voluntary sector colleagues more closely. What we do not look for are large amounts of central direction, unfocused wall-to-wall monitoring and elaborate time-consuming evaluations.
It is satisfactory to note that by and large this new approach to caring for people in the community has got off to a good start. It is apparent that there is a high degree of dedication and good will among the people across the sectors who are working in this field both as managers and as practitioners. I am hopeful that as time goes on and the new systems get established, the population will benefit increasingly. I would therefore like to commend to noble Lords the good progress that is being made. I am convinced that with continuing hard work and support these worthwhile reforms will move from strength to strength.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, on giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I also thank the noble Baroness for her informative speech. It may interest your Lordships to know that on 30th March care in the community will be discussed on the radio on the "Jimmy Young Show" and therefore the whole country will have the opportunity to discuss the matter. The major concern of people all over the country is the possible loss and closure of hospitals. That is causing particular anxiety in London, where it appears that hospitals are under a terrible threat.
I also wish to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her endeavours to keep in touch with National Health Service staff associations. They appreciate that very much. There may well be further NHS reforms in the future. Reform is a frightening word, as whenever the Government talk about reforming the NHS we know that that will not do the NHS much good. Nevertheless I should be grateful if the Minister and her right honourable friend in another place will continue to keep NHS staff associations informed of developments.
I hope the Minister will examine the claims of the Audit Commission that NHS funds have been wasted by doctors who have apparently prescribed wrong drugs. It is claimed that many people are in hospital because general practitioners have given them the wrong drugs. I admit that these are serious charges, but they can be read in responsible newspapers and in the magazines of responsible associations, for example the BMA and others. Therefore, I believe that the Government should have a look at that issue. In Britain, through the NHS, fewer drugs are required for our population than for any other nation in Europe. That is because of the excellence of general practitioners and the drugs they prescribe.
Where there is a dispute between the British Medical Association and the other associations, which happens from time to time. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to see what can be done to help to heal the breaches.
Will the department examine the disturbing experience of nurses in Cornwall, for example? This matter has been mentioned in the national press and makes disturbing reading. It is claimed that assessment
254
of patient needs is undertaken by untrained staff with no qualifications. That is another aspect which I am sure the Government will consider very seriously.
I should like to address briefly the issue of care in the community in relation to nursing home funding, which is a vital issue affecting thousands of families. I have to pay nearly £500 a week for my 98 year-old mother to stay in a nursing home in South Wales. I have received letters from many people. It seems that this is a very difficult situation. Before 1st April 1993 patients were accepted into private nursing homes with their fees paid by the DSS under the terms of protected rights until they died. After 1st April 1993 the funding was taken over by local councils. In each case funding is less than the full fees charged by the nursing homes. Will the DSS look at its funding policy? Its funding is far below council funding and is causing great anguish to many people?
Perhaps I may give the House an example. Hammersmith pays more than Ealing towards the cost of patients in its hospitals and homes. That seems to take advantage of what are called protected rights. Many people are totally unprotected against the imbalance in funding, and that can result in discrimination. They are the poor relations in nursing homes. Many nursing homes do their level best to keep very old and frail people with them, but sometimes they cannot, even with the best will in the world. They have to take cognizance of the fact that the relatives are so poor that they cannot afford to keep an ancient grandmother or a father or mother in a home.
Many of those people played a dignified role in the last two wars. I know that it will touch the hearts of noble Lords on all sides of the House that people whose sons fought in the First World War and whose grandsons fought in the Second World War know that they are now becoming a nuisance because relatives cannot afford to keep them where they are. People who have property sometimes sell their property in order to be able to pay the fees in these special hospitals. It appears that once capital is reduced to £3,000 the funding falls back on the DSS and the council.
The situation is not the same in every case. That causes irritation. Somebody living in one town does not have to pay a thing, whereas somebody else living somewhere else has to pay the full amount. I ask the Government sincerely to examine the issue. It causes great distress. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that we do not want that to happen to our people. But it has happened. It is no good trying to find out whose fault it is. I want the Government, together with the Opposition parties, to see what cart be done to put the matter right.
I want to talk briefly about the role of health visitors. I sincerely hope that the Government will help them. Health visitors play a vital role, particularly when dealing with young children, some of whom can hardly walk, and their parents cannot look after them. Health visitors are the sort of young men and—mainly—young women who bring the National Health Service into the homes of people who need it badly.
All parties in this House should co-operate to save our great National Health Service. We all know that it has worked miracles up and down the country,

255
particularly for the not so well off. It has meant that members of our medical professions know that they have a job that is worth while. When the health service was introduced doctors were afraid that they would all be civil servants. That is no longer the case. The medical profession and the nursing profession value this great National Health Service. I believe that all parties agree.
In conclusion, I hope that all parties in this House will join together to save our great National Health Service, which is the envy of the world and an example to all mankind.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, like other noble Lords I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for raising this subject of community care. I cannot imagine that there is anyone in this House who does not believe that where it is possible and appropriate to look after people in their own homes, that has to be a much better alternative than their being in long-term institutions.
I shall not keep your Lordships very long today because the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, expressed much of what I wished to say, and many of her experiences in her area are mirrored by much of what we are trying to do in my part of the world, which is Barnet.
I should like to mention two issues which I believe reflect very positively on what we are trying to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that she would like national evaluation of both the organisation and services since the National Health Service and Community Care Act came into force. I believe that the change in organisation is one of our best successes.
It should not be forgotten that one of the main criticisms in the Griffiths Report was that no one had the sole and lead responsibility. All too often individuals dropped through the net because some people thought that they were the responsibility of the social services, others of the local health authority and others of the family health services authority. It has now been firmly put in place that it is the responsibility of the social services to take the lead and to act jointly with the other authorities. That is a very important point to remember. As a chairman of a family health services authority I try to do my best to support the GPs in my area. I am very well aware that people drop through the net and when something goes wrong it will be the GP who has to deal with the problem, perhaps as an emergency. Therefore, I am very glad that that organisational change has been made.
That organisational change has resulted in considerable successes, with district health authorities and FHSAs working together. In our case we now work together unofficially as a health agency. Of course everything will not be a success. Of course many issues that will be raised today will need to be examined very carefully, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to them.
The House may like to know that in Barnet between April 1993 and November 1993—the first eight months after the Act came into force—we carried out 4,699 assessments. That may not sound very much, but it
256
represents one-and-a-half per cent. of the population of Barnet. Previously there had been no assessments at all. The mere fact that we have to put the patients first, think of their needs and discuss them with the patients and the carers, and do the best that we can in finding the most appropriate way of looking after those people, can only be an advantage. If one considers the short period of time in which we have made this enormous change, we should be grateful that the Government had the courage to look at what was wrong and to seek to put it right.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, although I cannot share her optimism. However, I am delighted to hear that she herself has had such pleasant and constructive experiences.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jay. She made an excellent speech and set the tone for a first-class debate on an issue of outstanding importance. I am glad that the debate has remained on that high level. I am glad too that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the domiciliary care problem. The noble Baroness has made a major contribution to that aspect. I am only too pleased to support the noble Baroness's efforts and those in another place on that important issue.
Members of this House have been inundated with briefs from the voluntary organisations expressing deep concern about the state of community care. All those briefs have reflected the suffering of people who are or should be the recipients of community care. That suffering is in part the result of the Government's failure to organise the system and to provide adequate funding. Those briefs were not organised; they were a spontaneous outpouring by the organisations because of their deep anxiety about what is happening to community care in Britain.
Community care has been criticised by the individuals concerned as well as by the organisations. The provisions are young, just a year old; we cannot expect perfection or miracles. The Minister will have a strong point in saying that. However, even after having listened to the last speech, there are few indications that community care is progressing in the right direction. There are widespread expressions of anxiety.
The British Medical Association has been referred to. It said that its survey a few months ago portrayed a disturbing picture of failures on important aspects of community care. The BMA is no wild Left-wing organisation of irresponsible militants. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, may question that statement; but the BMA is a very responsible organisation. It does not throw words around irresponsibly, like confetti. When the BMA talks of a disturbing picture of failures on important issues the Minister should sit up and take notice. The BMA is not seeking to make party political capital, as one or two Members on this side of the Chamber might be tempted to do—although the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and I have scrupulously avoided those temptations. However, the BMA cannot be accused of making party political capital. Its criticism is important because it reflects the views of an important section of the medical profession

257
One of the BMA's most important findings was that the majority of doctors reported that, far from the promised improvements, there was either no change in the services or an actual deterioration in community care. That was stated by doctors working at the coalface, if I may use a cliché. Those important charges ought to be considered by the Government in the debate. Many of us have high regard for the Minister. Perhaps when she replies she will explain whether she agrees with the BMA. If she does not, will she tell us where it has gone wrong and from where it has obtained those facts? We would appreciate the Minister's views on that important subject.
The BMA urges national standards, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in her brilliant speech. I agree with that. But if the Government agree and do not provide the money to enable those standards to be met, talk of national standards by Ministers simply becomes a public relations exercise. I am sure that the Minister wishes to avoid that. Perhaps she could let us know when the funds will be made available, how much will be made available and how big the increase will be after the debate. I would welcome those facts from the Minister. The noble Baroness does not look too happy at present. Perhaps her figures do not match my expectations. However, I am sure that she will promise the House many millions of pounds of extra cash for those standards; and we look forward very much to her speech.
The consortium, Challenge, representing eight disability organisations states that community care has proved to be finance led rather than the needs led service so fondly proclaimed by the Minister of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke well of carers. I know people who for years have spent every hour of every day caring. If the service is finance led, it means that when those carers ask for just a little respite care, they receive the reply that there are no funds available. We do not say to people in physical agony, "There are no funds for an operation". So why should we be saying to those with emotional distress and in psychological agony that we cannot afford this or that? Such people should be placed high in the queue.
I have another 45 pages of notes to read. But I had better stop because the clock indicates that I have spoken for seven minutes. I think that someone has been maliciously whizzing the figures around behind the scenes. I conclude by saying that this important subject needs urgent attention from the Government. The Government have tried, but they have not succeeded to date. Apart from taking on board the legitimate criticisms of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and colleagues on both sides of the House, the best thing the Government can do is to give a significant injection of funds so that proper standards will be provided after the national evaluation.
4.19 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I join with other Members of this House in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing the debate and for the manner in which she did so. I welcome the opportunity to take a cool look at community care one
258
year on. As noble Lords have already heard, it is early days and any major reorganisation takes years to become rooted in the community. However, because it is impossible to pilot such major policy changes before legislation is in place, the lessons learned early on are vitally important. I note that monitoring has already begun to take place in the Department of Health Report, First Impressions, between April and September 1993. In that report there are already indications of areas where issues need to be addressed and changes made. However, the changes have been so basic that it is vital to assess the quality of the service being given to all our citizens.
The General Synod of the Church of England in a debate in February 1992 welcomed the Government's initiative to extend community care provision and believes that the principles which underlie the legislation were right. The General Synod always asks the Government for further initiatives and funding, but it had the grace to go on to say that it recognised the challenge to the Churches and voluntary groups alike to provide an effective partnership with statutory bodies.
The Churches—and I include all of them—have people, plant and networks to offer. Among the activities which will be found in most parishes and most areas are luncheon clubs for the disabled and the mentally ill; tea dances, which provide exercise and friendship (they take me back a long way); drop-in centres; people who regularly visit the shut in; the provision of transport for the many who find it difficult to move from their own homes; and perhaps more important than anything else we have already heard, the support of the carers, the provision of that evening off, that time away.
Because we believe that our contribution is important, during the autumn of last year the Board for Social Responsibility of the General Synod did a survey of the Church of England's involvement in community care. Twenty-six dioceses reported on a number of questions and two major issues emerged which I should like to share with the House.
The first concerns funding. There are still, many believe, major funding issues to be resolved. What can seem a good plan at a regional level can feel very different indeed at a local level, and, after all, that is what community care is about. Community care is not necessarily cheaper than institutional care. The risk is that—and it was underlined by many and has already been underlined in this debate—in the absence of adequate resources, social workers or care case managers will define the needs of the person they are assessing in the light of the resources available. That I believe is the wrong way round. There is still much to be done to achieve comprehensive services across the country.
The second issue concerns those groups with special needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, pointed out, we have already had the case of Christopher Clunis and there is a particular worry among many of us about care of the young mentally ill. The question is: who takes care of them? In my city, the Bristol Cyrenians published their annual report concerning homelessness among the people there. In last year's returns, 40 per

259
cent. were suffering from significant mental illness. Over a third of those were under the age of 25. The special needs of the young, the homeless and the mentally ill still need to be addressed.
The Churches are among those groups which have an interest in what the slippery words "care" and "community" mean in practice. The experience of many seems to be that "community" has become, and easily becomes, family; and a privatised family at that, with carers locked into a role with minimal support and often little choice. If community care is to be what it claims to be, and to ensure that that happens, we need to remember that community is larger than family.
We will go on asking the fundamental questions about values and responsibility and go on insisting that all our citizens matter. The welfare state, of which I am a child, may have had some weaknesses but one of its strong areas was the theme of interdependence. That was a practical working out of the moral contract between the generations: the notion that each of us is responsible for people at vulnerable stages of their lives and can in turn expect to receive help when we ourselves become vulnerable.
We support good management. We know that resources are limited and we want value for money. But as a Church, in partnership with the statutory bodies, we wish to be evaluated as well as those who are involved in the main provision of services. We wish to be involved in any national evaluation. There is a crucial link between the individual and the wider community. We need to be vigilant that this new world, this new way of looking at things and this new language, do not lead to inadequate care, anxiety about the future and bleak isolation in the present.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I am proud to take part in the debate and grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for making it possible. I believe it is time, after nearly a year, that we should ask certain questions of Her Majesty's Government. In the Minister's defence, I recognise that it will be extremely difficult to give as comprehensive an answer as we should like about a service which, not only in the first year, but, I hope, in the years to come, will gradually move and develop.
The concept of community care was one that I, like many other noble Lords, warmly welcomed, mainly for the reason advanced by my noble friend Lady Miller. It is that, with few exceptions, most people who have been ill or who are ill would like to remain at home or return home as soon as they possibly can. When they are at home, they look naturally for the opportunity to lead as full a life as possible.
I have reason to be grateful to hospitals but I have no wish whatever to spend one day more in them than is absolutely necessary. However, it is clear that the transfer and expansion of care outside must, by definition, make new demands on the receiving community. My own belief is that the combined cost of hospital and community care could and should be less than the cost of the more prolonged hospital care which was normal in past years.
260
If that is so, I should like to see the Government seize the opportunity which their own initiative has opened by going further and giving individuals the opportunity, with adequate finance where necessary, to manage their own care rather than having it arranged for them. In discharging those obligations to provide care, it would greatly please me to see authorities more willing to make use of volunteers. I believe that, properly and sympathetically organised, volunteers could add significantly, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to the service which authorities provide.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I was concerned by reports from the BMA of doctors' anxiety about increased workloads unaccompanied, so they claim, by any comparable improvement in the service. I hope that when my noble friend replies she will be able convincingly to remove that anxiety. I hope that she can also remove an anxiety in my own mind which has been put there by a number of conversations with GPs. They complain that they are often not informed of their patients' discharge from hospital, nor are they informed of the details of the treatment that the patients received there.
The question of carers has naturally been covered. Among the thousands involved in the care of those who need it, the husbands, wives or relations who give hours of service with no discernible recompense are the most deserving of further reward. The invalid care allowance is small, and attention has rightly been drawn to that. I have heard homage paid on a number of occasions to the army of devoted carers. I wish we could do more to translate that homage into some form of reward, particularly in the shape of more regular relief from constant vigil. I rejoice that opportunities are growing. But I am afraid that for the absolute essential of respite care they are growing more slowly than most of us would like. That point was underlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Seear, and by others.
I am glad to see mobility, and the means to restore and increase it, claiming more attention from the community, which is wise enough to recognise that mobility is the source of much of the joy of living. I still long for the news which I believe my noble friend is just as anxious to give; namely that, before long, the Government will acknowledge the claim of a few thousand very severely disabled men and women whose lives would be utterly transformed by an improvement in their short-range mobility. That point was suggested by my noble friend Lord McColl not long ago.
Finally, I should like to emphasise the importance of the contribution which I believe communities can make through day centres. One such centre now forms part of an important foundation about which my noble friend Lord Hamilton may speak later with greater authority than I. But my own experience of it marks it out as an important builder of confidence, a restorer of natural social relationships and a gateway to the fuller life which I believe should be the ultimate objective of community care in all its many forms. I hope that when my noble friend replies she will be able to give us some conviction that we are gradually drawing nearer to that objective.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like others I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing this subject. The House has responded to an excellent speech with an excellent debate. We are discussing not simply care in the community, but the nature of our society. Only a society that responds to the demands of caring for the less advantaged in our community can call itself a decent, Christian and civilised society. I therefore hope that, as a result of the debate, we shall sharpen the sensitivity of people in our community to their responsibilities.
I should like to give two quotations. The first is from Professor Anthony Clare, of St. Patrick's Hospital, Dublin, who speaks frequently on radio and television. The quotation is two years' old, but the circumstances have not changed substantially. He said:
"The health service spends no more than the price of a cup of tea a day on community care".
A cup of tea a day, my Lords.
There have been various contributions this afternoon pointing to the fact that the services are under-funded. The suggestion that a cup of tea per day is the appropriate allocation of resources to caring in the community is hardly supportable. Those of us involved in this area, apart from receiving the excellent briefs of various organisations, also have experience of letters from carers and sufferers. We could spend a long time quoting them. I shall simply quote one which came to my notice quite recently. I should say that I am president of Scottish Action on Dementia, which is combined with the Alzheimer's society in Scotland. Therefore I see a good deal of the correspondence that comes into the office in this connection. The quotation is on the experience of living with dementia:
"Now I have got to wash him, I've got to dress him, undress him, help him sit in a chair. Going to the bus he gets mixed up—you've got to help him—you say to him to sit in and he lies down and people look at you and they think … he is drunk … but it doesn't matter what people think, you know. I know what's wrong with him and I have to cope with it".
I could quote many letters that are similarly depressing about the problem of caring for people suffering from dementia.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others rightly drew attention to our responsibilities to the carers. My experience is largely confined to Scotland and Scottish affairs. It is estimated that if the state had to pay for the responsibilities that carers in Scotland discharge it would cost £1.2 billion a year. Those people, many of whom have given up careers to care for aged parents, save the state £1.2 billion a year in Scotland alone. I feel therefore that we should revalue the service which carers provide. I hope that in the reply today a word of encouragement is said about support for carers. Many are now suffering financial hardship as well as having no social life. The hidden costs of caring in a family are estimated to be an additional £46 per week. Items such as incontinence pads, extra fuel, washing, breakages and special equipment cost money. In addition to making a contribution to caring in the community, carers suffer very great disadvantages economically and certainly in
262
their social life. I hope that we may once more acknowledge the state's responsibilities so far as carers are concerned.
I wish to follow up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, about the importance of the voluntary sector. We must not under-estimate the fact that while we look to the state for support—and it is a state responsibility—there are resources among our people, who, thank God, are prepared to give services in this case of need.
Although, as I said, I am president of Scottish Action on Dementia, which is associated with the Alzheimer's society, I have no great experience in this field of caring. Indeed, my main purpose is to raise money for those worthy organisations. My friends now move to the other side of the street when they see me coming. They know that I have my begging bowl out to assist those organisations.
I should like to mention one other organisation in Scotland. It is the research centre set up at Stirling University. The dementia services development centre was established there to improve and expand services for people with dementia and their carers. It is not a research centre looking at cures for Alzheimer's disease and dementia. It is a service that tries to measure and advise on the implications of community care. I suggest that those voluntarily funded organisations should receive greater support from the Government in dealing with the complex problems which they face.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing the debate today. I fully support her request for a national evaluation organisation to evaluate the services one year after the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
Can my noble friend say whether any positive research is being done to measure the outcome of the Act during the past year? Is life better for the patients? What is being achieved? What are the views and experiences of families and carers? How many hospitals and homes are needed? Have we been too hasty in closing our mental hospitals? What is the relationship between health and social services? Above all, are the patients happier? Are they better served and are they leading a full life?
I wish to mention one other point that has riot so far been mentioned. It concerns the view of the communities in our country. I fear that there is often a feeling of "not in my back yard". That point has not been addressed. I know it is difficult but if community care is to be a positive aspect in our society then we must help the community to accept and realise the help that can be given and the responsibilities that go with it.
How can the services be better run? I speak particularly of those hospitals for the mentally ill, as well as for the disabled. Can my noble friend, when she replies, say whether or not there is a directive advising doctors, health visitors and social workers to draw up a specific plan laid out in consultation with the family, the carers and, if possible, also the patient? If such a plan is worked out, can it be stated how it should be carried out

263
in the future? As we heard, so often mental patients leave hospital without any specific plan or report, and often with nowhere to live. A plan should be formulated for them and the doctor, the social worker, the health visitor, the carer and the family should sign it so that everything is fully understood.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, well knows, a great many of the problems with mental patients arise from the fact that after discharge they do not take their medication. If the patient continued taking the medication there would not be a problem. How can that situation be overcome? I agree with other noble Lords that there should be centres which patients are encouraged and helped to attend. At that time it would be possible to check their medication.
The training of social workers is a topic that also needs to be addressed. Nurses undergo a four-year training period—as my noble friend Lady Cox will verify—and doctors undergo a five-year training period; but social workers are trained for only two years. They work as a team with colleagues and I suggest that they should be given further training in co-operating with their partners in the work that they must carry out.
I believe also that the patients are not considered and consulted as to what they want. Some patients will say that they do not wish to leave the hospital. If that is so, must we make them leave? That point should be taken into consideration. If it is felt that a patient should leave the hospital but the patient does not want to leave, surely there should be time for consultation and help given to the patient to accept the change. It is my experience that some schizophrenics do not want to leave the hospitals for fear of what might happen. Should we not listen to them and respond to their wants rather than to what we think they should have?
When there is co-operation between all the services, the carers and the family; when they are all working together in a community which has understanding, kindliness and thoughtfulness and its members are not apprehensive of what they are facing; then, and only then, will the community care programme be the success that we wish it to be.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, first, I join with other Members of your Lordships' House in expressing my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Jay for having tabled a debate on this extremely important subject. My contribution will probably be a little different to those of other noble Lords. Secondly, I offer my apologies, in that I shall have to leave shortly for an important meeting. However, I hope to be back in time for the winding-up speeches.
We should perhaps look back and see what took place some years ago. Community care is not new. It was in being and working successfully during the 1960s. Like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I was a member of a local authority when they provided separate social services. The welfare service looked after elderly people; the local health service looked after
264
midwifery, chiropody and so forth. There was a separate department for children, with specialists dealing with their problems.
But somebody had the bright idea that all that had to be altered. It was based on a report by Lord Seebohm—who unfortunately is no longer with us. He had a tremendous ability and brought a great deal of talent to bear on issues such as this. But—and this is not the first time I have said this in this Chamber—we got it wrong. If we had not, I do not believe that we would see the clear examples of child abuse that we see today. I do not say that it would have been eradicated but I am sure that, with a section of people specially trained in looking after children, much of the neglect or mishandling of the situation by social workers would have been prevented. In the same way, older people would not be left alone as much as they are when they are discharged from hospital.
I believe I made the point three or four years ago in your Lordships' House when I said it was time to switch back to the situation that existed before. Of course, I am glad that the Government intend to do that. We can make all the pious statements we like in your Lordships' House in our demands for resources, but I hope that we are talking about a generalised system that will be as much to the benefit of people in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Wigan as it is of those who live in Wandsworth and Westminster. I have discovered a strange thing. By accident, no doubt—I do not think the Government would do it deliberately—Wandsworth and Westminster received far more money per capita of their population than any of the big northern cities that have a much greater need. I found this morning that Wandsworth has just announced its council tax for the year. One noble Baroness—a Member of your Lordships' House—told me that her council tax in Wandsworth this year will be £6 a month. Looking at the equation, the people of Wandsworth are bound to get a good service. They are paying nothing now, and if they have to pay a little extra they will get a better service still. However, the only way the major cities of the north can redress their gross underfunding in the first 12 months is once again by charging a much higher council tax than Wandsworth and Westminster.
I have been involved in local government and national government and this is the first time I have seen a government so blatantly gerrymander public financial support to areas that just happen to vote for them. I never knew a Conservative government in the old days, under Mr. Heath and his predecessors, to go in for that kind of practice. They should not think that they will get away with it and that it is not noticed. I know that what I have said will be recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham. I used to have to go and see him about funding when he was Secretary of State. The government of which he was a member did not gerrymander finances for their so-called flagship councils. People in Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and other areas are entitled to the same level of care as the people who live in Wandsworth and Westminster. Those areas should be receiving more funding from the Government than Wandsworth and Westminster.

265
I spent 17 years on Manchester City Council. Manchester has one of the most rapidly ageing populations in the country. Manchester decanted 250,000 people. They were the younger people who wanted to branch out from the city and now they live well outside the borders of Manchester. They are all over the place. Manchester's population is falling. The same is true of Liverpool. Manchester is top-heavy with elderly people who require care but the burden will fall more heavily on the authority unless the Government look at the problem and deal with it. Unless the Government help the authority to do the job it will have to set a ridiculously high council tax to do what is being done for peppercorn council taxes in Tory flagship areas. I think it is as well to bring that feature out.
The right reverend Prelate who spoke earlier talked about homelessness in Bristol. He said that a high percentage of the people involved are suffering from some form of handicap or mental instability. That point has been raised before in your Lordships' House by other noble Lords, including myself. We have always been told from the Dispatch Box that there is no evidence of that. I have to say before I sit down that there is concrete evidence from various societies, such as the Cyrenians, which are dealing with this problem at the sharp end. Even if homelessness is falling it does not mean to say that the number of handicapped people living rough is falling. In fact, in my opinion, those people are bound to become a bigger percentage of those needing special care. I do not expect the Minister to reply to that point today but I believe that the Government must understand that an increasing number of people are sleeping rough in what has been a rather long and adverse winter. They should have some form of special care.
My experience of community care is that if you have someone in the family who is taken ill you become the nurse yourself. You are the person who is the community care. Never mind that someone will knock on your door and look after that person. It does not work like that. I hope that the Minister will take this on board. Unless the Government give local authorities adequate funds, those local authorities will be left as whipping boys and the Government will say, "It is not the Government's fault, it is the local authorities' fault". I hope that they will not get away with passing the buck this time. On that basis I trust that the Minister will take on board my point about equalisation of resources.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for initiating the debate today, which seems to follow on from the debate we had on 11th October 1993 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I said much of what I have to say on this subject then (at cols. 71 to 75 of the Official Report) and will not weary your Lordships again with it now. But I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness because this debate gives me the opportunity to repeat some questions and ideas which I put to my noble friend on 11th October and to which I regret to say I have not yet had an answer. In the meantime I have done a little research and can now put some interesting
266
figures on the suggestions I put to my noble friend five months ago, which I trust will help to commend them to my noble friend and her department.
I should declare two interests, as I always do when your Lordships debate matters concerning community care and the mentally handicapped. I am the father of a mentally handicapped 13 year-old child, and I am a patron of Rescare, the national society for mentally handicapped people in residential care. These two interests have led me to the belief that our community care policy is too firmly committed—often through what I am sure is a flawed ideology—to moving people out of residential accommodation into a community which does not really exist and which too often does not care.
I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me. I applaud those cases where community care is working as it was intended to work, where people who were kept inappropriately in residential mental hospitals are now living fuller and happier lives in the community, supported by appropriate social care packages. But for far too many of our most vulnerable people the good intentions of our community care policy have merely paved the way to a very private hell which they alone must tread. And, my Lords, I am convinced of another thing—that simply throwing masses more money at the problem will not do much to help, or certainly not enough to justify the huge sums involved in these days, when it is beginning to look as though our economy may not be able to continue to generate the level of benefit from our welfare state to which we have all become accustomed. So may I suggest again to my noble friend that the Government seriously consider promoting sheltered and village communities for the mentally handicapped, instead of treating them with disdain and in effect looking on them as though they were unwelcome?
I accuse the Government of this attitude because in 1992 they deliberately left sheltered communities off the list of provision which local authorities are encouraged to support and because they have continued their policy of closing residential institutions, some of which could easily and cheaply be transformed into village communities.
One of the questions I put to my noble friend last time was whether she agreed that the decision to leave the communities we favour off the list of local authority provision was taken on entirely inadequate advice and whether it was not taken instead on the back of a survey organised by her department which one can only describe, with the greatest respect, as bogus. So I wonder whether I could again ask my noble friend to reconsider her department's position on this matter. In doing so could I ask her not to reply by saying that local authorities are free to support placements in village communities if they want to, because she will know that that is not the same as active government support.
But why should the Government support these communities? For two very basic and very good reasons, I submit. The first is because many, if not most, people who have a mentally handicapped member of their family appear to want these communities as a genuine option for their relatives. The national survey

267
being conducted by Rescare continues to confirm that some 65 per cent. of people like myself prefer them and know that their relations will be much happier in the sheltered and complete environment which these communities offer than they will under the cruel vagaries of our community care policies.
And the second reason, my Lords, is that our communities are very much cheaper than the official community care option. In fact, if the Rescue survey is accurate—and I have no reason to believe that it is not—we could be looking at savings of hundreds of millions of pounds if we followed the families' wishes and accommodated some 65 per cent. of our mentally handicapped people in the communities they prefer, instead of in specially purchased houses in the so-called community outside.
I say this because, although no one seems to be able to make exact cost comparisons, we at Rescare believe that the communities we support can offer full residential, educational and occupational facilities for the mentally handicapped at some 40 per cent. of the cost of similar facilities under the community care programme. I put this statistic to my noble friend in a Written Question and she did not deny it when she answered on 10th January of this year.
Looking at capital costs, we believe that it costs about £30,000 per person less to move someone from a bed in hospital to one of our communities' purpose-built units than it does to move the same person into an ordinary house under the community care policy and to give that person the care which they deserve and which we expect them to have.
The numbers of people upon whom these percentages and savings must sooner or later be calculated are large and growing. I understand that there are about 130,000 severely mentally handicapped adults in the United Kingdom today. Most still live with their families, but they are beginning to live longer than they did (a new phenomenon) and a much greater proportion than hitherto of the highly dependent are beginning to outlive their parents. There is the baby bulge problem there, too. I fear that our planners have not really started thinking about the greatly increased need which is on the way and, with the greatest respect, I suggest that they start to do so urgently. Rescare would be more than happy to co-operate.
In conclusion, I believe that there are sufficient worries about the way our community care policy is actually working out in practice to justify its national evaluation as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I hope any survey will not merely conclude that more money is the answer. I hope that it will look at some of the deeper issues which lie beneath the surface of the problems we are discussing, which I have not had time to go into today, such as the way in which social workers and others are trained to deal with the very difficult situations that they will have to face. But, above all, I hope it will take a fair and dispassionate look at the contribution which sheltered and village communities might make to the sad and difficult problems we are discussing today.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, this debate has been preceded by a very interesting discussion on the value of three-hour debates themselves. My noble friend Lady Jay has promoted a debate which underlines everything said about the value of such debates. I agree very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, earlier today on the possibility of having proper debates in two-and-a-half or three hours. I feel strongly about that. This is a place of debate. It is of great regret to me not to be able to pick up points raised in the Chamber and to expand on them, deal with them or deny them. That is the purpose of debate. I hope that the business managers will take note of the deficiencies of the two-and-a-half or three hour debate, as well as the good reasons for promoting them.
In preparation for this debate I made inquiries at Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham, with which I am well acquainted, and with the Birmingham Social Services Department. I shall state my conclusion at the beginning of my remarks since I may not have time to give it at the end. Those bodies confirm my own knowledge and observations; namely, the fear that once again we are engaged in a Treasury-led exercise which is dealing with a subject of great importance, not from the point of view of assessing what are the standards of care which we must insist upon and then addressing the question as to how we can, as economically as possible, provide for those standards, but the other way round. It looks to see how much money they can save and the amount of finance which is available and then try to adjust everything to that point of view.
A senior medical man at Dudley Road Hospital summed up for me the problem which he faces in this large inner city hospital, of which I had the privilege of being chairman for about 15 years. He said, "Please give this message to the Government: do not pull the rug from under the hospital care service until an adequate domiciliary service is in place and is properly funded".
As I have said, in a debate like this one can only speak in headlines, which I shall do, resting content in the knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, of all Ministers, will pay attention to what we say and give every consideration to the points, even if she is unable to reply to each of them today. In a limited debate that is all we can expect.
One of the issues which has come to my notice is the civil liberties of people in hospital whom the services are trying to get out of hospital. I endorse the 85 per cent. figure which my noble friend gave. It is a ludicrous proposal for a city like Birmingham, with a million people, to say that 85 per cent. of its budget in this area has to be spent in the private sector. It is nonsense. There is no private sector provision in Birmingham which can possibly deal with the needs of a million people. If that restriction is applied, the Government are automatically saying, "We shall restrict the amount of care available to people in need".
I have been told of hospital patients anxious to leave hospital who have been offered two or three alternatives of private accommodation which either they cannot afford or they do not like. But they have been forced out

269
into residential accommodation, where they do not wish to go. That is a very important civil liberty point. It does not matter how old, frail or infirm patients are; they have the right to decide where they want to live if they are to be turned out of hospital. Incidentally, I am told time and time again that we are turning a great many people out of hospital far too soon with the inevitable result that they are returning to hospital, often in a more difficult situation than was originally the case. I hope that notice will be taken of that issue.
The quick turnover is being aggravated by the inability of many general practitioners to get their patients into hospital in the normal way, particularly because of the reduction in the number of beds. So time and again I have been given evidence to show that doctors are having to resort to emergency procedures to get their patients into hospital, and that is totally unsatisfactory.
It may help the House to understand the position in a city like Birmingham when I say that the number of whole-time nurses in the health service has remained static in Birmingham at about 450 from 1986 to 1993 as a result of all the changes. That represents a very serious reduction in the quality of service.
Perhaps I may make another quick point to the Minister, although it it does not refer to her department. There is no national housing strategy for providing for elderly people who have to be moved out of hospital and into institutions but who want to go into their own homes. Such a strategy needs to become an important and fundamental provision. The Department of the Environment should provide such a housing strategy both to local authorities and housing associations. I very much hope that that point will be taken on board.
I take the point about the increased burdens of home care. Again, I understand from what I am told by social service departments that many of their customers or patients, especially working-class people, are being denied proper home care arrangements because the home help service is being run down. Nothing gives people more pride than to see that their home is clean and tidy. However, that now goes by the board, much to the distress of many people.
The issue of mental health beds has been raised. The figures are appalling, but I do not have the time to give them all. It is clear, however, that when we have decanted large numbers of people out of the mental hospitals, we have not made adequate community provision for them or provided adequate funds for the local authorities. There is a large unmet need. One of the questions that I have been asked to put to the Minister is: will the Government consider measuring the unmet need in our society? Unless we can measure it and unless it can be monitored constantly, it is impossible to provide for that need and we are therefore talking from a position of ignorance.
I hope that some of the points that I have made—I could have made many more—will demonstrate how successful the debate has been in allowing us all to raise such matters. Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that I hope that it will not be another year before we return to them. We have to have a policy of constant
270
vigilance on behalf of the millions of elderly and frail people in our population than for whom we bear no greater responsibility.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for initiating this debate. I venture to speak as chairman of Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People. I am conscious that I speak following, and in the presence of, my noble friend Lord Holderness, who is the foundation's president.
The foundation is for those with physical disabilities, not mental ones. I can understand the special difficulties of returning the latter to the community—my noble friend Lord Pearson referred to that group—but I do not accept that premise for physically disabled people. The purpose of the foundation is to equip those with physical disabilities with the skills that they require to lead as independent a life as is within their capability. In that object, the concept of care in the community was not new to us and we do not argue with its indisputable merit.
Disabled people want to be regarded as equal to their able-bodied peers. However, many are unlikely to achieve that ambition without assistance. The basic requirements are simple. They are the ability to look after themselves physically and to be able to cook and to shop. To do that, they must also have mobility, a case that was eloquently put by my noble friend Lord Holderness, who is somebody who knows. Finally, they must, wherever possible, find employment and, with it, financial independence as well.
The practical effect of putting into practice the commendable concept of breaking down the doors of the confining institutions, without having first equipped their inmates with those skills, threatens to drop a large number of people into an abyss. They will subside into their families under the patronage of state benefits and, because the majority have neither the inclination nor the self-confidence to complain, there they will remain, unnoticed. The foundation is providing a range of services, but its main ethos is to prevent that happening.
Perhaps I may give two examples. We had a teenage girl come to us at the foundation who had been born with no arms and reduced and deformed legs. Her family were unable to do anything for her. After two years with us, she went on to achieve a first-class honours degree in art at Sussex University. She is employed, owns her own house with a mortgage and not only drives but has passed the test of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Again, a young man had viral encephalitis and could neither walk nor speak. After three years at the foundation, he could both walk and speak and is now in further education in Blackpool. I could mention many other instances of rehabilitation that we have achieved, some of which are more remarkable than others, but time does not allow it. But I believe that few, if any, would have acquired the skills and, above all, the confidence to attain independence without help.
There are four points which I believe emerge from this. First, it is not enough to will the desirable end of

271
releasing people from the institutional imprisonment of disability, which I understand is the driving force behind care in the community, without thinking about the means to achieve that end satisfactorily. Secondly, I believe that much of what is required is already in place in the independent charitable sector. The foundation is only one provider among many. Thirdly, money provided by government to employ those facilities is money well spent. That is so because it both relieves families and carers from what are sometimes intolerable strains and because it is a good investment if it turns those who would otherwise spend their lives as clients of the welfare state into employed taxpayers.
Fourthly, I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that I believe the independent charitable sector to be ahead of the game in certain aspects of national evaluation, at least in the field of physical disability in which I work. If we are to be effective, it is essential that people with disabilities should know where to find the services that are available to them. Queen Elizabeth's Foundation has, in my view, devised the best available system for making accessible the information that is required.
Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, kindly consented to launch a directory of opportunities for school-leavers with disabilities. It is a compilation of all the courses in the country that are available to them, codified by area.
The foundation has also produced a computerised program which is designed to be accessible from terminals placed in public libraries, hospitals and any other place that is readily accessible to the public. On that program are listed all the facilities that are available for disabled people nationally. Since it is designed to be used on a county basis, it also has an empty filing system for inserting those that are known locally. It is an extravagance to collect the same information more than once. If it would be any help to my noble friend the Minister, I am happy to offer her access to that program—for our usual fee.
In summary, I think the reason that we feel somewhat disconcerted by the concept of care in the community is that the cart seems to have got itself in front of the horse. The concept is there, but where are the practical means of executing it? I feel sure that, at least in my own field, the means to make it work are there. But the policy should be clear. Before people are returned to the community, they should first be assessed and, where possible, be prepared to look after themselves.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving us this timely opportunity to discuss care in the community. I must declare three interests which will influence my contribution. I am a non-executive director of the West Lambeth Community Care (NHS) Trust, a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing and a patron of the charity RESCARE, which is committed to the provision of good residential care for the mentally handicapped.
As a member of West Lambeth Community Care
272
NHS Trust, I wish to commend many excellent initiatives that have been achieved within community care not just in Lambeth but in many other places. I, like many of your Lordships, have been moved and deeply encouraged to see how some developments in care in the community have brought a new quality of life, new dignity and new independence to many people who were previously in residential institutions, including many frail elderly people, many mentally handicapped people and many of those suffering from mental illness. It is good to have the opportunity this afternoon to pay tribute to those in the health services and social services who have contributed to those achievements. But there are also many problems. It is because of those that I support the Motion for a national evaluation.
Time permits me to give only a few examples of the problems. First, as a patron of RESCARE, like my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I share the deep anxieties of many families with mentally handicapped relatives. I use the term "mentally handicapped" because they prefer that term to the current politically correct terminology, and I respect their wishes. There is widespread, acute concern over the lack of adequate residential accommodation in the community for mentally handicapped people discharged from long-stay institutions. Of course many have settled happily into local authority-provided care, and we welcome and appreciate that, but many others are very unhappy, lonely and neglected. Life for a mentally handicapped and/or multiply handicapped person in a small house on a busy high street can be much more institutionalised and confining than in a larger community with a sheltered environment, diverse recreational and occupational facilities and company among people with similar life opportunities. Moreover, many parents of mentally handicapped children who are caring for their relative at home are themselves growing older and are deeply worried about what will happen to their child when they die. Those families are shouldering a colossal burden now—a point made by many other contributors to the debate —but too many of them are receiving no adequate reassurance from their local social services about what will happen to their loved ones when they can no longer care for them themselves.
RESCARE believes, on the basis of experience in this country and elsewhere, that the village community concept is one which should be supported by the Government as one option of care. As my noble friend has said, a majority of those families want that form of care for their relative. But the Government have dropped village communities from their list of recommended options. I, too, should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will reconsider their position in order to meet their own commitments to the principles of diversity, choice and accountability, as well as cost-effectiveness and, more important in my book, care effectiveness.
Widespread problems are caused also by a shortage of appropriate care in the community for many patients discharged from mental hospitals. That is a point already touched upon by other noble Lords. In particular, the paucity of secure, sheltered and

273
supportive environments for people with conditions such as schizophrenia may render them a danger to themselves and/or others.
There appears to be a difficulty in practice arising from the wording of the Mental Health Act for patients appealing against sections requiring compulsory detention in a mental hospital. As the wording stands, patients can be refused an appeal only if all of three specified criteria are met: that they are perceived to be a danger to themselves or others; and that the hospital is providing effective treatment; and there is no alternative accommodation outside the hospital. That formulation means that in some cases there may be a patient who is regarded as a danger to self and/or others but who can win an appeal for immediate discharge if the hospital cannot prove that it is providing any effective therapy. That may be difficult sometimes with some psychiatric conditions.
The result of that wording is that some patients may be in a position to win an immediate appeal against continuing detention under a section order, even when the medical staff responsible believe that they may be a danger to themselves or to others. That makes it even more imperative to have an adequate range of care provisions in the community, including those which provide a relatively secure and supportive environment for such people. Without that provision, there is a risk that the kind of tragedy which occurred with Christopher Clunis may recur. Perhaps I may therefore ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government could give especially urgent consideration to the recommendations in the Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis, in particular those contained in paragraph 51.0.9 which concern adequate provision of medium secure units, for supportive environments, and for haven-type accommodation in the community for such people.
Finally, perhaps I may highlight one of the concerns expressed by the RCN over shortfalls in qualified nurses working in the community, providing support for vulnerable groups such as the frail elderly and the mentally ill. When the numbers of people coming into the community needing care are increasing because of demographic change and current policies, it is worrying that cuts are proposed in the number of nurses to be trained: an RCN report on nursing students shows a decline from 87,500 in 1983 to 56,870 now, but the Government have recommended a further 20 per cent. cut in 1994–95 which will result in a predicted student nurse population of only 40,000. That will mean a 54 per cent. reduction by 1997 compared with 1993. If that trend continues, the disparity between the need for qualified nursing care and the availability of qualified staff will become acute.
I therefore support strongly the Motion for a national evaluation. Where policies are working well and good practice is established, it is important to recognise and promote them, but where there are problems, it is urgent that they are identified and addressed as soon as possible because in health and social care problems mean suffering; and in the case of community care, that suffering is often experienced by some of the most vulnerable members of our society: the elderly, the
274
mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, those least able to articulate their needs or to assert themselves. I believe that an evaluation should commend itself to a government who are committed to the concepts of quality care, freedom of choice and principles of accountability; and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a reassuring response to concerns over current problems and a sympathetic response to the suggestion for a national evaluation.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for having introduced the debate. An evaluation of community services after one year is highly desirable. I know that my noble friend Lady Seear said that it was perhaps a short time since the National Health Service and Community Care Act was first introduced, but I believe that it is desperately important that that evaluation takes place now, because we are, after all, setting out the new plans for the forthcoming year. One cannot make meaningful plans unless one has the evaluation of what has happened previously.
I remember clearly the Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, when we all welcomed the principle that, if possible, people should be able to remain in the community and stay in their own homes, because we felt that that would make for a better life for such people. It is right, therefore, that after a year we should ask 'whether that Act has worked. We should also ask whether we have achieved a balance between the closure of hospital beds and the provision of care in the community, and whether the provisions of the Act have been implemented across the country.
It was inevitable from the beginning that most of the caring in the community would have to be undertaken by family members, most of whom would be happy to undertake that care on the understanding that the services and support they need would be available within the community.
The aim of the Act was that the support should be provided and that the existing services should be generally improved. In examining what has happened we must keep in mind the fact that the Institute of Actuaries has estimated that the family carers save the country £30 billion per year. In our view about whether we have sufficient resources to help the carers we must never forget the enormous sums of money which they save the community, often by making heavy sacrifices.
The most important point is that carers should be involved in the planning and assessment process of the patient. Furthermore, they should be offered a separate assessment of their own. It is also important that they should have the right to choose not to be carers, and therefore alternative care provision must be in place. We are not all naturally good carers; I do not know that I would be a good carer. That right should exist and it should not be taken for granted that, just because one is a member of the family, one must be a carer.
Has that happened? The Royal College of Nursing, whose representative has just spoken to your Lordships, estimates that one in four older people most at risk are

275
not receiving any statutory services. A recent survey carried out by the National Federation of Women's Institutes revealed that 52 per cent. of full-time carers are never able to take an occasional week off. Support for the carers which is separate from that available for the patient must be provided. Most importantly, a carer should be able to have at least two weeks off in a year so that he or she can be his or her own person. Carers should also have the statutory right to have one day off a week. That should be built into the assessment process in order that these breaks should always exist.
Reference was made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to carers who are looking after patients with Alzheimer's disease. A relative looking after such a patient cannot take any time off during the 24 hours of the day. Frequently the patient cannot be trusted even when he or she is supposed to be asleep in bed, and the pressure on carers is therefore enormous.
Rural carers have also been seriously neglected. As a result of isolation, they are of particular concern. Frequently they have less easy access to the support services which we expect our community carers to have available to them. Often it is not even possible for them to go out shopping for half a day. Rural carers more than any others are thrown back upon the companionship of their patient. It is not possible for them to have much communication with other people living in the community and therefore we must concentrate on ensuring that support services exist for them.
The lack of services give rise to certain problems because it helps to create a bed blockage in accident and emergency departments. Elderly patients waiting for assessment are blocking the beds. Nurses carry out assessment on the admission of a patient. When a hospital considers that the patient is ready to leave, a further assessment is undertaken by the social services. In making those assessments there is insufficient communication between the hospital and the social services and a great deal of effort and time is wasted.
Much has also been said about the reduction in the number of psychiatric beds. Has the number been reduced to such an extent that we are endangering the patients and society? Examples such as the Clunis murder of Mr. Zito have been given. The problem is particularly acute in London. I understand that the average bed occupancy in four London hospitals ranges from 100 per cent. to 130 per cent.
Do we have enough community psychiatric nurses? The number may sound large but it is estimated that there are as many as 4,000 seriously mentally ill patients in the community. Those patients are seriously mentally ill. However, there are only 5,000 community psychiatric nurses in the whole country. They must concentrate on the most seriously mentally ill patients and will not be able to give support and preventive support to the many others in need of community nursing. At present only one in five of those who suffer from schizophrenia has access to a community psychiatric nurse.
We cannot close our eyes to those shortages. Our consciences should tell us that we must solve the problem as regards referral beds for psychiatrically ill
276
patients. A young man set fire to his room in the hostel where he was living. He went to the hospital requesting admission. Although it was agreed that he was a sectionable case, there was no available bed in that hospital and none in the nearest medium-secure centre. A further 11 hospitals were contacted to no avail. In the end he had to spend a fortnight in Wormwood Scrubs before a bed was found for him. That is certainly not acceptable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, and the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Holderness, referred to the input which volunteers can make in helping community services. I agree that as volunteers we can do an enormous amount. I am chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends. It has recently changed its constitution in order to call itself Hospital and Community Friends. Most of the patients whom it used to look after in hospitals are out in the community. I wish to voice a worry because our members believe that volunteers are not as happily welcomed by the social services as they were by the hospital authorities. I wish that the Department of Health would give guidance to the social services departments stating that volunteers are enormously useful and helpful. Also, I should like guidance to be given on the legal position of volunteers who visit patients alone in their homes. There could be problems as regards insurance. I should like the department to resolve those problems. All volunteers want to help and want to try to do their best to make the community care legislation work.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend's Motion and her introductory speech have stimulated a very well informed and—I hope the noble Baroness agrees—useful debate.
In considering the state of community care, I thought that it would be useful to look at one of the foundation stones of the community care part of the 1990 legislation; namely, the report by Sir Roy Griffiths entitled Community Care: Agenda for Action. That is an excellent report. The case is so well argued that the Government had to follow its basic recommendations which gave local authorities and their social services departments in particular the lead role in the provision of community care, despite the Government's systematic attempt during the past few years to diminish the power of local authorities.
However, the Government have attempted to continue the process of diminishing the local authorities' role by requiring 85 per cent. of the (eventually) ring-fenced additional grant transferred from the Department of Social Security to be spent in the private sector. That is a far higher percentage than was recommended by Sir Roy. He said:
"Proposals should encourage a proportionate increase in private and voluntary services".
I emphasise that he included voluntary services. He did not prescribe any percentage, but in my view the 85 per cent. is vastly greater than what he had in mind. In fact, voluntary services, particularly those in the field of drug and alcohol rehabilitation, have had to be funded largely

277
from the remaining 15 per cent. to be spent in the public sector. That has meant that those services have had to contract in many areas, although local ingenuity is finding ways round that in some cases.
There is little doubt that everyone, at all levels of society and on all sides of your Lordships' House, wants community care to work. The basic structure of the Act is a good basis from which to work, although, as my noble friend argued, the 85 per cent. provision added by the Government on mainly doctrinaire grounds restricts severely what local authorities can do. However, as my noble friend pointed out, we are very short of reliable, countrywide information on how the legislation is working.
One survey which has been mentioned by noble Lords is that carried out by the British Medical Association last October. The association received replies from 553 doctors working in community care. That was six months after the Act came into force. That survey revealed that not all was well because 39.5 per cent. of the total said that services for patients had deteriorated, while only 15 per cent. said that they had improved. At least some said that they had improved. Rather significantly, of the 128 psychiatrists surveyed, 52 per cent. said that services were worse and only 11.2 per cent. said that they were better; 55.7 per cent. of the geriatricians surveyed said that the new system was delaying rather than improving the provision of care in the community and 71 per cent. said that bed blocking had increased. They said that an extra 24 days of hospital stay per patient had resulted because of delays in getting assessments and then, following the assessments, there were delays in implementing the recommendations made in those assessments.
Sir Roy Griffiths said that social services departments should develop and sustain informal and voluntary community care resources by supporting informal carers. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred eloquently to that. Of course, informal carers still care for by far the largest group of disabled people. Sir Roy recommended also that volunteers and voluntary organisations were deserving of support.
An important part of the support which carers need, as many noble Lords have pointed out, is respite care to allow a break from the long periods of continuous responsibility which they have. The evidence that there is not enough respite: care has been given by a number of noble Lords. It is the British Medical Association's policy that more respite care should be provided. It is not only the Labour Party that thinks that. I do not believe that that necessarily means that the British Medical Association is very far to the Left, as was perhaps suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. The Women's Institute survey has been referred to by a number of noble Lords.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord did not get me wrong. I was joking in my suggestion. The BMA is a responsible organisation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I rather hoped that the noble Lord would realise that I was joking too.
278
I am not saying that the new system is all bad; quite the contrary. Apart from the diversion of funds to the private sector, there is a real attempt in the country to make community care work. In some parts of the country matters are improving. One of those appears to be the district of Bassetlaw in Nottingham, which was the subject of a British Medical Journal article this week. Some rural or semi-rural local authorities may find the transition easier than inner city areas. That is not only because of the favourable share of the transitional financial cake, which my noble friend mentioned, that they are receiving compared with the cities. It is also because inner city areas are much more difficult to deal with.
In many cities, despite the greater concentration of people, there is a lack of sense of community because of a shifting population, poor housing conditions and high unemployment. Although the standard spending assessments, which will more and more take over the funding of community care, are weighted towards deprivation, they are not sufficiently weighted in that direction. As other noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend Lord Howell, have pointed out, inner cities are doing badly. It is in those areas that social services departments have the most difficulty in maintaining good community care.
It is in those areas that one of the worst effects of the private sector requirement is evident. Nearly all the money has to go on residential care because that is where the private provision is. That leaves social services short of money to provide imaginative schemes for keeping people in their own homes. Even before last April, local authorities were having to decant elderly, infirm people into homes which were well outside the districts where their younger relatives or former neighbours lived. That made it difficult for those people to visit. That is largely because the private sector homes cannot afford to operate in the inner cities where housing costs are higher and staff are more expensive and difficult to retain. I believe that that process will only become worse under the present requirements. The Government could help to retain a stronger sense of community in the inner cities if they were to relax the 85 per cent. rule for those local authorities which have very few residential homes in the centre of their area.
Many noble Lords mentioned the Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis. It is a very important report and gives a chilling account of what is wrong with the operation of the present system of community care for the mentally ill. The fact that the events described took place before April 1993, when the community care Act came into force, does not diminish the importance of its conclusions and recommendations. Indeed, they are just as applicable today. However, it is a sad reflection that it takes the murder by one patient and the mauling by a lion of another to sting a government into action.
As I said, the report is chilling; it details many missed opportunities when the course of events could have been changed. Nevertheless, it is also very humane and fair to everyone involved. In particular, it praises Mrs. Jayne Zito, the widow of the victim, Jonathan Zito. Its recommendations are clear. Moreover, in her

279
response to the report, as well as promising the well-publicised £10 million for London's mental health services, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley also agreed to one of its principal recommendations, which states:
"A new power of supervised discharge will underpin the care programme for the most vulnerable people … patients who do not comply with their programme of care may be recalled compulsorily to the hospital".
The Ritchie Report gives some useful advice on the detailed operation of such a power. I would welcome a brief description from the Minister on how that power will operate without discouraging those patients who are seeking to become independent and whose health is actually improving. At page 123 the Clunis report says:
"It has been difficult to understand the objectives of services other than to achieve ever more rapid turnover of inpatients. Judging from the example of Christopher Clunis … responsibility, once a patient has left hospital, has usually been vague or misunderstood, leading staff to work in the dark. Communication has often been duplicated or not done at all".
I return now to the theme of the debate. The report recommends that the Department of Health should set up proper procedures for effective monitoring of psychiatric services in the community. It is our contention on these Benches that the monitoring of community care as a whole needs to be strengthened. For example, there should be reports on a regular basis which should not be restricted to mundane statistics; they should honestly describe shortcomings and the reasons for them, including underfunding where applicable, and should be published in an easily accessible form. They may answer some of the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
We should not forget the enormous amount of good work—informal, voluntary and professional—which is taking place. That also should be reported; good practice in one place can be adapted and taken up elsewhere. (I see that I have exceeded my allotted time, but there is still at least half an hour to go before the debate is due to finish.)
It is the job of government to make the task of those working in the community more satisfying and effective, rather than, as Sir Roy Griffiths put it, having to grapple with problems at local level which make them feel that the Israelites faced with the requirement to make bricks without straw had a comparatively routine and possible task.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like, first, to add my thanks to those expressed by all speakers in today's debate to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving the House the opportunity to debate community care almost a year after the full implementation of the new arrangements. Her insight and perception were, as always, evident, as were those of other noble Lords who took part in today's wide-ranging and interesting discussions.
We know only too well from our own experience that most of our great social institutions—the police, the National Health Service and education—look to and thrive upon the active involvement of the public. We support the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
280
Bristol. But, by and large, we are not a society that is content to shuffle off our responsibilities onto agencies of the state: we recognise the imperative of caring for our neighbour and we know that many people seek to put that principle into practice.
That is why so many people in this country are prepared to devote long hours each day to care for a dependent friend or relative. That is why many, willingly, bring comfort and support to friends and neighbours who are not linked by family bonds. Of course, a great many people prefer it that way, as was so clearly elucidated by my noble friend Lord Holderness. I suspect that there are very few people in your Lordships' House—and we know that there are only a minority in the country—who would not rather live out their lives to a ripe old age in their own homes and die in their own beds.
However, we also recognise that many elderly and disabled people live alone and often with a sense of trepidation. They are fearful to have an unlocked door or an open window. They worry that neighbours may turn violent through drink or drugs or because they are common criminals. They dread isolation and a future in which they are both unloved and unneeded. In such cases, we seek to ensure that those who are in a position to help, mainly the local authorities, are able to respond quickly and with compassion. Where the problems are most acute, such as in relation to people who suffer from a severe mental illness, that response must be thorough, sensitive and effective.
There is no argument that the principle of the community care Act is right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, we all want it to succeed. Moreover, as my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, such a tremendous shift in policy cannot be achieved at lightning speed, without any problems and to the same high standard everywhere. The reforms give the lead role to social services departments and in doing so make the assessment of an individual person's needs the pivot, the fount from which all else flows.
That is a marked change and requires social services staff, community nurses, GPs and many others to work differently. Organisations providing care in the community, whether residential or home-based, independent, private or voluntary, have also had to adapt to new ways of working, particularly working in close partnership. Money has been transferred from social security to enable that to happen. New procedures have had to be designed, assessment arrangements put into place and financial and information systems installed.
It is a massive agenda and one which will take years before all the benefits are realised. At its outset, we said that community care was a programme for a decade not a quick overnight fix. I shall try to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—not an easy challenge—on the question of resources. Many speakers today expressed their concern on that front, especially the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Give and Lord Howell. However, we have put huge resources into that area. For this year and the next three, the special transitional grant is

281
ring-fenced: £565 million this year. We will make available a total of £1.2 billion next year and £1.8 billion in 1995–6, amounting to over £2.2 billion in 1996–7.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is always eloquent in putting the case for supporting carers. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords will be pleased to learn that we have been able to allocate £20 million next year and £30 million the year after to give a boost to day and respite services. And of course the mainstream personal social services element of the standard spending assessment for local government totals over £3.3 billion, with a near doubling of SSA, plus STG from £3.6 billion in 1990–91 to £6.4 billion in 1994–95.
It is simply not true to say that authorities lost from this year's distribution of the special transitional grant. A thorough examination of the formula would reveal that all those authorities received far more than would have been spent by the social security system on their residents had the old system continued. Standard spending assessments for personal social services are based on a complex and carefully considered formula. One of the most important factors is the local population of elderly people who may be in need of services.
Furthermore, the changes we have made to the special transitional grant benefit many of the authorities to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, referred. Manchester will receive an increase of 41 per cent. next year, while Wigan will receive an increase of 54 per cent. and Leeds 51 per cent. We can fairly claim that as regards community care we have put our money where our policy is. But, of course, there will never be unlimited resources. However, the strength of our reforms is that, above all, decisions on how to allocate resources are now made on the basis of people's assessed needs.
Both health and local authorities have made a sound and promising start. My noble friend Lady Eccles, drawing on her experience as the chairman of a commissioning agency, pointed out to us the enormous initial effort that has been invested in getting this system working. The framework is now in place and the system is beginning to work. The Audit Commission, whose initiative in the mid-1980s was vital in focusing attention on this policy, commented recently in its report Taking Care that,
"So far, implementation has proceeded smoothly—a major achievement for all concerned, given the many forecasts of disaster".
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will, I am sure, be pleased to learn that we entirely agree with the main thrust of the Motion before us today. It incorporates a central feature of the Government's approach. We do need a proper programme of monitoring and evaluation. In the run-up to last April's start, a vast effort was put into ensuring that all authorities were in a position to handle these new responsibilities. The department published an array of guidance, supported authorities through conferences and visits and, of course, established the community care support force. During this first year of implementation, the focus has been on ensuring that all
282
authorities have basic systems in place. Every social services and health authority has been visited at least twice.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol drew your Lordships' attention to the evaluation of the Social Services Inspectorate and to the NHS Management Executive's 14 special studies into specific areas of the reforms. The report of the first six of those studies, entitled First Impressions, has recently been published. This should help authorities to move further forward. Much of this monitoring has already produced tangible results. Some local authorities have recognised that their procedures are too complex and are revising and simplifying them.
We have not yet finalised our programme for next year but this will need to reflect both authorities' growing competence and how best to help them in the future. For example, there is already quite a lot of evidence that where local care managers have devolved budgets, they can purchase a range of imaginative services to suit individuals that would not have been possible under the old system. In one case a man aged 81 was discharged from hospital because his 70 year-old wife was adamant that she wanted him living at home. His house was adapted, district nurses called to wash and dress him and put him to bed and respite was made available. I think it could be argued that this could have happened before the 1st of April last year but the attitudes then were very different and probably he would have been discharged into a residential home.
In another case, an 89 year-old man with lung cancer lives with his son who works long hours. The man cannot prepare himself a midday meal and his son was unable to get home until early evening. But rather than have a meal delivered, the father expressed a preference for someone to come in and prepare a meal for him. This has now been arranged through a private home care agency at a cost which is actually less than the local authority's meals on wheels service. That is an important point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Rea, questioned whether we should continue with our policy of requiring 85 per cent. of the grant to be spent in the private and voluntary sectors. The purpose of this condition is to make sure that people get a choice. If the old system using the social security money had continued, all of the social security transfer money would have been spent in the independent sector on residential care. It is hardly unreasonable to expect authorities to spend 85 per cent. of that money in the independent sector now, and we hope that they will increasingly spend more on domiciliary services. That is in fact only 60 per cent. of this year's total grant.
We know that the progress we have made cannot happen without considerable effort and energy and we need to ensure that the reforms remain on track. That is why, as well as our monitoring programme—I am sure my noble friend Lady Faithfull will welcome what I am about to say—we have also commissioned independent research from, among others, the Universities of Kent and Leeds and from the National Institute for Social

283
Work. I was interested to learn of the research being undertaken by Stirling University, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, called for national standards, as did other Members of your Lordships' House. We are not talking here about national monitoring but national standard setting. The Government have issued a wide variety of policy and practice guidance and we have a programme of national inspection, but what we do not want to do is to take over the role and the responsibilities of local government. Community care is a service for local people delivered by local agencies. They know far better than us at the centre what is required locally and what the strengths and weaknesses are in the local community. We do not wish to impose on them rigid national standards which may or may not fit into their local circumstances.
We are concerned about the particular needs of special groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and my noble friend Lady Cox have drawn attention to the case of Christopher Clunis which has quite rightly received a lot of national attention. My noble friend Lady Faithfull, with her usual knack of getting straight to the heart of the matter, drew out some of the weaknesses which were highlighted in this tragic case.
As we know, Christopher Clunis killed Mr. Jonathan Zito and that case has been thoroughly examined by the independent inquiry chaired by Miss Jean Ritchie QC. Miss Ritchie's report emphatically endorsed the Government's policy of care in the community but chronicled a series of failures where agencies were not adequately working together. Vital facts about Mr. Clunis were not made known to relevant people. Though all involved were trying to help, time and again no one took responsibility for ensuring that a very vulnerable patient received the treatment he needed. I am sure my noble friend Lady Faithfull will recognise the same elements which used to be so apparent in child protection services. What happened in the Clunis case is the antithesis of what the care programme approach is all about and we are committed to helping local agencies overcome the problems which lay at the heart of these failures. My noble friend Lady Cox will be pleased to learn that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations of the Ritchie Report.
In addition, last August my right honourable friend announced a 10-point plan to reinforce community care for severely mentally ill people. This includes seeking new powers for supervised discharge—as has already been mentioned in the debate—and the introduction of supervision registers and also some revised guidance and training for key workers on the whole question of discharge. We have consulted widely about draft guidance on the discharge of mentally disordered people and their continuing care in the community. We shall also be publishing further guidance, focusing on inter-agency working, which will take account of Miss Ritchie's recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the issue of bed blocking. We agree with her that we need effective
284
hospital discharge. That is vital. Before last April we were regularly told that the so-called bed blocking would increase dramatically and that hospitals would grind to a halt. But our monitoring shows that that has not happened. Indeed, it seems that the new focus on assessment is improving collaboration between hospitals and social services, strengthened by the joint discharge agreements that we have required.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who raised this subject, that those in nursing homes before 1st April 1993 have preserved rights to income support. Those income support rates will rise from April 1994 by considerably more than income support rates in general.
The noble Lord also raised the question of untrained staff doing assessments. We have made it very clear to local authorities that the full range of professional skills must be drawn upon in carrying out these assessments, although of course social services have the lead responsibility.
The noble Lords, Lord Molloy, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Holderness mentioned the BMA survey of community care. We fully recognise that GPs have an important role in community care, although not the central one. They are very often the first point of contact for people who may be in need of help and support. Our own monitoring has confirmed to an extent some of the BMA's findings. There is a need for social services to work more closely with GPs and, indeed, for GPs to reciprocate. We are currently carrying out a special study which will identify good practice that can be used to make improvements in that relationship.
At the same time, I would say that the BMA's own survey contains reasons for optimism. For example, 60 per cent. of those who responded felt that the quality of services for their patients had either stayed the same or improved since 1st April. That, after all, is not a bad result only six months into a major set of well-publicised reforms, particularly from a study in which only one in four of the doctors surveyed chose to respond.
My noble friend Lord Holderness mentioned the question of disabled people and their training and responsibility for their care arrangements. We are sympathetic to the objectives of those who argue that local authorities should be able to make cash payments in lieu of services. However, such a system would inevitably add considerably to local authorities' responsibilities. We do not think it right to consider a shift to direct payments until we have had a good chance to examine how well authorities are coping with their new responsibilities for community care. Unless we look at the wider picture we risk prejudicing the general services which authorities must deliver. I can, however, assure your Lordships' House that we will be keeping this under close and constant review as we gather more evidence about local authorities' performance.
My indefatigable noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox raised again the issue of village communities. I know that my noble friends will be dissatisfied with the answer that I am about to give. They asked me not to reply by saying that village communities are one of the

285
range of services that authorities may purchase. However, that is the simple answer. We do not propose to tell authorities how they should meet individual needs, but we want them to explore the widest possible range of residential and other care.
My noble friend Lord Holderness and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the question of the use of volunteers, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell the independent charitable sector, highlighting the remarkable work of the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for Disabled People. It is an organisation I am well aware of and one which I admire. The Government are committed to the involvement of volunteers in both health and social services. As my noble friends said, they can often perform very valuable tasks. I agree with him that independent organisations are often ahead of the game.
The Department of Health has recently increased its funding of its key Opportunities for Volunteering scheme to nearly £8 million a year. That will support over 500 local projects. With regard to the legal status of volunteers visiting people in their homes, which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned, I shall have to come back to her on that.
In conclusion, community care is exactly what it says: every person in the community contributing their talents to the benefit of their families, friends and neighbours. It is inherently good. So do not let us join in the national spurt of denigrating what is best. We shall need a great effort, particularly in inner cities, to strengthen communities. The need is to encourage: to encourage social workers working in the toughest and at times the most depressing conditions; to support nurses and doctors; pray, and fund the Church initiative; co-operate with the police; cherish employers, support clubs, voluntary organisations and activities that help to build a community; and, above all, sustain the users of our services and care for, and listen to, their views and wishes. The more people who are involved the better will be the monitoring, the greater the success. The state provides professional support but the community also has a part to play, for essentially it is a people's project.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may say that I was very grateful for her saying, as I am sure we all agree, that local authorities should consider the widest possible range of facilities available. If that is so, why can she not agree with the request from my noble friend Lady Cox, from me and from others that village communities should simply be given a level playing field with those other facilities? Why should they be discriminated against? That is the question we are asking. We are not asking for preference; we are just asking for the equal treatment which many people want.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a case of our discriminating against them. We say that it is one of the options that is available, but it is up to local authorities to evaluate the contribution that they feel that village communities can make and then to purchase those services.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful and detailed reply to our debate this afternoon. I was particularly pleased to hear her say that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations of the Ritchie Report on the Christopher Clunis case. I am sure that that will be of great interest to many people working in this field.
I was less happy with her reply in respect of the adoption of national standards for community care, but grateful for those noble Lords who supported that idea.
In general I should like to express my great thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. They have contributed to a very authoritative and well-informed discussion, as is always the case in your Lordships' House on these issues. I was particularly pleased by the support all round the House for the idea of a proper national evaluation of community care. If it was not against the conventions of your Lordships' House I almost feel that I could test the opinion of the House on that subject, but as it is I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

British Railways (No. 2) Order Confirmation Bill
6.17 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

British Railways (No. 3) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Defence
6.18 p.m.
Lord Williamsof Elvel rose to call attention to the case for a full defence review; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I shall seek to achieve three things. First, I shall try to be as precise as possible about what I mean when I speak of a full defence review and what form it might take. Secondly, I hope to indicate at least some of the major questions that such a review will have to address. Thirdly, I hope to demonstrate that it is now time—and indeed that the time has long passed—for the Government to embark on such a review.
My party has said time and time again that we cannot go on slicing up our Armed Forces without a fundamental review of our defence commitments. Recent events in Bosnia are enough to show that those

287
commitments, particularly in UN peacekeeping, have changed radically since the last review. We shall continue to hammer that theme until the Government pay attention. The debate this evening is part of that process.
Since the Second World War there have been four full defence reviews. Each has had somewhat different characteristics. The Sandys review of 1957 was carried out in the aftermath of the Suez debacle when it was clear that our Armed Forces had become unwieldy and much of their equipment obsolete. The conclusion was that British military power could and should be sustained by a new emphasis on nuclear delivery systems, missiles and air transport. In other words, conventional forces were to be run down—for instance, conscription was to end—and an independent nuclear system was to form the centrepiece of strategy. It is noteworthy that the service chiefs were excluded from participating in the review and that no thought was given to reducing the considerable array of commitments that had built up since the war.
In the event, it became impossible to reduce defence expenditure as much as had been hoped. Furthermore, we became dependent on the United States for nuclear delivery technology to a much greater extent than hitherto. The financial implications of that did much to prompt the next review, launched by my noble friend Lord Healey in 1965. A number of changes were made, the most important being the withdrawal from a defence role east of Suez.
The next review was ordered in 1974 by my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. There was a clear difference of approach. Instead of working from the base of financial pressure, the chiefs of staff were actively involved in very detailed consideration of Britain's defence commitments. These were ranked in order of relative importance and only after that the resources that could be devoted to them calculated. As a result, three overarching commitments were deemed central both to national security and to the credibility of NATO: the British contribution to NATO's central front in Germany; anti-submarine forces in the eastern Atlantic; and defence of the UK mainland. Apart from a small force in Cyprus, it was decided that all extra-European commitments for troops permanently on the ground, or ships permanently on station, could be virtually relinquished.
The last review in the post-war series was commissioned by Sir John Nott in 1981. Again, commitments were scrutinised carefully, as in the Mason review. But the analysis took a strange twist. It was the Continental emphasis that emerged as the greatest winner. The conclusions of previous reviews that we still had to have some capability to defend our interests outside the NATO area were not followed through. In that respect, the Nott review was a logical conclusion of the Sandys review of nearly a quarter of a century earlier. The nuclear deterrent would be upgraded; BAOR would be progressively re-equipped; and the navy would shed its remaining out-of-area capability and concentrate on anti-submarine operations in the eastern Atlantic.
288
The measures proposed were, to say the least, as noble Lords know, very controversial. And, of course, the whole issue was thrown into reverse by the Falklands episode, which showed up the basic fallacy of the Sandys-Nott Eurocentric strategy—that it was geared to deterring the greatest but most unlikely threat to the United Kingdom while paying too little attention to the much more probable threats to British interests outside Europe. As a matter of cold, hard fact, I believe that if General Galtieri had waited until 1984 to invade the Falklands, he would in all probability still be there.
Not unnaturally, the Nott review was treated extremely harshly by its critics. Perhaps it was that criticism, as much as a realisation that a defence review could be an inflexible process if handled badly, that deterred the Government from calling their next effort a defence review. The next effort was, of course, the now famous exercise entitled Options for Change, launched by Mr. Tom King in the autumn of 1989. As we know, there were accusations of failure to consult the service chiefs and of an over-powerful Treasury role. But the real problem with Options for Change was that the Treasury was at its most aggressive just at the time when the strategic assumptions about the cold war that had been inherited were themselves becoming outmoded. Furthermore, there was no in-depth analysis of foreign policy issues to accompany the defence exercise. The collapse of the Soviet Union and consequent Russian withdrawal from Eastern Europe were not originally part of the Options scene. Indeed, they were used as the justification for further defence cuts in 1993; and those in turn, as is natural, gave rise to further criticisms of undue Treasury influence.
The result is that defence policy has now fallen into a vacuum—a sort of foreign policy black hole. We have to start looking at how successive announcements of force reductions have been regarded simply as the Treasury method of slicing salami. There has been no attempt to justify them against a carefully explained set of rational criteria. Until that is done, no amount of detailed costings—and there were detailed costings in the recent Defence Estimates White Paper—will be adequate. Our defence policy will still not make overall sense.
The format of a review such as we suggest should broadly follow the Mason review of the 1970s. It should start with a wide-ranging assessment of British foreign policy and security interests. It should then analyse how Britain's Armed Forces could or should sustain them. Finally, there would be a comparison of that result with the resources that are available now and in the future; and it goes without saying that at that stage the Treasury would have a major input to make.
The questions that such a review will have to address are not too difficult to define. There is perhaps first and foremost the question of Russia. What threat can she realistically pose to British security? And is she liable in the future to pose a threat to the general stability of Europe, particularly in the east? That might easily be the case, for instance, if Russia is sensitive to the interests of Russian citizens outside the borders of the Russian Federation, as the recently announced new military doctrine clearly states. Out of that would come the

289
question of what is to be the future extent and role of NAT() and the CSCE, and, within that, what is to be the role of the British nuclear deterrent, both strategic and (that curious expression) sub-strategic.
Following on from those questions would come the related matter of the future security of Western Europe and indeed of Britain herself. Has the European Union a role to play? Is the WEU to be the second pillar of NATO, or will it provide the framework for a future European defence force? Since both the Gulf War and, much more significantly, the break-up of Yugoslavia, have shown that serious military action by the west Europeans requires American participation and thus NATO involvement, is there any point in trying to go beyond the Rapid Reaction Corps? So far as Britain herself is concerned, should we not be looking at the effectiveness of the army in discharging its task of aiding the civil power in Northern Ireland?
Another, and possibly novel, matter for review would be Britain's interest in security in other parts of the world, and in particular our support for the United Nations. At present, and presumably continuing well into the future, there is a host of problems in which the United Nations, if properly organised and equipped, is or should be playing a role. It is not only the former Yugoslavia. Somalia, Angola, the southern Sudan and Cambodia are all on the agenda. Tomorrow's agenda may well include Palestine and South Africa. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we have a particular responsibility to the United Nations. Given our large historical and commercial interests in South Africa. for example, it is difficult to see how we could refuse participation in a United Nations transitional force in the republic, if it is asked for. Given the proximity to Israel of British bases in Cyprus, the same is true of the Levant. Does that then mean that the UN and other peacekeeping forces should be a defence priority? If it does, how might that affect the future structure of our Armed Forces?
Your Lordships will realise that I am putting all the matters that I suggest for discussion in the form of questions. It can only be thus because it would be manifestly absurd for me to try to give any answers. That is precisely what the defence review would be designed to do. Furthermore, I have not even mentioned such vitally important matters as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a comprehensive test ban treaty, particularly after President Clinton's decision yesterday to extend the moratorium on US nuclear testing, the Partnership for Peace agenda in Eastern Europe and the future of the UK's defence industries. All those are matters which need to be reviewed and studied.
What I hope I have done this evening briefly is to explain to your Lordships why we believe that a full defence review is now timely and necessary. Up to now the Government have taken a different view. Mr. Rifkind has said that a new defence review would not provide any information not currently available and would anyway be futile since defence is always under review. There are mini-reviews of particular support services from time to time, but the failure to bring everything together in a coherent manner is, I believe,
290
leading to a lack of co-ordination between foreign policy-making and our force structures. If this goes on, we will soon—if we are not already there—find ourselves in the position graphically described by the same Mr. Rifkind at last autumn's Conservative Party Conference when he said:
"There is a limit to how far we can cut our forces and maintain the same commitments and capacity to defend ourselves and our vital interests … We must avoid creating a hollow force—an armed force that looks formidable but is in fact a paper tiger".
We believe that we are close to that limit, and that sums up neatly the case for a full defence review. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Government have embarked on two defence reviews. There is the defence costs study which is an attempt to save some £2.3 billion in three years by rationalising the support services. On these Benches we support the principle of rationalisation. To take one small example, we have never understood why each of the three services requires its own medical and dental services. But we say strongly that the point of the review must be to free resources for the front line, not simply to reduce the PBR. The Government have made it quite plain that they take a different view and that the point is to save money for the Treasury.
The second defence review upon which the Government have embarked was described by the noble Viscount in a letter to me, for which I am grateful, as a,
"major independent review, not of conditions and allowances only but of the whole area of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service".
Again, on these Benches we do not oppose that in principle. There are anomalies which have built up over the years; for example, in Bosnia where, unlike other UN peacekeeping forces, the British forces are financially handicapped by losing the cost of living allowance which they get in Germany. That anomaly ought to be ironed out straight away.
For this kind of review it is essential that there should be sufficient military input into the review at the top level. The disaster of doing otherwise was well shown by the Sheehy Report into the police. We must have a military man at the top of the review as well. However, that is not the view of the Government. The noble Viscount wrote to me about,
"a review team comprising an independent chairman and some three or four independent members".
They would be helped by "external consultancy assistance". In other words, the review will be conducted by people with little or no experience of the essential requirements of a military force: loyalty, courage, endurance, initiative, discipline. You do not get those things by pressing keys on a computer and coming up with some utopian management structure. There is need for a military input at the top; otherwise, like Sheehy, we shall have serious errors of judgment and needless resentment from the Armed Forces.
The Government are not conducting the type of review described so thoughtfully by the noble Lord, Lord Williams —namely, fitting future resources to future commitments. They are reducing our resources and failing to reduce commitments accordingly. Thus,

291
they are creating serious overstretch in the services, as we all know. My noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter will deal with the need to share commitments with our allies and for closer defence collaboration with the European Union, especially with procurement.
I wish to deal simply with the one major commitment that we cannot share with our allies. I refer, of course, to the Falkland Islands. At present the cost is formidable and the future cost will be still more formidable. According to the Defence White Paper, we have permanently stationed there an infantry group, an engineering field squadron, a squadron of the RAF regiment with supporting services; submarines, frigates, Chinooks, Sea Kings, Tornados and Hercules. The direct cost of protection is bad enough, but much heavier is the cost of the reinforcement capability which the White Paper says is necessary. The future cost will be still more.
Happily, relations with the Argentine have greatly improved. The Argentine Government, democratically elected, have repeatedly condemned the invasion and insist that no such criminal action will ever be taken again. Yet the question remains: will the centuries-old conflict over sovereignty ever go away? Unfortunately, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it will. Even today, in comparatively calm conditions, a democratically elected Argentine president feels obliged to declare that the islands will be Argentinian by the end of the century.
I remember the ferocity with which, 30 years ago, speaking by invitation to the Argentine Parliament, I was assailed with shouts of: "Give us back the Malvinas". However irrational it may be, for the Argentinians the claim is a deep-rooted issue of national pride and it will not go away. I said that the claim was irrational, but we have to remember that while the world community supported us against the Argentine aggression, it opposes us on our legal claim to sovereignty and urges us to negotiate.
The Government not only refuse to negotiate, they now seriously offend the Argentinians by excluding them from the early stages of oil exploration—a prospect with enormous possibilities that could transform the whole area and which, of course, raises acutely the question of sovereignty and ownership. The Argentine Foreign Minister said last year:
"We have made it clear that in the absence of an understanding, we will not accept oil exploration and exploitation activities in the disputed area".
In the meantime, for reasons that are not clear, the Argentine Government have ordered 36 Skyhawks from the United States. Have the Government worked out the future cost of maintaining a credible deterrent? They refuse negotiation, simply pledging themselves to enforcing without time limit the wishes of the islanders. "Without time limit"—that is the point.
Fourteen years ago the then Conservative Government proposed that sovereignty should be transferred to the Argentine in 25 years. That might have led to a settlement. However, the Government changed their mind and, in effect, gave the islanders a veto on transference; and war followed. Today they
292
reaffirm that the wishes of the islanders must be paramount. That means that their wishes could for an indefinite period of time override basic national interests of this country. I believe that that goes too far. We have strong obligations to the islanders and we have fulfilled them at enormous cost. But they have obligations to us, too, in return. Thus, a defence review which seriously tried to match future resources with future commitment would say that Britain must start creating conditions now for a slow and honourable withdrawal from our Falklands commitment.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I apologise for any discourtesy in not being able to remain throughout this debate. For weeks now it has been arranged for me to address honourable Members from another place on the subject of our Reserve Forces. I felt that my duty lay equally there. So I ask the indulgence of the House if I break away during the debate, aiming to return before the end.
If there was ever doubt of the need to formulate a coherent vision of the role that this country means to play in today's uncertain and unstable world, it has surely been dispelled by the uncertainty that we witnessed as the Government slowly made up their mind whether or not to send troops to Bosnia to reinforce the remarkable success achieved by a British general. Eventually, of course, the pressures of what was happening on the ground left the Government no option but to send a substantial contribution in the shape of 900 men. That, of course, I warmly welcome. But it might have been easier if there had been a clearer understanding of where the former Yugoslavia fitted into our strategic perspective, and where this country's interests really lay.
In any national defence policy there have to be three elements: the financial and economic element; inevitably, a political element; and, of course, very much a strategic element linked to our foreign policy. The trouble is that at present we conduct our defence business with only two of those elements firmly in place. There is plenty of the financial element. Although Minsters made some effort to insist that Options for Change was not Treasury led but was a rational, reasonable response to a changing world, no one can make the same claim for the latest exercise of finding over £1.5 billion over the next three years. That is entirely Treasury led, and is arbitrary and draconian in its content.
There is also a large political element, which bows to various pressures at home and abroad. That is understandable. The decision to undertake entirely unexpected military action in the Falklands and the Gulf are examples.
The last element, that of strategic foreign policy, is now largely lacking. I know, and we have heard, that one has to be careful about the concept of a defence review if that means that what you are trying to do is to anticipate exactly whom, if anyone, you are going to confront and where and when, so that you can hold purpose-built forces for that exact contingency. That

293
would be very dangerous. You would certainly get it wrong—as happened, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, pointed out, in the Nott Review of 1981–82.
Nevertheless, before you start, as we are now doing, turning your Armed Forces inside out and adopting what are known as radical (sometimes even blatantly known as Treasury) solutions—which is usually a euphemism for cheaper solutions, with scant consideration as to whether they would work even in peace-time, let alone in conflict—you have to be clear about certain assumptions against which you can reasonably do the exercise. That requires considered answers to specific questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, very ably put a great many of those questions: that of commitment; the new prospect of Russia; the future of NATO; and the future of our nuclear weapons. I shall not go over them again. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. I would only say: do we, for instance, intend to remain a world power with a seat on the United Nations Security Council, and with the responsibilities that go with that position? There are plenty of people who would like to take our place on the council. Do we expect, or shall we have to be prepared, to operate in what I call Division One, and not in Division Three or Four—as we had to do with others when we took on a country like Iraq which had a great deal of modern eq lipment provided by the then Soviet Union? Are we prepared to make more use of our Reserve Forces, which would be a large social step and would require legislation? And must the Armed Forces still he able to react if political pressures become great, whether or not they had contingency plans or forces ready to do so? For the record, events in former Yugoslavia will be the fourth occasion in the past 15 years when, totally unexpectedly, we have had to deploy sizeable forces although we had no particular plans to do so.
Until those matters are established one way or another at the highest level, and priorities are sorted out, it is quite irresponsible merely to say that we are going to re-design our Armed Forces purely on the basis that the Treasury requires at any particular time x million or x billion pounds from defence. Unless we get a strategic pillar into the equation, we store up appalling problems for ourselves in the future. The people most concerned with such decisions are the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. There is no shortage of machinery to achieve the purpose. It is merely that the machinery is so seldom used.
There are a number of ways in which top officials from the FCO, the MoD and other interested departments can be got together to draft priorities for Ministers; or indeed, Ministers can get together. But, unless the overall problem is grasped at the top, the staff can write papers and advisers can advise till they are blue in the face, and nothing will happen—as I know from personal experience. When I was Chief of the Defence Staff eight years ago I led the Defence Staff in a number of strategic studies on all the various parts of the world, trying to establish what was important, what was of special interest and what was of less concern and of lower priority. All that would have been a great help
294
in establishing the sort of guidelines that have been mentioned this evening. Although those exercises were treated with polite interest, no Minister was prepared to sign up to them, so they never saw the light of day.
Of course there must be a Treasury input. Of course the Armed Forces need to be continually brought up to date and organised for the future and not the past. There is so much, in so many fields, which needs doing. But, with scant strategic direction and the MoD organised as it is with the operational, administrative and financial chains of responsibility separated from one another, I am not at all confident that the right things will be done. When virtually all the current studies—of which there are at least 35—are done against the background of compelling financial savings and very little else, they inevitably get done right across the board of account holders. That is no way to get the right answer, particularly with smaller Armed Forces.
In the sense that we must look at general guidelines and get a continually updated strategy and foreign policy content into our defence policy, a defence review is needed. Ideally we should not carry out any further exercises on the Armed Forces until it has been done. At least we must be ready to measure the outcome of any "front line first" studies against some form of defence review and modify those findings when that is shown to be necessary—even if it has been that the cart has been ahead of the horse.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I believe that the time is not ripe to talk ourselves into a defence review which may incur severe diplomatic penalties and even lose us our seat on the United Nations Security Council, while we are struggling through Options for Change to establish new force levels and structures, which I think are needed.
I turn to the Falklands and I hope that the parties opposite will agree that a review of the Falkland Islands would be entirely out of place while the Falkland Island Government intend, with our authorisation, to publish the required legislation and license exclusive acreage to oil companies for exploration later this year. If all goes well there will come a time when the Falkland Islands Government can assume a degree of financial responsibility for their own defence and other arrangements can then be made.
As the House is aware, I and some other Peers have just returned from spending nearly five days as guests of the Commander British Forces in the Falklands. I thank my noble friend for his assistance in bringing that visit about at such a critical time. We were able to see anti hear at first hand what our defence role there is all about. I say without reservation how much we are indebted to Major-General McKay-Dick, the Commander British Forces, his staff and all his servicemen and servicewomen, for the way in which they took part in our programme and demonstrated how they carry out their tasks so efficiently, expeditiously and cheerfully in such inhospitable latitudes. They are backed up by the South Atlantic air bridge, the logistic support from the UK and of course the Royal Engineers on site.

295
Tornados, Rapier missiles, radar and infantry are at immediate readiness with a frigate, submarine, offshore patrol vessel and forward repair ship on hand.
What was most impressive to me was to see the sense of purpose and high morale that exists within each service, jointly carrying out their tasks, knowing that they are well equipped, well accommodated, well supplied and, above all, well commanded. We can assure ourselves that we meet our "defence role one" commitments to the full in the Falkland Islands. What is vital at present is the air bridge and fishery protection. As we have a clear sovereign commitment to defence in the islands, we must ensure that the operation runs smoothly and that logistic support arrangements remain firmly in place.
But we must not forget the dependencies in the south —South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands below the 50 degree parallel, which are part of our occupancy and have to be visited. I sense that from Whitehall they are viewed through different telescopes according to whether one is standing on the bridge of the Foreign Office or the bridge of the Ministry of Defence. Clearly the policy towards those dependent outstations must be properly co-ordinated between departments and any third-party nation must not be left in any doubt whatever that the iron fist of defence lies beneath the velvet glove of diplomacy.
While I watched the Options for Change process proceed and have seen us winning the battle for better value for money, I listened constantly to the party opposite calling for a defence review, cuts and diversification. In fact, I believe that what they are really calling for is a wholesale shakedown of defence in which they would like to see our ultimate deterrent vanish—platform, missile and warhead —into a black hole, thereby destroying our capability to meet our obligations in any of the defence roles. I hope that never happens. I believe that Trident is here to stay.
I do not say that lightly but in the knowledge that our much valued technical capability, industrial resources and trained manpower all count heavily in fighting and holding our corner in defence. I believe that the Secretary of State is steering the best course at the moment and I hope he sticks to his guns.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise with suitable diffidence after the speech of one famous field marshall and the son of another, even though the last speaker totally misunderstood the policies of the Labour Party. However, one cannot understand everything.
My first task is to offer strong support to my noble friend Lord Williams and the policy which he expounded so eloquently. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was in the form which once led me to say that he was certain to become a future Prime Minister. It has not happened yet, but life is long and he is in good shape tonight.
I find it easy and pleasant to support the policy of our party on defence. There were moments in the 1980s when I might have wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, had hold of the right end of the stick as
296
opposed to the wrong end which he held up tonight. But those days are past and I have absolute confidence in the policy as stated by my noble friend Lord Williams.
My second task is to plead strongly for what one may call continuity in defence and foreign policy. I agree with all those speakers who say that those two things must be taken together. When I listen to field marshalls and the sons of field marshalls my mind goes back to one specific field marshall with whom I collaborated in a humble way many years ago; namely, Field Marshall Viscount Montgomery. When I was Under-Secretary for War in 1946 Lord Montgomery took me in his car down to the staff college. I was the only person in civilian clothes and I was placed on the platform—a shrinking form—beside him while he harangued the staff officers. He finished his address by saying, "Never forget, gentlemen, that the politicians are our masters". He was looking at me and inciting loud laughter. Then he said, "It is up to us to lead them up the garden path"—and the air was filled with even louder laughter.
That is how Monty put it in the old days and no doubt there is much truth in it, as long as the service chiefs recognise that the politicians are their masters. They are the experts. We make a grave mistake if we do not pay careful attention to their advice. But in the end, as Lord Montgomery, said, politicians are the masters and we must consider all those matters in the widest context.
I believe that the foreign policy in this country pursued under all governments, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, seemed to think, arose out of the Council of Foreign Ministers in 1947. I sat beside the Foreign Secretary, again in a very humble way. But there I was for three weeks and there was Molotov, M. Bidault and General Marshall. I shall never forget the extreme reluctance with which Ernest Bevin accepted what can only be called the division of the world—the beginning of the Cold War following the total callousness of the Soviet position. Then followed the Atlantic Pact in which Britain played a notable part both in formation and operation, and that has been the basis of our foreign policy under all governments for half a century.
That is satisfactory as far as it goes. It worked on the whole quite well along with adherence to the principles of the United Nations. But as other speakers indicated, we reach a new position. Nobody knows what the countries that once made up the Soviet Union will do and nobody knows what will happen to all their nuclear weapons. However wise one is, no one knows. All that we can do is make arrangements to study those matters in the broadest context; not just pure defence, but defence coupled with foreign policy.
If I may be allowed to make a personal suggestion, we want such a defence to be not representative of the political parties in the sense that they would be committed to it, but that leading members of the political parties should serve on such a committee. I should like to see as the head of such a committee perhaps a distinguished Foreign Office figure; the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, Sir Nicholas Henderson, or someone like that. Whatever the details of it, I am sure

297
that we must have a review to consider the whole world picture in the widest context and to draw up plans accordingly.
7 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I also rise to my feet in this debate with some diffidence. My diffidence is due to the fact that my direct military knowledge is restricted to my school corps. 1 happen to think that it was probably quite a good training, however, since one of my contemporaries, Sir Charles Guthrie, has just become head of the Army.
I have just had the privilege, in company with my noble friends Lord Ironside, Lord Waverley and Lord Lyell, of visiting the Falkland Islands. I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Ironside to my noble friend the Minister and to General Mackay-Dick and his staff for the way we were looked after in the islands. I was immensely impressed with what I saw; with the people and their resolve; with the spirit and dedication of the officers and men of the three services; with the range and quality of the military hardware; and with the standard to which the equipment and facilities are maintained. It seems to me that the garrison is a minimum credible but effective deterrent to aggression and that Argentina would be most unwise to attempt any further military adventures.
I personally do not believe that Argentina will try again to take the Falklands by military means. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, only last week President Menem again pledged to "regain" the sovereignty of the Malvinas—by peaceful means, admittedly—by the year 2000. He is assuredly not going to do this by winning himself an invitation from the islanders, even if Mr. di Tella continues to send them tapes of penguins for Christmas every year. He is not going to do it by threatening oil companies that take up licences in the forthcoming licensing round. Perhaps he is going to persuade the sheep to revolt, or perhaps even the penguins.
There is every chance—I have seen the seismic and the interpretation work that has been done—that there will be a major oil province in the Falklands. Some of the basins extend through on to the Argentine side and have already been tested. I think it extremely likely that we will see a major oil province there. I have heard the islanders say that they would like to see the revenues from that oil going in considerable measure to repay this country for its defence efforts to date. I should like to think that that means both capital and running costs over time.
I did spot one thing in the Falklands which worried me a little in the context of this overall debate. I saw a senior naval officer wearing army boots and, indeed, an army uniform. Now, lest you think this is a flippant remark, I should immediately admit that the Falklands garrison is a joint services operation and, indeed, a very fine example of all three services working together in, I believe, near perfect harmony. My only nagging fear about a naval officer in boots is that there may be a secret Whitehall plot for a new all-purpose and much slimmed down unified "defence force". If the joint services concept works in the South Atlantic, it may not
298
be long before someone suggests that it is just what we need back home. I sincerely hope otherwise and that the excellent Falklands garrison has set no unfortunate long-term precedent.
I for one believe that there are no grounds for any further contraction in our armed services beyond Options for Change, and possibly not even that far. The world may seem a rather less dangerous place than it did 10 years ago but, as Yugoslavia has demonstrated, the countries of the former eastern bloc are far from stable, possess immense weaponry and, to our merely temporary benefit, do not seem to know whom to point it at. Today's climate may permit a reduction in British readiness but hardly justifies any reduced overall capacity and no reduction in vigilance.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my noble friend's magisterial introduction to this debate reminded me, oddly enough, that during the war I was instructed that one must first receive and understand an appreciation of the general scene. Only after that, I was told, was it possible to think about a suitable strategy. As for tactics, not at all, until the appreciation was accepted and the strategy agreed. Not that I ever rose to a height at which that knowledge was of the slightest use to me but it was comforting to know that in all the chaos someone was trying to think reasonably and rationally.
It used to be the role of the War Cabinet to do the general appreciation, which it discussed with the chiefs of staff in formulating strategy. Today, the driving force too often seems to be public opinion conditioned by a press which regards the arousal of indignation as the surest way to increased circulation. There is also the input from various of our Members who may have paid a visit to various places and come back very impressed with what they have seen. That is a valuable input. However, on the question of the Falklands, I take the Mayhew view rather than the Ironside one.
Politicians and parties nowadays seem to be influenced by these uninformed surges of public opinion in formulating policy. There seems to be little attempt to relate current policy to the tenets and the different philosophies which are the source and justification of party politics. We are slipping into the American scene, where parties have no opposing and distinguishing characteristics and so, of course, there is in practice no real choice; merely a selection of personalities on one side or the other. There is no real democracy. It is no good talking about going back to basics if no one knows what they were, or even are, any more.
Much follows from this but this evening. in my few minutes, I want to demonstrate the need to survey the general scene before formulating particular policies. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that my illustration is that of nuclear weapons. It is widely agreed outside government circles—and perhaps, who knows, inside them as well—that strategic intercontinental missiles, born out of the struggle between the Soviet Union and the West, are no longer relevant today. Yet, far from studying how to handle the new situation, the government top brass are hell bent on increasing our useless strategic capability. Instead of adapting our

299
weaponry to the new scene, we are allowing the weapons themselves to command strategy with the result that we are facing backwards to yesterday's old and gone threat instead of evolving a new strategy designed to try to tackle today's real threat, which is that of nuclear proliferation. This is one case which quite clearly supports my noble friend in his plea for a defence review. I put forward the case as an example —I am sure there are many others—of why we need to have a look at the whole scene; not a smaller examination of particular aspects of it but a look at the whole scene.
The non-proliferation treaty of 1968 sought to freeze the situation as it was with the five then known nuclear states —the United States of America, the USSR, the United Kingdom, France and China. The treaty has not been a success, for Israel, India and Pakistan either have or are highly prepared to have, nuclear weapons and none of them is a party to the treaty.
Furthermore, states which are party to the treaty have been developing their civil nuclear capacity in a military direction. They include Iraq and not only with Soviet help, but also with clandestine help from ourselves. When I say "ourselves" I mean our Government or some members of it. I am not quite sure, but no doubt we shall know more about all that very soon. Other countries in this category are Iran and North Korea.
The breakup of the Soviet Union has replaced a known, measurable and negotiable threat with a number of possible disaster sources; uncertain, dispersed and uncontrolled, as John Simpson pointed out recently in the January issue of International Affairs. What will be the value of our policy of deterrence by ICBMs if any of this nuclear weaponry gets into fanatical or gangster hands? The Government are saying that they want to see the non-proliferation treaty extended indefinitely when it comes up for renewal next year. That is fine, but what about making it work? There is no purpose in the extinction of the ineffective before one has made it effective.
At present the NFT is neither comprehensive nor watertight, as the House of Commons research paper Redefining British Foreign & Defence Policy makes clear. I warmly commend that document to Members. I would have liked to say something about it but I have reached the end of my time. In my view, that document forms a possible basis for a defence review of the kind that I have been speaking about. I had hoped to say something about Admiral Lord Mountbatten tonight, but that will have to wait for another time.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. It is many years since I flew in a Lancaster and it is 50 years since I was on the staff in King Charles Street. Therefore, I shall not pretend to be technical. I appreciated the masterly review which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, produced. There is no doubt that anyone looking at the scene today will realise that it is a highly dangerous one. As many speakers have said, the dangers of an all-out
300
war which would destroy the world have receded, but there are many more dangers of a smaller variety all over the world.
A review is absolutely essential when we look at the way in which we have handled the first of these dangers and troubles which broke out in the former Yugoslavia. That has been an object lesson on how not to proceed. Eventually, after two years, it was mainly the Americans who forced us and Europe to take the kind of steps which now show some sign of producing peace, but admittedly a most unjust peace. Nevertheless, it is a step forward.
The suggestions and warnings made by the parliamentarians in the WEU and in the Council of Europe were about what should be done and that was two years ago. Our Government did nothing about that. They continued to say that they were only interested in humanitarian affairs and that our soldiers were doing a good job. The killing, of course, continued. The soldiers were doing a good job, but they were not doing their proper job. As soon as the Serbs appreciated that air power was to be used then we started to make progress.
Any review—and one is badly needed—must really concentrate on what we are going to do inside Europe. We are supposed to have a rapid reactionary force—I am sorry, a rapid reaction force; the other we have in our government. We have that force but apparently we can do nothing with it. France and Britain have put in troops, but there has been no coherence inside Europe as to what should be done. We had a situation where brutal methods of conquest were being used and we in Europe failed to stop it. We now appear to be able to stop it, but that gives a tremendous lesson as to how our thinking should be going forward.
It should be that we have a real and genuine command structure in Europe co-operating with NATO. We should be prepared to use it in the defence of peace. It should be a regional unit motivated or made legal by the United Nations. To do that it is quite obvious that we have not got enough well-trained, good units to send to places. The Government took a fortnight to make up their mind to respond to the urgent demand for troops from General Rose. It is quite obvious that any reduction in the good regiments of the army must at least be looked at, but that must be done in a European connection.
The other factor which the review has to look at is air power. There is no shadow of doubt that the main factor in the two examples which we have had of Iraq and the former Yugoslavia has been air power. We have to see that the RAF can play its part in western European forces. When air power was used to shoot down four of the six invading fighters, that had a salutary effect. That also depends on technical superiority. To my mind there is absolutely no doubt that we need a review carried out by competent professionals and with determination by the politicians to get together in Europe to produce something effective to keep the peace.
7.18 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I rise to share with you some observations derived from my trip last week to the Falkland Islands as a Member of the All-Party Defence Study Group, so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord lronside.
The main thrust of my contribution has been touched upon in differing ways, so I shall be brief. Many among us would agree that it is essential to recognise the importance of the military in shaping the moral fibre of the nation; a role increasing in significance at a time of declining attachments to traditional moral values.
Sir Arthur Bryant has reminded us, in an article published in the Sunday Times of 4th April 1948 that,
"the safety and honour of Britain depend not on her wealth and administration, but on the character of her people.
This in turn depends on the institutions which form character, in particular on the throe services … which create the … martial habits of discipline, courage, loyalty, pride and endurance".
While agreeing in principle on the need for defence cuts, the issue should be correctly and adequately addressed. As we have heard, the rationale for the cuts is flawed by being Treasury-driven and not foreign policy-led. The result is a seemingly disjointed approach which appears to threaten our long-term morale, effectiveness and security.
Belt-tightening initiatives in the defence field must surely be closely correlated with a well-designed foreign policy agenda. There would then be clear aims and objectives linked to defence spending; perhaps the clear identification of the nation's interests requiring protection: or our wish to bring stability to particular regions of the world; or even our need to secure first-class training grounds: in Belize, with its jungle training facilities, and in the Falkland Islands, which facilitate tri-service exercises in a friendly environment, where if low-flying recces are not carried out, the command receive telephone calls of complaint!
Benefits would also accrue from the privatisation of such services as air-bridges; for example, the route servicing the Ascension Island and Mount Pleasant base would release two Tristars, saving Her Majesty's Government many millions of pounds. Certain essential tasks, such as rapid airstrip repair as a result of enemy action, and refuelling duties could utilise, in part, Gurkhas at a 30 per cent. reduction in cost to the taxpayer.
I would, however, implore Her Majesty's Government to retain as many specialist functions as possible, in the knowledge that infantry can be trained comparatively quickly, even from scratch. This would retain our investment to date. Tight, timely accounting procedures would help to ensure that savings are more easily identifiable.
Where foreign policy considerations have an impact on the existence or continuation of a major garrison, I urge the Foreign Secretary to offer an unequivocal statement of support and commitment to the Falkland Islanders, unlike the coy utterances offered on behalf of Belize
I remind your Lordships that development of hydrocarbon resources around the Falkland Islands would he of enormous benefit to both the islands and the
302
United Kingdom. Exploration could offer opportunities to UK companies and employment to UK personnel, as well as enabling the islands to continue their development. The islands are currently entirely self-financing in the civil sector. The potential revenue from hydrocarbon exploitation could ensure their future economic independence and also enable them to contribute to the cost of their defence.
Should we lose our traditional links with that part of the South Atlantic because of ill-considered defence cuts, we would be hard pressed to justify the loss of life endured by so many families on behalf of the liberation of those inhospitable islands.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it is now over four years since Options for Change announced the peace dividend and the cuts in our Armed Forces began. Four years on, Russia has re-created, in the CIS, a leaner, stronger union, with an army of over 2 million men, sophisticated weaponry replacing obsolete weapons, an air mobile force, a new quick intervention strategy, and 30 military bases in CIS countries. The army is conducting a series of local wars and repressive measures in Tadzhikstan, Abkhazia, Moldova and the Caucasus. There were 15,000 dead among the Ingush after the 1992 intervention by the Omon and border troops.
The Russian MoD now controls the Georgian MoD (and no doubt others) since Georgia was forced into the CIS. It is a sad irony that Russian "peacekeeping" within the CIS, like her intervention in Abkhazia, actually has UN blessing with UN observers there to prove it. Moreover, the world apparently regards Russia as a valid and impartial peace-maker in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Russia's new military doctrine allows her to strike first with nuclear weapons and makes her responsible for protecting Russians living not just in the "near abroad" but in "zones of former influence". Russia has had her debts recycled by the G7, is about to join the G7, has killed COCOM, has secured most favoured nation status in Europe, and is pressing to join GATT. She has concluded a series of military, political and econornic agreements: in the Far East, military agreements with China and India; sales of MiG aircraft to Malaysia; and renewed links with Vietnam and Laos.
In the Middle East, Russia now has military agreements in the Gulf and a revival of relations with Iraq. In Europe, the Visegrad countries have been told unequivocally that they may join the Partnership for Peace (which Russia wishes to join first) but that an application for NATO membership would be unacceptable to Russia. Meanwhile, a revival of some form of Comecon, on a more equal basis, would, said Mr. Kozyrev, be a sound idea. In Western Europe, the Russians have just concluded defence talks with Germany, building on an agreement last year, which will involve joint naval exercises and training. There are also to be join NATO-Russian naval exercises.
Russia's strategy for dealing with NATO—the one organisation in Europe with power to contain her and to deter any recurrence of Russian imperialism and any

303
campaign to regain her former sphere of influence (her present activity in the former Yugoslavia brings her right back into the Balkans)—is to destabilise it from within, a familiar communist tactic. She has skilfully used the Partnership for Peace to do this. What possible sense does it make for a NATO delegation to visit Kyrghystan, a Central Asian country, to consider a Kyrghyz application, or for Azerbaijan to apply? What must the Poles, the Hungarians and the Balts be thinking of this, and of the readiness of the European Community to consider Russia herself as such a partner while holding the Visegrad countries at arm's length in their application for membership?
My object in reminding the House that in the past four years Russia has become once more a power to be reckoned with, and that we could lose the peace, is to beg my noble friend the Minister to consider again whether, in our own long-term national interest, we can afford to relinquish an absolutely vital element in our power to influence events, to advance British interests and, in the long run, to influence and deter. Russia remains a threat if we do not maintain NATO's power to deter her, a peaceful but essential power.
There are powerful forces in Russia—whoever is in charge there—who would like to walk back into the Baltic states. If that were allowed, the next step would be the re-establishment of the former Soviet zone of influence in Eastern Europe and the Balkans and a special relationship with Germany. Meanwhile, the Americans may well see their interest, in the absence of a strong NATO, in withdrawal from Europe and a tacit understanding with Russia.
There is, of course, another and equally disturbing scenario —the possibility of a serious upheaval in Russia with consequences no one can foresee. The situation there remains very volatile. That too would produce most dangerous consequences. The far Right in Russia, supported by the still powerful KGB and by those elements of the armed forces still under MVD control, could well come to power. They would not relinquish it again.
I cannot urge too strongly that while both scenarios are possible, a powerful Russia under Yeltsin today or an unknown Russia after a coup or a collapse of order, a Russia that still possesses a strong army and a strong nuclear and chemical weapons capacity is a danger. We cannot afford to proceed further with the cuts and we should revise and review our commitment. We cannot even meet our present commitments without an absolutely unacceptable strain, and our voice in Europe, in NATO and in the Security Council will not be listened to. We need NATO, not to fight Russia, but to contain her and protect her neighbours. Deterrence kept the peace for over 40 years. We must therefore retain a credible defence capacity. It is extremely cheap at the price.
I should be the last to regret the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous Russia, content with the status quo in her potentially rich territories, but there is no evidence whatever that that is the aim of the present unstable but powerful establishment, nor that the ambitions, resentments and chauvinistic tendencies of
304
the party, the KGB and the military-industrial complex have yet been brought under control. We should not be too ready to believe the old communist lie that unless we are very kind to the doves, the hawks will take over. Russians, and not only Russians, respect strength and firmness. We are busy depriving ourselves and our allies of the power to say no when necessary. We must not do that.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I must first commend to the House my noble friend Lord Williams's call for a full defence review. It is a sobering experience to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, with her vast knowledge of the Russian situation and her appreciation of the many dangers existing. They are clearly a warning to us all not to come to any hasty conclusions. But that, if anything, strengthens my noble friend's plea for a full defence review. I ask myself which of the two options she has put before us is the more plausible: a powerful Russia under Yeltsin or a possibly anarchic Russia? Either of them would give rise to serious defence problems. Someone should be taking a view of how likely are those scenarios and other scenarios which might also develop. What will happen in China when Deng Xiaoping dies? Will there be uncertainty and disorder rather than continuing economic development?
It is therefore a good idea to ask ourselves, not every year but at least every 10 or 15 years, what are our interests. I believe that there are three inter-related sets of interests. First, of course, there is the problem of defence needs and the resources that we would like to have; our foreign policy interests; and, lastly but not least, the economic constraints that we face.
Perhaps I may start with the last because I have more knowledge of that area than any other. Under the various defence expenditure projections, we are set to spend 3.2 per cent. of our GDP by 1995–96. That much was clear in Defending our Future, which we debated last year. We have come down from 5 per cent. to 3.2 per cent. The whole history of postwar defence reviews has been one of a Treasury-led adjustment, something which we cannot easily escape. One of the things we should do is to ask, "Suppose we stick to between 3 per cent. and 3.5 per cent., and suppose we expect the economy to grow by between 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. how much can we spend in 1994 pounds sterling on defence?" We should then have a view over the next 15 years of what resources there will be to play with. There are always emergencies. There is always and always will be reconsideration. But some long-term view should be taken. Good as the most recent White Paper was, it did not take a sufficiently long-term view of the situation, and a defence review should do that.
The second question would relate to foreign policy. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was correct to raise that question. Such a question has to be raised. Do we plan to be a major power, albeit a junior player, in the major league, or are we going to be a senior partner in a middle-range power league? Those are important questions.

305
How serious are we about the European commitment? I deplore the Government's to-ing and fro-ing with regard to the European commitment. They should make up their minds; 21 years after the signing of the Treaty of Rome we should be making up our minds as to what we are going to do about Europe. What we do will determine fundamentally how we shall deploy our defence resources. If foreign policy is a major pillar of the post-Maastricht arrangements, and if we take that seriously—we do not propose to secede from the European Union—we should ask ourselves how much the European dimension influences and affects, enhances or diminishes, the need for us to have our own defence resources.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, the experience of what has happened in Bosnia does not encourage us to have much faith in the efficacy of the European Union in making decisions. We should be strengthening the European Union's mechanisms for arriving at decisions, because such situations cannot be repeated again and again.
Lastly, we should have some view about defence needs and defence technologies. In Defending our Future some interesting distinctions were made between defence roles one, two and three. Role One had to do mainly with domestic considerations; the second had to do with the old cold war scenario, and Role Three related to the new emerging and unpredictable dangers that we face.
Subject to the sober warnings given by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, I believe that it is Role Three which will be the most frequent and most demanding, because, if there are to be unpredictable small wars—I do not say far away, but not necessarily in the classic cold war theatre—that will require a different kind of defence force from what we were used to at the height of the cold war. If that is so, how will we change direction from the classic confrontational nuclear war situation to one where we suddenly need 1,000 men here or 2,000 men there? They may need to be flown quickly to Afghanistan, China or somewhere else. A defence review should consider those three factors—defence technology and resources, economic resources and foreign policy—together. Only if we have such a defence review will we have an efficient and credible defence force.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for putting down this Motion which gives us the chance to put one or two questions to my noble friend the Minister. My interest was aroused when I wondered what the review might contain. I am astonished that there have been only four since the Second World War. My thoughts fall into four slots, most of which have been covered this evening. Perhaps I may go over some of those slots.
The first relates to NATO. My noble friend gave an excellent review of NATO, but I continue to look at what is the perceived existing threat which NATO could contain and how far the boundaries of NATO should be set. Should they perhaps include Poland, Belarus or other member states of what was the Soviet Union?
306
Secondly, what will that organisation become? It has evolved considerably in the 45 years since it was set up. What should its area of development be, particularly in relation to my noble friend's responsibilities? Is the existing balance of NATO correct? Is it flexible enough to cope with a possible conflict, whatever form it might take and wherever it might break out—in its existing area or the area which might develop?
My second slot when considering defence is of course Northern Ireland. Your Lordships may be aware that I returned with my noble friend Lord Ironside from what was called a tri-service operation. Northern Ireland is a successful tri-service operation. It is mainly an Army operation in support of the RUC, but of course there is enormous support for all the security forces from the RAF and there is an important role for the Royal Navy.
We hear a great deal about peace initiatives and other political developments, but I remember the motto of the Boy Scouts, "Be prepared". The British Army is prepared day by day to respond to new developments, and it is known for the enormous tact and discipline it uses in its operations. It has been doing that for over 25 years. Let us not forget that the number of fatalities in Northern Ireland amounts to a full House of Commons. At Question Time your Lordships have been told how many men and women of the RUC have died in action. Any consideration of defence should take account of the politics and the possibility of the fluctuation of numbers in Northern Ireland.
My third slot is Bosnia and the Balkans. General Sir Michael Rose has been quoted as saying that it would be helpful to have more British Army support. That is flattering, but is it possible? The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the Falklands and perhaps some of our views on Bosnia and the Balkans are the same. Wherever one looks at multi-service operations, one returns to the word "overstretch". It relates not only to the Royal Navy but to the Army and the Royal Air Force. We have only to look at what the Royal Air Force is attempting to do over Bosnia and the Balkans, which is placing considerable demands upon it.
My noble friend Lord Ironside and other noble Lords gave details of our recent visit to the British forces in the Falkland Islands. The British defence forces in the Falklands have first-class equipment. There is a first-class commitment from the headquarters and the commanders through all levels. Above all, they have first-class personnel. All personnel, even those in what appear to be non-combat areas, are aware of the potential threat and are ready to react.
Everywhere I went I spoke to all ranks and was constantly asked in a friendly way about the uncertainty of the general role for the defence forces. I believe that is in my noble friend's mind and that he will consider it tonight. I say without hesitation that we are extremely lucky to have the finest men and women serving in our defence forces all around the world. They have been in Northern Ireland for more than 25 years. They are able to respond quickly and superbly in. Bosnia and, above all, as we have seen, in the Falkland Islands. The 2,300 men and women in the Falkland Islands have enormous ability. To see them puts a spring into my step and into

307
the steps of all noble Lords who have visited there. They have an enormous spring in their own steps. When I think of all our servicemen I am reminded of the great poem:
"Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away';
But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play".
To all those who are represented by Tommy, whoever they are and wherever they serve, I wish to say that we in your Lordships' House thank them. I hope that as a result of Options for Change there will still be bands to play and not tinkling music.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, the most important lesson to be learnt in the past five years is that the Soviet Union as a military power collapsed without a shot being fired. It collapsed from within. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out so succinctly, the Russians have taken the lesson. We are seeing chapter 1.
On 23rd April 1985 we had a similar debate in this House. It was then apparent that Russia was heading for a Napoleonic solution; not for democracy. They did not want Stalinist tyranny, but certainly firm government. Throughout the Gorbachev and Yeltsin eras almost everything in the Soviet Union was criticised and discredited—the apparatchiks, the nomenklatura and the management. However, the army was not criticised. The army was a proud and self-confident spine in Russia. Apart from the Mafia, it is the only one which still exists. The army decided to stand back and to watch what was happening. Our foreign policy of trying to force democracy down Soviet throats in huge doses was misguided. In fact, if someone had wanted to set up an exercise to discredit democracy the events in Russia would have been ideal.
When Moses took the Jews out of Egypt and into the promised land after they had been in slavery for 300 years he decided to stop at the desert and to wait for 40 years; that is two generations. He did so because he considered that they were not fit to go into the promised land—it had to be the third generation. We should have known that what Moses could not do Gorbachev could not do. Free men are bred, not appointed.
The people who are learning the lesson are those in the Soviet high command. They are standing back and watching. Instead of democracy bringing freedom to Russia it has brought anarchy. If any proof is needed that democracy is not the best form, one has only to look at the markets where professors and highly placed people sell their goods in order to eat at night. The Soviet high command is waiting not to usurp power and not to carry out a coup but to be called in to restore order and, let us not forget it, dignity. The Russians never had economic wealth but they had pride and patriotism, which linger deeply in the system.
How Russia will go about that is simple. More than 100 years ago it was Bismarck's dream in an ideal world to have German science, organisation and technology, coupled with Russian resources, raw materials and labour, which was willing to work and easily managed.
308
That has been German policy for a long time. All we have to do is to remind ourselves that when Stalin in his purges had to remove his Minister who was handling the defence forces of Siberia, the man who was executed had a truly Russian name; it was Marshall Blucher.
The only hiccup was that Hitler tried to achieve that goal through rape. The present generation in Germany will do it through seduction. But the rebuilding of Russia is taking place right now. The only nation which can trade profitably and can get paid—and it is being paid because it is easy through barter—is Germany. Of the total help that has reached Russia in the past four years the Germans have given 40 per cent. more than everyone else combined. As regards anti-German feeling in Russia, you can forget it. Any Russian who can work in a German joint venture factory and be paid in soap, razor blades and the like is part of the aristocracy in Russia.
We are now seeing the Russian economy being rebuilt with the help of the Germans. America is looking benevolently on. It does not dislike the idea because it wants to see a strong continent from the Japanese and Asian borders right down to the Rhine. That is the real situation now. It affects us. We cannot see it very clearly as yet but the threat which faces us is not a military threat. The threat is posed because we have neglected our economy and we have not learnt the lesson which the Russian high command has learnt—that military power without a sound economic base is useless. I thank your Lordships.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I put down my name to speak in this debate but I am afraid that it did not find its way onto the list. I believe that the speakers to follow me have been informed of that fact.
A Treasury-dominated review of defence makes no sense—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish in any way to impugn the services that all noble Lords receive from the Chief Whip's Office. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the deadline for putting down his name to speak is 12 noon. There is no clear indication that the noble Lord did that before 12 noon. Having said that, we greatly look forward to what the noble Lord has to say.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, a Treasury-dominated review of defence makes no sense, as many noble Lords have pointed out. "Value for money" is all right when "money" is what you start with and "value" is what you want. It is when you start with value and try to spend less on it that things go wrong. Is the Treasury really asking that RAF aircrew should be deprived of RAF maintenance services? The trust that fighting people place on their maintenance people is something that accountants do not necessarily know about. The Minister must know that privatising maintenance of the equipment on which lives depend would show that the Government do not have a clue about how the forces tick.

309
Mr. Rifkind has in recent months made three speeches in which he has set out his views on the wider ranges of defence. In those speeches he unexpectedly drew attention to the paradoxical situation in which this country defends its own possession of nuclear weapons, and their war-preventing role in Europe, and at the same time harps on the need to prevent nuclear proliferation elsewhere. As he winningly put it:
"in terms of our security interests … nuclear weapons could be said to be simultaneously part of the solution and part of the problem".
Indeed. And I think we should all greatly welcome his remarks about "removing the motivation to proliferate". That is an argument that I have frequently advanced in this House.
We could have welcomed them even more if, in mentioning Iraq, he had not implied that it was Iraq which had introduced a:
"new and particularly dangerous destabilising factor [into an] already unstable region".
It was, on the contrary, Israel's nuclear weapon programme, and Israel's attack on a reactor in Iraq, that motivated the Iraqi nuclear weapon programme. And of course, other states in the region, which have signed the non-proliferation treaty have explicitly refused to sign the other conventions banning weapons of mass destruction because of Israel's nuclear weapons.
On that whole subject, I have received more than my share of the new-type parliamentary Answers. But in this case it has not been the British national interest or even the convenience of British Ministers that was served by economy with the truth: it was rather the convenience of successive United States Administrations, who have all been in such a twist over Israeli nuclear proliferation. Now if the Government do really hope to "achieve universal membership" of the NPT in 1995, Israel's nuclear weapons have to be addressed. Perhaps the Minister can at last tell us whether they are going to do that and, if so, how.
Anti-ballistic missile missiles are part of the nuclear equation. Mr. Rifkind has announced that he is conducting a
"two-year national programme of pre-feasibility studies".
Let us look around. Israel of course has a United States-funded ABM programme. The United States has been trying to perivade South Korea to buy patriot missiles. Those are the ones that did not down Iraqi Scuds during the second Gulf war. Clearly United States pressure is on.
What is wrong with ABMs is that the message to the other side is, "We can attack you, and you cannot retaliate because we are protected." This message is bad for mutual deterrence, bad for war-prevention, bad for arms control, and bad for stability in general. The question is not whether we can in money terms afford them; it is what message they send about our intentions.
Mr. Rifkind has also recognised that certain kinds of capability might have unpredictable and perhaps counter-productive consequences. Yes, I believe that this kind is among them. He has spoken wisely about resurgent nationalism, as we may be seeing it in Russia and elsewhere. His fear was the possibility of a general "renationalisation of defence": of a move away from a commitment to common security towards "purely
310
national policies". Have we not all priced ourselves out of "purely national defence policies"? For the moment the world is still subject to the discipline of plurality, but if we get too hooked in firm alliance structures, we may live to regret it.
I was encouraged by Mr. Rifkind's account of the now permanent British-French joint commission. How is that going?
I conclude by endorsing what my noble friend Lord Williams said. Getting the political possibilities straight is the essential preliminary to any defence review. Will the Minister relate Partnerships for Peace with its relationship with CSCE? It appears to me that that is the prime political necessity in the present political situation.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, there is really one general conclusion that can be drawn from the debate so far; that is, that the problem confronting any defence or foreign policy—as several noble Lords have said, the two cannot be separated—is the unpredictability of the world in which we live today. We have lived for more than 40 years in a world which was frightening but predictable. We now live in a world to which we are not at all accustomed. It is unpredictable, arid perhaps equally alarming for that very reason.
I say to those who have raised the nightmare of Russian/German collaboration that that is one of the most powerful reasons for the European Community. The idea was to amalgamate Germany within Western Europe so that such a venture could not possibly take place. It is the folly of Euro-sceptics not to recognise that. It is greatly to be deplored that in that area the Government have not made a stronger and more visible commitment. Even the most febrile Euro-sceptic must surely agree that our security and European security depend on European co-operation. That was recognised at Maastricht when it was agreed that the Community should develop a common security policy and that the instrument for that should he the WEU. Events in the former Yugoslavia over the past year indicate, as my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie said, how far we must go before that aim is fulfilled. They have demonstrated how weak the European Union is militarily without the backing of the United States and how inadequate is the decision-making process in the European Union in that area.
Its military weakness is insufficiently recognised. As I understand it, the European Union would be hard pressed to deploy three brigades, one of which would be French and one of which would be British. It is extraordinary that the United States, with a population of 250 million, has the military capacity to fight two regional wars simultaneously, whereas the European Union, with a substantially larger population, could not without outside help fight one.
According to the US Congressional Research Service, within the European Union only the British and the French are capable of independent contributions to peace-keeping, peace-making or, indeed, war-making operations. That is largely because most members of the EU depend upon conscript forces. Such forces cannot

311
easily be used outside their own territory; it is an extremely expensive way of producing an efficient army; and experience has shown that peace-keeping —and, still more, peace-making—needs highly trained and highly disciplined forces. Conscript armies, with one year's training, cannot possibly supply that. Hence, if we are to talk seriously about European co-operation in defence, it is desirable that conscription as a means of recruitment is abandoned, as is happening now in Belgium and Holland, and that professional armies should be used.
A second consideration essential to the creation and realisation of a European defence policy is the development of a common procurement policy. If we really want value for money in defence, such a policy is absolutely necessary. It is ludicrous, as I believe I am right in saying, that there should be five different battle tanks within Europe. That means five different sources of spares if action takes place. A common procurement policy would lead to larger orders and cheaper and more efficient weapons.
The European arms agency which was to be set up is still, I believe, under consideration. If such a sensible and rational procurement policy is put in practice, the agency would need a rapid and determined start within WEU, together with a remit to co-ordinate, monitor and promote armament co-operation, arrange joint purchasing and ensure that the whole matter is dealt with more efficiently.
Finally, it is essential that the decision-making process to which many speakers have referred should be improved. We must develop a system for reaching decisions better than that followed over the past few years in Yugoslavia. That decision-making process has followed the formula beloved by the British Government which is called "intergovernmental co-operation". As some of us predicted, it has been exposed as being no way to reach decisions. On the contrary, it is a means of procrastination, and in the end agreement is reached at the lowest common denominator. It was the formula which was practised in the League of Nations before the war.
Moreover, it was a consequence of watching the process lead to procrastination in decision-making and agreement being reached at the lowest common denominator that inspired Jean Monnet to create the idea of the European Community. Intergovernmental co-operation can work; but, in point of fact, it only works as it did in NATO where there is a dominating power. Where there is no dominating power, it always leads to indecision, procrastination and agreement at the lowest common denominator.
It is highly relevant that we now confront the matter which is crucial to a properly working and co-operative European security policy. There is not the slightest hope of our developing such a policy unless we do so. If we depend on European governmental co-operation to reach decisions, we can be quite sure that the same old muddle, procrastination and delay will occur which have been so deplorable in our response to the Yugoslavian crisis.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we have had an excellent and timely debate in which all the contributions, even though some of them were not directly addressed to the need for a "defence review", have in fact helped to make out the case for it. I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for the scope of his contribution and his initiative in making the debate possible.
At the end of the day, we have to say that the case for a defence review is now irresistible. That fact was demonstrated in the debate, in particular, and most ably, by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who, I am pleased to say, has now returned to the sanctuary of this House from the other place in time to listen to the concluding speeches.
My noble friend drew our attention to the fact that we have had four defence reviews since the war—namely, in 1957, 1965, 1974 and 1981—with, roughly, gaps of about 10 years between each one. However, 13 years have passed since the last one. Not to have a defence review now after 13 years can, in my judgment, only be justified on the grounds of a peaceful, quiescent situation not calling for such an intellectual exercise. As every Member of your Lordships' House knows, nothing could be further from the truth than that as regards today.
As many speakers reminded us, we live in a time of great international turbulence. We are desperate to retain our position in Europe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for concentrating on that aspect of the matter. I must point out to the Minister that it has been a long time since the Government cut such a disreputable figure in Europe as we are seeing at present. The Foreign Secretary, for whom we have the greatest respect, is forced to go to Europe for party political reasons, and for no other strategical or international reasons, to confront most of our partners in Europe. I also very much agree with the need for us to base our future defence strategy, especially as regards procurement, on a European-led situation.
As I said, we are desperate to retain our position in Europe —or, indeed, we ought to be—and our membership of NATO, which was mentioned during the course of the debate. We are also under pressure to sustain our position on the Security Council and our leadership within the United Nations. Those are major, strategical, political factors. They, alone, require permanent reassessment and relating to the role of our armed forces and to the quality of their equipment.
I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that the Options for Change review was in fact a substitute for the kind of review that we are now requesting. However, most of us know that that is nonsense, as history subsequent to Options for Change has demonstrated. That may have been the Government's intention, but I believe that Options for Change has proved to be a disastrous exercise so far as concerns our strategic policies; not least because the extended political commitments which the Government have been obliged to accept to maintain all their political ambitions cannot

313
be adequately provided by the size and shape of the armed forces which Options for Change imposed upon us at the behest of 1:he Treasury.
To he fair to the Government—and looking at all those obligations through the other end of the telescope, so to speak—they genuinely wished to commit the country to play a fair part in the humanitarian relief of Bosnia, in the security of the Middle East and in the problems of Northern Ireland and elsewhere; but, taken together, they found that their willingness to undertake such obligations could not be matched by the size of the forces and the funds available to them.
The latest demands of General Rose, to whom we must all pay tribute today for his inspired leadership in Yugoslavia, especially as regards the servicemen serving under him, only illustrate that point, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, pointed out in his speech.
We must have a strategy in which we take on board all these various factors. We need to spend a moment considering the changes which have been imposed upon the forces even since Options for Change was promulgated. We can see at once of course that that was not a defence review, or, if it was, it certainly had many shortcomings. In April 1993 the navy faced a new round of defence cuts which reduced its personnel from 55,000 to 50,000. The army's strength was increased in February last year from 116,000 to 119,000. The RAF faced a reduction from 89,000 to 75,000. A further announcement was made that by 1995 the RAF will be reduced to 70,000. By the end of this year all these further changes will have occurred following on from Options for Change itself.
The changing political scene which we are now witnessing means that we not only need a defence review but one may be excused for thinking, given the state of the world today, that we need a continuing defence review permanently in place reporting to the nation and to Parliament from time to time.
We have had some discussion on the subject of Russia and the farmer Soviet Union. I am sure the House is most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park.. and to my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Kagan for drawing our attention to the inherent dangers in the situation there. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also referred to that matter. When the Government were considering whether to support, or not to support, President Gorbachev—I believe they made an enormous error in that regard which I ought to mention in this House and which brought into power President Yeltsin with all the possibilities of disaster which that holds out for us—they showed they did not understand the old Fabian precept of the evolution of gradualism. It was a terrible mistake to believe that that large totalitarian state could be changed so dramatically into a democratic and capitalist fortress. That was a nonsense and to the great credit of President Gorbachev he understood that one has to go slowly to make haste. He did not receive the support which I believe he was entitled to not only from this Government but also from the United States Government. We must now face up to the resulting situation and review our dispositions accordingly.
314
There are other considerations also, such as the situation in Northern Ireland, which has to be kept constantly under review. That is another matter of great concern, especially as the Government have entered into an arrangement with the Ulster Unionists which I believe will establish a large garrison in Northern Ireland for a long time. We need to consider the future of that situation. The quagmire of Bosnia has been mentioned by many noble Lords on all sides of the House. Also, I agreed entirely with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney—I believe this point was referred to by a noble Lord on the Liberal Benches —when he spoke about the difficulties posed by nuclear proliferation.
I cannot understand why the British Government continue to press the United States Government to maintain our testing rights in America. It is quite clear to anyone who has served on the North Atlantic Assembly, as I have, that the United States. Senate and Congress have no intention whatsoever of allowing President Clinton to continue these tests. I have recently been to Washington and I have discussed these matters. There is no evidence that President Clinton would even contemplate continuing the tests. The resolution of the North Atlantic Assembly to welcome a complete nuclear test ban throughout the world was moved by one of the leaders of our delegation, who, of course, sits on the Conservative Benches in another place. He was supported by all the other members of the delegation.
I believe it is necessary to say one or two words about procurement and to ask one or two questions which I believe need to be addressed. In a previous debate on defence in this House I raised the subject of helicopters. We have been repeatedly told that the EH 101 is the most cost effective support helicopter available to us. We accept that but we need to know when the Government will order these remarkable helicopters. We need to know that not only because of the helicopter's military significance but also because of possibilities for trade.
As regards the army, I could not agree more with the judgment of General Sir Martin Farndale when he talked recently about the dangers of the army being "double hatted". He says that the most serious development is the,
"absence of training above unit level. We no longer have an Army with true capability. This is not an army, it is a gendarmerie".
He concludes,
"The Options plan has been flawed from the start because it was created against financial targets and not operational requirements".
That point has been made over and over again in this House.
I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, who I am glad to see has returned to the Chamber. The noble Lord spoke of the Labour Party's policy in words that did not reflect his usual generous approach. I can only say that his statements—we strongly regret that he made those statements—show his ignorance not only of present Labour Party policy but also of the history of the Labour Party in respect of defence matters—for example, the legacy of Hugh Gaitskell. Some noble Lords on both sides of the House who are present today will remember that. I should remind the noble Lord,
Lord Ironside,that NATO was largely a creature of Earl Attlee and Ernest Bevin when, in co-operation with General Marshall after the war, they helped to create this security system which has stood the test of time. That ought to be a consideration in the mind of the noble Lord when he makes judgments about policy on these matters.
As I have said, there is an overwhelming case for a thoroughgoing defence review that is conducted with absolute integrity. It should begin by matching our international foreign policy interests to our defence capability. Thereafter it should determine how those matters can be best met by the Treasury. In conclusion, I must say that we all need to be honest about this matter —the Opposition no less than the Government. If we are to have a genuine defence review against a background of all the problems in the world that we have discussed today, we must face the fact that the results of that defence review will demonstrate to us all that the peace dividend is an illusion and to achieve it might be much more costly than some people think. We must admit the implications of such a defence review. I for one would be prepared to do so.
8.19 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, this has been a short but extremely interesting debate. I, for one, am as delighted as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, felt that defence was a sufficiently important subject for him to raise it in Opposition time, however briefly.
A number of your Lordships have used the opportunity to raise points of interest and importance in the context of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as to whether we should institute a defence review. As all too often in your Lordships' House, time will prevent my answering all the points made. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me and will allow me to write to them instead.
Perhaps I may begin by addressing the questions that a number of noble Lords—and particularly noble friends—raised about the situation in the Falkland Islands. I was delighted to hear that your Lordships felt that the visit had been such a success. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that defence of British territory, which includes the Falkland Islands, is a first priority of Her Majesty's Government's defence policy. I hope that that reassures him. I wish to reassure too my noble friends Lord Ironside and Lord Torrington that military force levels are maintained and will continue to be maintained at a level necessary to safeguard the defence of the islands, including the other South Atlantic dependencies. Perhaps I may also reassure my noble friend Lord Torrington that we certainly have no intention of pursuing his outrageous suggestion and there is no possibility that we might be tempted to produce a unified defence force and amalgamate the three services.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, mentioned the question of oil. Rather than bore the House more than I usually do, I ask your Lordships to refer to the report of the
316
proceedings in this Chamber on 9th February when your Lordships debated the dependent territories and I was able to emphasise a number of matters in the context of the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised. I said, at col. 1600 of Hansard, that we understand the advantages of co-operation with the Argentines. I repeated our undertaking that the door to co-operation remains open and that we should like to think that that is a realistic and attractive possibility. So far as I know the situation has not changed since 9th February. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Argentine Government are extremely offended that the British Government refuse to co-operate in the matter of seismic exploration?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with his knowledge of these matters, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will also be aware that no oil has yet been discovered in the Falklands and that the arguments may yet be academic. Let us wait at least until we are talking about something other than a hypothetical situation.
Before I return to the main point at issue, I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in relation to the review of the terms and conditions of service which has been announced, that there will be a very strong military input into that review, for all the reasons that he gave and with which I wholly agree.
Perhaps I may now turn to the nub of the question. As Professor Joad might have said, it all depends what one means by a defence review. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not think me impertinent if I say that I was enormously impressed by the clarity and economy of phrase with which he put his case. I hope that I shall be able to address what he said with the same seriousness.
The noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government lacked a clear rationale for the size and structure of our Armed Forces. I wonder whether the noble Lord could have meant entirely what he seemed to imply or whether he has entirely appreciated what we have been doing in the UK defence effort since 1990. I know that the noble Lord is a fair man who studies his subject with care. He will therefore remember that in last year's White Paper, rather catchily entitled Defending Our Future, we showed that we have a sustainable set of commitments drawn up in line with our international obligations. Those commitments are supported by an effective force structure to enable us to meet them.
Indeed, that useful and important document goes further. It sets out the three roles we see for defence. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, whose speech was as interesting as his speeches in your Lordships' House always are, that he will see that the defence assets needed for Defence Role Three are virtually identical to the defence assets needed for Defence Role Two. I believe that that is clear from an examination of the celebrated Table 3 of the defence White Paper, which he and I have discussed previously in your Lordships' House.
The document then translates those roles into the list of tasks we have identified as being necessary to carry

317
them out. That is based on the sort of coherent approach and consistency which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, advocated as being a desirable basis for our overseas policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, shakes his head in his charming way, I recommend that noble Lords read the annual Foreign Office report in conjunction with the defence White Paper so that they can judge the justice of that assertion for themselves. That would include the dangers of proliferation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howell, alluded. I am all too well aware of those dangers.
I understood the: noble Lord, Lord Williams, to suggest that we should change the basis of our approach to defence and security policies. I hope that the noble Lord will consider what has happened so far since the Berlin Wall came down. I have frequently attempted to set out in your Lordships' House since the last election the considerable progress that we and our allies have made in developing what is known in the trade as security architecture. That becomes increasingly important in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet empire. NATO has always taken first place in that context. Perhaps I can reassure my noble friend Lady Park that that will continue to be so. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, recognised the importance of that fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, implied that the WEU., the CSCE and the United Nations all have their roles to play. I wholly agree. It is important that we and our allies ensure that each organisation develops a role that complements the role of the others. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that considerable progress has been made in that respect, particularly since the Rome Declaration. Indeed, I say to my noble friend Lord Lye11, who also referred to the matter, that in that way we can hope to erect a security system that is sufficiently strong and flexible to police the complicated and rapidly changing world in which we live.
At the same time, as my noble friend Lady Park never tires of pointing out, we would be extremely unwise to ignore the potential threat that Russia still represents. In that context I listened to what was, if I may say so, a most remarkable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kagan. The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Williams, emphasised the importance of the future in Russia and what is happening there. Russia still has a massive nuclear and conventional capability—perhaps matched only by that of my noble friend herself. Russia's history over the past few months does not, to put it mildly, inspire complete confidence in her future stability. I am glad to say that that factor was recognised by a number of your Lordships. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that it is partly for that reason that we judge it wise to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of our security. That is also why we have not reduced our Armed Forces to a lightly armed gendarmerie which would specialise in light peacekeeping operations only.
In the uncertain world to which so many noble Lords referred, to reduce cur existing war fighting capability
318
would be in the highest degree imprudent. I should be disappointed if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, disagreed with that, particularly in view of his own experience as a soldier. Of course, I should ernphasise in this context that I would be the last to argue that my rejection of the gendarmerie option implies that our military posture should remain the same as in the days of the cold war, for the world, as we have repeatedly said, has changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, does not feel, I am sure, in his constant demands for a review, that no change of posture is what is needed. If that is the case, I am sure that he already knows—he has politely listened to what I have had to say in your Lordships' House on many occasions, and, more importantly, he has read at least the last four defence White Papers—that our posture has indeed changed. Our forces are now more mobile, better protected and more flexible than ever before. I suggest that that reflects the unpredictability of our present geo-strategic circumstances in contrast with the more predictable and therefore less demanding static nature of the imperatives of the cold war. I am glad that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, hinted at least, despite the clearly critical tone that he adopted, that we are making something of a nod in that direction.
Incidentally, in the context of the arguments of those who favour a reduction in the capabilities of our forces to those of a gendarmerie there is perhaps something else worth remembering. I address the remark in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who has on previous occasions in your Lordships' House referred to the importance of lightly armed UN peacekeeping forces. Those who advocate such a course, as the noble Lord has done from time to time, do so in general because they suppose that the only tasks our own forces will undertake from now on will be UN peacekeeping duties. That, I suggest, is a dangerous, perhaps even courageous, assumption to make for reasons that I have already given. But even if the noble Lord were correct in that assumption—perhaps I am wrong in assuming that that is what he thinks—he may care to ponder one thing. Had our troops in Bosnia not been protected in their role as armoured infantry we certainly would have sustained many more casualties than we have to date in that unhappy theatre. Even peacekeeping operations are beginning to demand troops armed almost as though for a full-scale hot war because of the proliferation of dangers to which many noble Lords have drawn attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the United Nations, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I suggest to your Lordships, as did a number of noble Lords, that the United Kingdom has substantial responsibilities and interests beyond Europe. They reflect historical links and obligations, as noble Lords observed, and our position as a permanent member of the Security Council. The United Kingdom is a substantial power with a developed sense of international responsibility, which, we intend to fulfil.
The call by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for a defence review may refer to something a little narrower. If he will forgive me, I shall explain what I mean. I refer

319
to a review of the way my department manages defence. That means in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested, the defence costs study which occupies so much of my time and my colleagues' time at present. I agree that all that goes with the defence costs study, and the study itself, was triggered by last year's PES settlement. However, I believe that it would be churlish not to acknowledge that as a result of that study my department has been provided with additional impetus to build on the reforms initiated during the past 15 years of my department's existence.
Noble Lords will be aware of the radical nature of the reforms and the beneficial effects they have already had in delivering value for money in defence. It is already clear that more is possible without reducing our overall defence capabilities. That is clear from some of the earlier results of studies undertaken. I believe that the present work will deliver a smaller and more effective centre, a more coherent relationship between support and front line, and a more satisfying career for servicemen and women, and civilians. Noble Lords may be interested to know that work on the study has now been in hand for over three months and some of our expectations will not disappoint.
In the context of that exercise, your Lordships will be aware that there are powerful advantages in the sheer pace of the operation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lyell that turbulence and uncertainty are bad for morale. It is important that we arrive at our conclusions speedily and equally quickly communicate them to Parliament and our own employees. As a number of noble Lords observed, they are the finest forces anywhere.
We hope and believe that we shall have made the bulk of our proposals public by July. Some announcements may be possible earlier; I hope that your Lordships will not hold me wholly to that. Meanwhile, there will inevitably be a good deal of speculation in the press, some better informed than others. None of that will prevent our continuing with business which, despite what anyone says, is still financed by the third biggest budget of any government department—over £22,000 million in prospect in 1996–97—with a procurement budget this year of over £8,000 million, which makes us British industry's biggest customer. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that air power is extremely important. That is why we are buying Eurofighter. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that it is a collaborative venture with three of our European partners. Perhaps I may also add that joint procurement often risks not being as cost effective as it might, and national pride can often get in the way of that objective being achieved. We must be practical in our approach as well as espousing some of the aspirations that he articulated.
What does the noble Lord, Lord Williams, really mean when he makes his clarion call for a defence review? It may be an unworldly thought—if so, I apologise to the noble Lord in advance—but I cannot help wondering whether he is not using that call at least in part as a figleaf to cover his party's own nakedness in defence policy, or at least its divisions. In that he does
320
at least, I understand, differ from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who will remember that on 15th December last he called a demand for a defence review,
"a glorious escape route for Opposition spokesmen on defence".
I wholly agreed with the noble Lord when he said that. What a pity perhaps that he seems to have changed his mind at least a little this evening. The noble Lord may feel that his party indeed needs that particular "glorious escape route". I understand that the Liberal Democrats expressed somewhat different views in their European policy document Making Europe Workfor Us, published quite soon after the noble Lord used that phrase. There his party called for a defence review and tried to distance itself from its earlier demand in August 1990 for a 50 per cent. cut in defence spending by the end of the century—a distance which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, clearly sought to maintain today in remarking on the need for a strong European defence identity.
I understand, too, that the document called for a substantial reshaping of the United Kingdom's armed forces. I can easily see why the noble Lord feels that he needs a "glorious escape route", particularly since, as I have already made clear, the reshaping of our Armed Forces is already happening without the help of either the noble Lord or his colleagues.
Talking of "glorious escape routes", if I may borrow the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery—I can see why the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and his party need one. After all, we should not forget—it is perhaps a vulgarity which noble Lords will allow me for once—that the Labour Party among other things would end the UK's veto on foreign policy in Europe, would cut £7.5 billion from the defence budget—more than any one of our services spends in one year—and is committed by its conference to scrapping Trident. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Ironside recognised that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said in his little trip down memory lane, going back to 1948. Even the noble Lord's honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary is clearly a little uncomfortable with the last commitment. Like the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, he has taken the glorious escape route and called for a defence review.
The truth of the matter is—and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, knows it—that a defence review of the kind he advocates is an irrelevance in a swiftly moving world. It takes months to photograph a situation and to devise a solution for the problems that the photograph reveals. By the time that solution is put into effect, the world will have moved on and those undertaking the review—and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, says "Hear, hear" and agrees with me rather than with his own Front Bench—will be shooting at where the bird was when the photograph was taken, rather than where it is now or might be tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, came somewhere near to acknowledging the justice of my observation when he gave so many examples during his speech of what we have to keep constantly under review in that fast moving situation. How much better to introduce a system that is

321
inherently flexible enough to adapt to a changing world. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, emphasised what a changing world it is.
I am only sorry that what seems an obviously sensible approach to Her Majesty's Government does not commend itself to any of the Opposition parties with the occasional single shining exception of the Liberal Democrats' spokesman in your Lordships' House. I believe—if I may again risk being impertinent to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—that he has already changed parties once. Perhaps in his mode of 15th December, the time has come for him to change again and to join us on this side of the House, which is clearly where his convictions will eventually lead him.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the noble Viscount: for his lengthy response, at least until the last five minutes. If he will forgive me, that was a rather childish knockabout. I shall just give him a small lecture on Labour Party policy and its constitution. The Labour Party will fight the next election on the basis of the manifesto which will be agreed, according to the constitution of the Labour Party. by what is known as a Clause 5 meeting. That will be the policy on which the Labour Party will fight the next election and the noble Viscount will have to wait and see what that policy is.
It is as though we are having a dialogue of the deaf. Despite his courtesy in the rest of his speech, I do not believe that the noble Viscount addressed the problems that I and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, were addressing. I can not do more than simply lay them on the table; I have done so and the noble and gallant Lord, with all his experience, supported me. That is all I can do; it is all I have sought to do this evening. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
8.43 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
It is my pleasant duty this evening to set before the House the provisions of my Bill to create new authorities to run each of the national parks in England and Wales. It is a measure that has been long awaited. Some noble Lords have been asking for it since 1951. In that regard, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Foot and Lord Sandford, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, all of whom are attending the debate this evening. We acknowledge the hard work that they have done for the national parks over the years. I am sure that they will all agree with me that the national park authorities have the vital task of running national parks and working closely with those who live and work in them. In practice, however, we now know that we have not given them the tools needed
322
to do the job as well as we would wish. My Bill now has the advantage of over 40 years of experience and aims to address that.
In preparation for the Bill I have been fortunate in having the assistance of three fellow vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, joined me on a visit to the North York Moors, the Lake District and the Brecon Beacons. The noble Baroness, Lady White, also joined me in the Brecon Beacons and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, briefed me on the Peak District. I made a flying visit to the heart of that national park only yesterday.
Tribute too must be paid to the Association of County Councils. Its helpful guidance to me over the past six months has made it easier to bring the Bill before your Lordships. The association and its member authorities, along with the Association of District Councils and its member authorities, has played a key role in the history of the national parks and it is important to continue those close relations.
Creating new authorities to run the parks is a government manifesto commitment, made in response to the key recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel, chaired by Professor Ron Edwards. I shall refer to the work of this panel as the Edwards Report. Unfortunately, time has not yet been found for a Government Bill. That is why I have decided to carry this forward in a Private Member's Bill, which I see as a first-aid measure.
Before I tell noble Lords what my Bill does, I shall say what it does not do. It does not affect the statutory purposes of national parks—purposes which cover conservation and recreation—or the associated socioeconomic duty. It does not place a formal duty on Ministers or other government departments to further national park purposes, nor does it put into legislation the tests which development in national parks must pass. Here I refer to such controversial proposals as major roads or reservoirs.
It does not touch on rights of way legislation or set up new national parks. It does not in any way affect the status or administration of the New Forest. Changes in all these areas were recommended by the Edwards Report, but my Bill simply does not deal with them.
There are no national parks in Scotland. so the Bill does not touch on that important area either. It does not touch on the Broads, which has its own recent Act of Parliament. It affects only the original family of national parks.
There are seven in England: in the North, the Lake District, the Peak District, Northumberland, the Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors, and Dartmoor and Exmoor in the South West. There are three in Wales: Snowdonia, the Brecon Beacons and the Pembrokeshire Coast. I draw attention to the importance of these three in the Principality, where they cover 20 per cent. of the land area.
As I said at the outset, my Bill has one simple purpose: to set up 10 new authorities to run each of the national parks. It is rather a long and technical Bill—

323
some 43 pages—but I make no apology for that. Indeed, I am most grateful to the parliamentary draftsmen for all the hard work that has gone into this till.
The Bill ties up the loose ends and puts the national parks on a firm footing for the future. It pulls together responsibilities relating to national parks dating from the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968, the Local Government Act 1972 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In addition, it touches on at least a further 40 Acts where the relationship with the new authorities needs to be set out. Understandably, a little recycled paper would be in order!
My Bill stems from the Edwards Report. The more I have consulted interested parties in preparation for it, the more impressed I have become at the sound judgment inherent in the report itself. Although no interest group got everything it wanted, most got something. Support for these recommendations has been most impressive.
The Edwards Report found that,
"the essence of the concept of National Parks lies in the striking quality and remoteness of much of this scenery, the harmony between man and nature it displays, and the opportunities it offers for suitable forms of recreation".
A quarter of a million people live in national parks. Creating new authorities which would enable the parks to work more effectively with local communities will be of major benefit. I also draw attention to the 100 million visits made to national parks every year. The parks are popular and legislation would result in better administration for them.
The cornerstone recommendation of the Edwards Report was that new authorities should run all the national parks. Those authorities are referred to as independent authorities, and I shall make it clear straight away that by "independent authorities" the report was not talking about quangos but about free-standing authorities within the framework of local government. That will become clear later when I come to the subject of their membership, their chairmen and the nature of the new authorities themselves.
At present we have 10 national parks designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Five in England and all three in Wales are run as committees of county councils. The other two—the Lake District and the Peak District—are run by boards.
My Bill will provide new authorities for all the national parks, building on what has worked best in the past and on what the parks will need in the future. To explain what I mean I can do no better than repeat the Government's own enthusiastic support for this key recommendation of the Edwards Report. They said that the advantages of such free-standing authorities include,
"a greater clarity of vision and self confidence, a higher profile, freedom to manage their own affairs as well as a more undivided commitment to National Park objectives".
There is a pressing reason which makes this measure timely and urgent. It is now not just a matter of being in the best interests of national parks. Other events have overtaken national parks legislation. The Local Government Commission is progressing more rapidly than anticipated with its review of local government in
324
England. That may result in inconsistent and inadequate arrangements for the parks unless their future is separately secured. We cannot risk leaving them in bureaucratic limbo. Thus, it is very important that my Bill should succeed.
The future of the parks needs to be secured regardless of what happens to the county councils that currently run eight of the 10 parks. If my Bill does not succeed, a caretaker would be left in charge of the national parks or they would be carved up among various new local authorities. That is not in their best interests. The new national park authorities set up by my Bill will be sufficiently robust to withstand changes in local authorities.
The situation in Wales is slightly different. Under the Local Government (Wales) Bill, the three parks in Wales which are at present run by county council committees would become boards. That is an insurance policy should my Bill fail. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord St. Davids for clarifying that on behalf of the Government in a previous debate on the Wales Bill. My noble friend said of my Bill:
"Were my noble friend's Bill to receive the approval of Parliament, the Government would not need to bring into effect or use the provisions of Clause 19 to create planning boards for national parks in Wales.
In the event of my noble friend's Bill not receiving parliamentary approval, however, the Government would certainly move to establish such boards".—[Official Report, 10/2/94; col. 1772.]
I am most grateful for the clarification that there is no conflict between that Bill and mine. I welcome the assurances from the Minister that the Welsh Office would also prefer that consistent arrangements be made for all the national parks in England and Wales.
Having established the background of the Bill and its status —as a Bill of general principles—I shall conduct your Lordships on a simple guide through its clauses and schedules. Clause 1 provides for the creation of the new authorities individually, or all at once, or in any combination. This timetable should be dictated by the best interests of the individual national parks. It should not wait until some convenient moment that suits the process of the local government review.
Schedule 1 relates to membership of the new bodies. The majority of the members will be appointed by local authorities. The Secretary of State will continue to appoint members with a special knowledge and expertise in the purposes for which the national parks were designated.
My Bill sticks to the successful formula which for more than 40 years has meant that there are twice as many local authority members as Secretary of State appointees, as recommended by the Edwards Report. This reflects a special mix of local and national interest as befits areas of such great importance to the nation. My Bill confirms the position of the national park authorities firmly within the local government sector. As I have said, they are not quangos.
The new bodies will comprise a majority of members appointed by local authorities plus members appointed by the Secretary of State. The local authority members will come from any principal council; that is, a county, a district or a unitary authority that has a part or the

325
whole of its area within the park. Local authority members will be, in every instance, elected members of their councils. Surprisingly, that is not always the practice at present. These changes will enhance local accountability for the parks. The chairman and deputy chairman of the authorities will be elected. They will be drawn from and elected by all the members of the authority.
There is an important change relating to the Secretary of State appointees. For the first time their allowances will be on a common basis with local authority members. That will allow a wider range of candidates, particularly young, working people, with relevant skills and interests to serve on the authorities. The countryside agencies will continue to advise the Secretary of State regarding these appointments.
I have talked about accountability, but accountability is meaningless without making clear what the functions of the new authorities will be. As I have said, my Bill does not propose any new national park purposes; it merely makes cross-references to the existing legislation on purposes arid associated duties.
The Government are already committed to introducing legislation to review the national park purposes and to clarify the parks' duties. Therefore I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a government assurance when he speaks that the Government will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to revise the national park purposes and associated duties in accordance with the Edwards Report's recommendation.
When it comes to planning, national park authorities will continue to be local planning authorities, and responsible for minerals and waste, and for development control. Clause 4, however, changes the role of national park authorities as regards strategic planning. It presumes that all the new authorities will be structure plan authorities unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. At present only the Lake District and the Peak District have this power. Under the Local Government (Wales) Bill the three parks in Wales are to become unitary plan authorities (strategic and local planning being rolled into one). My Bill provides for consistency with this.
In England all the parks will become structure plan authorities unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. During my consultations I found that there is very widespread support for the structure plan option. However, the Bill gives the Secretary of State two other options using order-making powers. The reason for this discretion is that at present the outcome of the review of local government in England is unknown. He could decide to make the national park authority a unitary planning authority or he could decide that the strategic planning responsibility would best reside elsewhere. So the preference is indicated in the Bill for each national park authority to be the structure plan authority unless the outcome of the local government review suggests otherwise, as we know already is intended in Wales.
I hope that it will be the norm for each national park authority to exercise its strategic planning responsibility jointly with neighbouring local authorities. That will give the benefit of a park focus and co-ordination with
326
neighbouring authorities. There is a good example of that in the joint structure plan prepared by the Lake District and Cumbria County Council.
Of course the joint working will not always be possible as some national parks are covered by several local authorities. It is nevertheless desirable in most cases. My Bill is compatible with local government legislation which allows for strategic planning authorities to exercise their strategic planning powers jointly.
The Bill also tidies up existing provisions relating to responsibilities which have been delegated by local authorities to at least one national park authority. 'The most significant example is powers relating to local nature reserves, including the power to make by-laws. That will not take away powers either from local authorities or national bodies like English Nature. It refers only to the powers derived from the local authorities themselves.
We now come on to the financial arrangements, as set out in Clauses 8 to 10. In accordance with the Edwards Report, the Bill specifies that both local authorities and central government will continue to make a contribution to the funding of national park authorities. That reflects my earlier observations about the unique mix of local and national interest in the way national parks are run. The split will continue to be 75 per cent. of funding from central government and 25 per cent. from local authorities. So in the national parks £1 supplied locally will bring in £3 more from the Exchequer.
At present most of the parks are reliant on a gentlemen's agreement for the local authorities' contribution. The parks spend valuable time and resources negotiating that sum. The Bill proposes extending to all the parks a better system 'which is in operation in the Lake District and Peak District. Those two boards have always been able to make a levy on the local authorities for their contribution. That is more efficient and also means that the parks will be able to work with a greater degree of financial security.
The rest of the clauses-11 to 16—set out the mechanics for establishing the new authorities. Most of those relate to the rules and regulations which apply to the conduct of local authorities. As I said, the Bill is a statement of general principles. As with the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, the precise arrangements will be set in place on the order of the Secretary of State following a wide process of consultation.
In brief, my Bill will create new and effective authorities to run each of the 10 national parks of England and Wales. Those authorities will help to ensure that the parks are properly financed and that the local people who live in them will have an effective voice in their running. It is my hope that a major benefit of an improved administrative framework for each park will be that the authorities will be able to spend less time on bureaucracy and more time on working closely with all their partners. That will help to ensure that our national parks have both healthy environments and healthy economies. They should have more time to

327
devote to encouraging enterprise—for example, in farming and tourism—that is compatible with national park purposes.
The late Brian Redhead, when president of the Council for National Parks, said of the parks themselves,
"They are Not Ours but Ours to Look After".
Were he still there to interview me tomorrow morning on Radio 4, he would, I am sure, emphasise that very point. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Norrie.)
9.2 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and pay tribute to the quiet persistence with which he has pursued it over the past year, which culminated in its arrival before the House this evening. I commend also the hard work of the Council for National Parks which assisted many of us during the past few months with advice and information.
Although I cannot speak formally for my Labour colleagues, I know there is strong support on these Benches for the purposes of the Bill. Your Lordships will recall that it was a Labour Government that brought in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act in 1949 and our continuing support for the purpose of national parks is undiminished. The Bill is also supported by the Countryside Commission, the CPRE, the Association of County Councils, the National Farmers Union and the Ramblers' Association, to name but a few. I know that many other bodies give support; in fact, I have not heard anyone oppose it.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, worked tirelessly to bring the Bill forward and, as we heard, he worked closely with his fellow vice-presidents. As he said, I joined him on visits to the North Yorks Moors, the Lake District and the Brecon Beacons last year to see at first hand the existing different methods of organisation. The North Yorks Moors and the Brecon Beacons are county council committees at present, and the Lake District is a free-standing board which is the model on which the new authorities proposed by the Bill are based. The North Yorks Moors area is in the first tranche of local government reorganisation and the future administration of the national park is therefore in doubt. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is quite right to speak of the danger of leaving such an important area with a caretaker. The Bill will sort out the problem and I hope that it gains the support of your Lordships.
I now turn to membership of the proposed new authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, gave us the membership in detail and I simply want to emphasise some of the points that he made. It is a most important part of the Bill and I believe that it offers some vital improvements on the existing situation.
At present, under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, not less than one-third of the membership shall be appointed by the Secretary of State. That will not change. But there will still be a majority of local authority representatives on the new authorities and there are changes to enhance the
328
accountability of those members. The first is that all local authority members will have to be elected members of their appointing authorities. I believe that to be an extremely important change. It is not the case at present and will be welcomed by communities in the parks who have long desired a clearer link with those representing them. It accords with the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel in which the Bill is firmly rooted—for which I have the greatest admiration —and within the spirit of increased local accountability.
The report of the panel recommended that,
"local responsiveness can best be enhanced by an increase in the proportion of district council members on national park authorities".
Schedule I of the Bill also addresses that point, though it is expressed in broad principles to cover all possible outcomes of local government review which are presently going forward and the outcome of which we are uncertain. Schedule I says that every council, be it county, district or unitary authority, which has the whole or part of its area in the park, will be represented on the national park authority. That means that if the district tier is retained a greater proportion of that tier will be represented on the authorities. But whatever changes are made in local government, we can expect a closer correlation between the national park authority and the areas within its boundary. It will be easier for local people to identify with those who represent them on the authority.
The National Farmers Union had strong views on that point and I believe the Bill meets its objections. The Association of County Councils supports the proposals but is anxious that local authority representation could be reduced by way of the orders constituting the individual authorities. I am not quite sure who is to be asked for reassurance in this case. I know that the Government support the Bill and give it their full approval, but it is introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I hope that at the end of the debate one or other of them will be able to reassure the Association of County Councils on that point.
Next I turn to the Secretary of State's appointees. Their presence recognises the national importance of the parks but they should represent areas of expertise and interest groups: local residents, farmers, business interests and so on. We should not be talking about—and I hope we are not talking about—men or women who come up from London to spend an afternoon deciding the fate of national parks. They should be, in the main, local people with something to offer. I say "in the main" because I believe there may well be some occasional exceptions to that rule. As the review panel said:
"They should be of the highest calibre",
with,
"interests and expertise in the full range of national park responsibilities".
I am glad that Secretary of State's appointees will be given allowances on the same basis as other authority members and paid for by the national park authority. We hope that these allowances, though they will necessarily be modest in terms of the national park budget, will enable a wider spectrum of ages and interests to offer their services. I strongly support the provision that the

329
chairman and deputy chairman will be elected by the national park authority members. That is a very important provision. This should help to create a positive and suppertive atmosphere and highlight the fact, which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned, that these authorities are not just another set of quangos.
Finally, there are many other desirable recommendations by the review panel which we hope to see implemented in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, listed some and there are many more. We know that the Government support the findings of the review panel and I hope that it will not be too long before they feel they can bring in the rest. This excellent Bill is a good step in the right direction and I wish it a safe and speedy passage.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I start by expressing to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, my personal thanks for his presentation of the Bill here tonight. To present a Private Member's Bill of this kind is an undertaking of considerable proportions and, as has been rightly said by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Lord has been tireless in the process of consultation and seeking advice throughout the past several months.
It was said by James Boswell, after the publication of his great biography of Dr. Johnson and when that had received acclaim from one end of the country to the other, that he had "Johnsonised the land". In some kind of similar sense it can be said that during the past six months the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has done a similar service for the national parks. When he came down to Devon he was unfortunately greeted by a blizzard, but that was a useful reminder that the national parks can be pretty bleak and ferocious places. I cannot speak for the rest of England and Wales in this matter but I can assure the noble Lord that, since he has embarked upon this enterprise, the name of Norrie in my part of the world among all people interested in national parks and the countryside is now one to conjure with. In the counsels of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, which by common consent is the oldest preservation society devoted to the care of a national park and also the most illustrious of such societies, the name of Norrie is only mentioned in hushed tones of grateful admiration. I hope that all the noble Lord's efforts will be crowned with success.
The noble Lord has, unfortunately from my point of view, explained the terms of the Bill with such clarity and so comprehensively that I am wondering what is left for the other 24 of us to say. Our plight is rather like that of anyone who is called upon to speak in support of a resolution moved by Edmund Burke or, possibly, Demosthenes. My observations will be very few. I believe that there are three of them, or maybe four.
The first point is that, although the Bill has 41 pages, 16 clauses and five long schedules, it is essentially a Bill of great simplicity. I must confess in parenthesis that some of the schedules, and in particular Schedules 4 and 5, are completely incomprehensible to me because they consist of cross-references, repeals and the like. But I am of a trusting disposition and I am quite content to
330
believe that the draftsmen have got it right. I suggest to your Lordships that you should not worry yourselves over that matter.
The simplicity of the Bill is this: as has already been said in a different context, when the first 10 national parks were designated and set up under the 1949 Act, it was provided that eight of them should be managed by committees of the county councils for the areas in which the parks were contained. The other two—that is to say, the Peak and the Lake District, were to be run as autonomous authorities called "boards". They were to be run quite independently of the related county councils.
The powers and the duties which were given to these 10 authorities were virtually the same. I cannot now remember why it was that the eight committee authorities and the two independent authorities were treated in that different manner. I believe that I understood it once, but I have forgotten it in the mists of time. It does not really matter. What the Bill does in substance is to confer on the eight county council! committees, if I may call them that, the same sort of autonomous and independent status as has been enjoyed by the Peak and Lake District parks over the past 45 years. In modern parlance, that is what the Bill is about.
I read somewhere the other day that the reason for the change now is that it has recently been recommended by the Edwards review panel. That recommendation has been accepted by the Government as if it were a bright idea which has been recently thought up. That is not at all my recollection of the history of the matter. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, agrees that the question why there was differentiation between the eight park authorities and the other two has been an issue since 1951, when the parks were established.
We who have played some part in the activities of the different national parks and who have had the misfortune, if one may call it that, to be one of the members of the county council committee authorities, have laboured and struggled quite unnecessarily with the many anomalies that are inherent in that set up.
We have long looked with envy at the freedom enjoyed by the boards and authorities in the Peak and Lake Districts. Indeed, as I remember it, independent status for all the national park authorities has always been the declared policy of the Countryside Commission and of its predecessor, the National Parks Commission—I think that was its correct title. I suspect that the reason this has gone on for so long is that it is always much easier to make a mistake than it is to correct it, especially if you can correct it only by new primary legislation.
The Government have at long last seen fit to make this change, not, I fear, because of a change of heart or any special wish to enlarge the authority of the national park authorities, but rather because they have been faced with the mundane and very practical reason that their prospective reorganisation of local government will include the possible abolition of the country councils which have hitherto harboured under their wings the national park committees. The Government were bound to realise that, in their reorganisation of local

331
government, the county councils might disappear altogether. In that event, changing the status of the park authorities becomes inescapable.
The Government are not doing good by stealth. They are, I fear, doing good under the duress of reality. We are therefore left tonight in the interesting position that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is proposing this reform as a matter of high principle to the delight and acclaim of all who are concerned for the protection of the national parks. The Government, I fear, are acceding to the reform because they have to. They have, as it were, run up against reality.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one illustration of the difficulties that have been encountered as a result of making the park authorities sub-committees of the county councils. I refer to something that happened some 30 years ago now when I was an appointed member of the Dartmoor national park committee. We were faced with an application from one of the water authorities which was seeking to build a dam across one of Dartmoor's loveliest valleys which would have obliterated one of Dartmoor's loveliest little rivers.
In those days, applications by water authorities for permission to build dams and reservoirs on Dartmoor were almost an annual event. The arguments over the applications that we received usually followed a similar line. The committee took the simple view that dams and reservoirs could not, on any showing, be said to be preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the park, which it was, of course, our bounden statutory duty to defend. We further said that, if there were a proven need for some additional source of supply, then the applicant should look elsewhere. The promoters usually argued that the need for a further supply was imperative and urgent to the point of desperation, that they had made every possible inquiry to see whether any other place could be found, and that their search had been wholly in vain: there was nowhere else, they said, to go, and there was nothing else that would do.
In every case except one, I am glad to say, we were successful in resisting those proposed developments, but in one case we failed. That produced a curious situation. The sponsors of the scheme eventually produced a Bill. If I remember rightly, that came for decision before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. On that occasion there was a new, unforeseen factor in the controversy. Our committee (the park authority) stood firm in opposition to that proposal, but the county council—which was our theoretical master, I suppose—was persuaded to support the Bill. The people who were most directly affected, or who might have been expected to be most directly affected, by the Bill, were, by an odd accident of history, the inhabitants of Okehampton. I have no doubt that they were reasonably alarmed by the promoters' assertions that without that new reservoir their water supply would be at grave risk. I suppose that they contemplated the possibility of dying of thirst. How far the apprehensions of the local community swayed the judgment of the county council to support the Bill, I do not know.
We were then faced with an almost unprecedented predicament. Did the county council's decision overrule
332
the committee's decision? If it did, were we on the committee to be denied the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee and stating our case and our objections to the scheme? If it did not, were both the county council and the committee to be represented before the Select Committee in open opposition?
The dilemma was eventually solved by the chief executive of the county council, who was a man not only of great wisdom but of considerable fortitude. He decided and announced that since under the statute it was the committee and not the council which was charged with upholding the park and its preservation it would be intolerable that the committee should be denied the opportunity of arguing its case before the Select Committee. Equally, he said, it was unacceptable that the county council should be denied the opportunity of stating its case. I shall not trouble the House with the eventual outcome but say merely that that is an illustration of the kind of difficulties in which we were involved.
Someone once said that if any unbiased inquiry took a long look at the constitution of the United States of America it was bound to come irresistibly to the conclusion that it was absolutely unworkable. Our problems as regards the clash of interest between the county council and the park committee were not as serious as that but if the Bill goes through, as we all hope that it will, those difficulties will be behind us.
The park authorities will be given a new and clearer mandate and a new standing in public estimation. The parks and the park authorities are already established institutions in our society and their value is increasingly understood and appreciated. The news of this Bill has already won the enthusiastic support of all the organisations whose purpose is to save and protect the British countryside. High hopes have been raised. Those hopes can be realised only if the Government provide the time and the opportunity for the Bill to reach the statute book. I hope that they will attend to that.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on his enthusiasm, initiative and imagination in bringing forward this Bill, which enshrines most of the provisions of the Edwards Report. I was there, so to speak, when the Edwards Committee was set up because I was a member of the Countryside Commission for England and Wales. I do not have the slightest doubt that Edwards got it absolutely right and this Bill gets it right too.
I must confess to your Lordships that my attitude to the Bill is one of robust simplicity. My natural primitive instinct urges me to give the Bill as big a shove as I possibly can rather than to risk the fragility of all private Bills by examining too closely the small print and going along the amending path. This is the best Bill that we are likely to have within the current political infrastructure.
I had hoped to be of some use to your Lordships by covering one or two of the main points which appeal to me which have a grass roots flavour—I am thinking in commission terms. I shall pick them up extremely quickly and try to cover them in about three minutes flat.

333
As well as being a first step, the Bill is also an urgent step. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has already described the advantages of a free-standing status for the national park authorities. The Edwards Report refers to,
"the need for park authorities to make decisions in support of park purposes unconstrained by the sometimes conflicting priorities of their parent county councils".
That puts the matter in a straightforward way. While addressing that issue, the Bill also gives the new park authorities the advantage—and it is worth emphasising that—of remaining part of local government. They benefit from having the conflict removed and they benefit from remaining in touch with and responsive to local communities. That strikes a fine balance which accords fully with the Edwards vision.
I commend also the clauses relating to the role of the countryside agencies. Schedule 1 retains the obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales on appointments. Given the agreed need for a higher profile for those members and for them to represent a broader spectrum of interest and expertise, it is vital that the advisory role is made explicit in the Bill and that it is fully understood. As Edwards pointed out, the agencies are well placed to ensure that appointees are selected for their,
"commitment to national park purposes and their experience and skills in relevant fields of activity, rather than for their 'political acceptability '."
Over 10 years for the 11 parks I have interviewed scores of nominated men and women in their homes. That was not merely to see whether or not they were good enough for the job but whether they fulfilled a particular need for a particular park at a particular time. I believe that that was time well spent but I must confess that my judgment was not al ways infallible.
I welcome Clause 9 of the Bill which relates to the national park grant. That perpetuates the present procedures. It is worth emphasising that. The arrangements of functional strategies being prepared by the parks in consultation with the two public agencies as the basis for grant allocation have proved their effectiveness. That is yet another national park procedure which works.
Finally, perhaps I may offer a practical thought on the outlook for national park administration and management. There seems to be a broad consensus that the main element in this Bill—namely, free-standing status for the park authorities, which is a consensus of which Her Majesty's Government are a part—is a necessary and urgent measure. It is urgent because of local government reorganisation but it is urgent also for another reason; that of increasing pressures of all kinds on the parks demanding yet more sensitivity, more skill in balancing the often conflicting interests of park status and local community—and we must not flinch from recognising that there are such conflicts from time to time—and more sophistication in the management of land and people. Employment. the rural economy, landscape and wildlife, traffic and walking boots, local industry and conservation areas are all part of a great cauldron of decision-making which daily imposed the need for ever more Solomon-like judgments.
Moreover, we view a changing scene in the parks
334
which in turn needs deft hands. Visitor pressures will demand inspired administrative techniques, some of which are yet to be explored. How salutary it is to recall that the Peak District National Park now has over 20 million visitor days each year while the total population of Australia is 17 million. A visit to the Peak District National Park at the end of a hot, dry summer reveals starkly the problems which must be faced.
How salutary it is, too, to dwell on the underlying trends in farm policy. Can we really believe that 10 years hence the structures of hill farming and patterns of the sheep stock will still be the same? Land use changes will need to be anticipated by strong., far-seeing authorities which are firmly in charge.
Therefore, this is a good Bill to meet a critical complex of issues which faces the parks. it gives the authorities a more muscular and effective organisation with which to do their job. I wish, most profoundly, for it to find a fair wind and a safe passage.
9.40 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on his Bill. He must be very pleased that so many Peers have stayed late to support him. Indeed, it is right that we should do so. It is an important step in carrying forward to a new and improved phase a movement which started over 50 years ago. I am honoured to have been in at the birth of the national parks as a new, young MP in 1945.
The campaign had been growing in intensity since the 1930s. I represented an industrial Northern constituency, near Manchester. I know, and I knew then, how the workers in that smoky town and in the unhealthy mills and factories looked up to the Peak District, and other open spaces, for freedom, fresh air and beauty which they were determined to enjoy. The movement was ably encouraged by Tom Stephenson who was then secretary of the Ramblers' Association. He made his name pioneering the creation of long-distance walking routes. He was determined to secure the opening of the Pennine Way, which was over 100 miles of uninterrupted joy on the ceiling of the backbone of England above those smoky towns.
Tom Stephenson organised a series of walks at Whitsuntide—in fact, there were five of them—among Labour MPs of whom I was one. We were accompanied by Hugh Dalton who shortly beforehand had been Chancellor of the Exchequer. The objective was to forge that Pennine Way and to support the demand for national parks legislation which Lewis Silk in (then Minister of Town and Country Planning in the Labour Government) was preparing in his National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. That was a revolutionary step forward because it not only contained the concept of national parks, but it also strengthened the right of access to mountains as its title showed. Moreover, it preserved footpaths, rights of way and provided for such long distance routes.
We were enthusiastically supported, but in our view it had one drawback. We believed that we could only keep the national parks really national if there was a strong national parks commission which appointed the local parks committees. Therefore, we kept reminding

335
the local people that they were darned lucky to live in those special areas and should not prevent other people from enjoying them. That concept of ours was endorsed in the report of Arthur Hobhouse in 1947—the seminal report on the new national parks concept which was commissioned by the Government.
We were all concerned to prevent damage to the national parks which allowing the local interest too strong a say might achieve. Unfortunately, Lewis Silkin did not give way to us. I believe that he was got at by his civil servants. Moreover, I would not be surprised if the Treasury had put a foot in it, as it usually does in such affairs. We were left with the threat to the national parks which we wanted to preserve, in John Dower's words in his wartime report, as areas "beautiful and relatively wild". We were afraid that local pressures —those are perfectly understandable—would encroach on that beauty and that wildness in the form of inappropriate leisure pursuits. If one is to obtain the spiritual value of the solitary heights, one must not allow theme parks to litter an area.
There have been dangers in the interim period and we all welcomed the setting up of the review panel under Professor Edwards who found there had been,
"deteriorating environmental quality … permanent damage to the landscape".
That precious heritage which we were seeking to preserve had been damaged. It was Professor Edwards, as has been pointed out, who made the recommendation that the control of national parks should be taken out of the hands of county councils and should be placed in the hands of new freestanding park authorities. This Bill has come like a breath of life to those who care about these areas and about rambling, access to mountains, solitude, beauty, and the preservation of our landscape.
This Bill is not the constitution for which I agitated 50 years ago, but nonetheless I welcome it. One has to adapt with changing circumstances and I believe the Bill gives us the best institutional arrangements that we can hope to have all these years later. To have these independent authorities with their own finance, personnel and extra powers is a great step forward. Yet at the same time—I believe this is right—the Bill gives a strong voice to local authorities. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly and I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. He has done a wonderful job of work.
I apologise to the House as I cannot stay to hear the winding-up speech. I shall have to leave very soon to catch a late train to my home in Buckinghamshire. However, I wished to attend the debate to say that those of us who pioneered the national parks 50 years ago welcome this step forward and believe it will meet many of the fears that we have experienced in the ensuing years.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I live in one national park, the Brecon Beacons. For 17 years as a Member of Parliament I represented another, the Pembrokeshire Coast. As Secretary of State for Wales I was responsible for both and a third, Snowdonia National Park. I believe there is only one, Exmoor, that I have not visited and
336
walked in. Therefore I have a tremendous interest in and concern for the national parks. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie on his initiative upon introducing this Bill so admirably earlier this evening. It deserves—and I hope it will receive—support from all parts of the House.
As we have heard, it is only a limited Bill. It takes one simple step and it leaves much still to be done. It is a pity that the Government have not yet found time to be able to introduce the comprehensive legislation that was promised in the document Fit for the Future. However, simple steps can be important and this one certainly is. It is the essential measure on which we can build. When the committee of Professor Edwards invited comments on its original consultation document, I was one of those who responded. I made the point—I believe it is an important point and it picks up an area that was discussed by the noble Baroness who has just spoken —that our parks in this country, unlike those in other parts of the world, are places where people live, work and play and where all the normal activities of life have to be carried on. However important the environmental interests and the environmental concerns may be, we must never overlook the rights of the people and the businesses actually housed within the parks. There is a delicate and difficult balance to be kept. If it is not kept we shall simply not be able to fulfil our objectives.
In my representations I also expressed anxieties about the way the planning process was working, at least in some parks. At that time it was working extremely badly in the Brecon Beacons park, and I made some suggestions for improving the balance of relationships within the committees which have been taken up in this legislation.
I also raised the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, touched on—namely, the threat of damage to the parks as a result of unsuitable activities. I am particularly anxious about increasing pollution and damage caused by motorbikes and cross-country vehicles. But we also have to be concerned about the damage done by the visitors who go to enjoy the parks. In Pembrokeshire they used to destroy the hedge banks. In the Brecon Beacons National Park there are areas on the Offa's Dyke walk which are stripped bare to the width of this Chamber by the footprints of walkers. One can point to many other examples.
One always likes to find that a committee agrees with one's conclusions. Therefore, having made those points I was glad that they were taken up so effectively by the Edwards Committee. Its report stated at the start that:
"The parks must demonstrate the highest standards of environmental protection and provide spiritual and physical refreshment for those seeking it. At the same time, they must develop a more supportive relationship with the communities living and working there".
On the same page the report picks up the point about intrusive and noisy activities which conflict with quiet environment. It says that those should be discouraged. It concludes that, where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two purposes, conservation must have priority. I agree with that conclusion.
As Chairman of the National Rivers Authority I particularly welcome the preference expressed in the

337
Bill that the national park authorities should be strategic planning authorities. I am also pleased to see the prominence given in the Bill to national park management plans. They are an immensely useful instrument, not least for involving local people in the whole process of planning for the park and understanding what happens in it.
I am anxious that the National Rivers Authority should be consulted in the preparation of those plans. I should like some clarification of the relationship between the development of those plans and the development of our river catchment management plans. I should like to see a specific reference in Clause 3(7) to the National Rivers Authority in addition to the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council. That would strengthen the Bill. I hope that that can be considered.
I have a rather wider concern, which may spring simply from the obscurity and complexity of the drafting. Even by contemporary standards, it is exceptionally complex and obscure. I ask whether the Bill as drafted guarantees the requirements of existing legislation—for example, the Town and Country Planning General Development Order—to ensure that all the existing statutory consultees are involved in the planning process. I particularly have in mind the National Rivers Authority, but there are others. Will the new parks authorities have the duty to consult them in the planning process? Such matters can easily be overlooked in the drafting of a complex Bill of this kind.
Having raised the question with Professor Edwards's committee about the balance of interests, I welcome the fact that as a consequence of the Bill each local authority in the park will be entitled to at least one member on the national parks authority. It is also sensible that those representatives of the local authorities should be elected members accountable to their electorates.
However, having strengthened the district representation in that way, and having ensured that local interests are fairly represented by number, it is important to ensure that they are not unfairly represented in the decisions taken. The representatives appointed by the Secretary of State to protect wider national interests need to be strong and effective. They need to be fairly represented on the appropriate committees, and robust in ensuring that the broader interests which the national parks have been created to protect are not overborne by selfish local pressures. I should like to see a provision under which any committee or sub-committee of the authority has to have serving on it representatives from both classes. That is an issue that we can pursue at Committee stage.
It may be said that these are points of detail. The suggestion was that perhaps we should not pursue them too far and that we should take the work of the draftsmen on trust. I confess that I never take the draftsmen on trust. An important point arises here. If the Bill is to be improved, it must be improved in this House. If it is to overcome the immensely difficult hurdles presented to a private Bill in competition with the private legislation in another place we must get the Bill right in this Chamber and send it to another place
338
in a form which needs no amendment. The principles of the Bill are right. With all the uncertainties arising from local government reform, there is an urgent imperative to put the Bill on the statute book.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to follow noble Lords who have already spoken. It is always salutary to be reminded in debates of the long tradition of the national parks movement and its links with the early Labour Party. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, referred to that. It is important to ernphasise that we would not be discussing the issue tonight if it were not for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. He was involved with the Countryside Commission for England and Wales in setting up this important review. As Secretary of State for Wales, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, took an active interest in all national parks. In particular, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for his consistency in ensuring that we are moving the Bill through Parliament.
In the context of Wales, it is a pleasure for me to say that the Welsh Office is slightly ahead in that we have a fall-back position in the Local Government (Wales) Bill which has now passed through this House. A model of an independent board for the three parks within Wales has already been placed in legislation in this House. If and when the Bill is enacted, the new provision will obviously replace that legislation in creating those new authorities.
I speak on the issue because, apart from when I have had to be in London or Cardiff, I have lived all my life at three points in and around the Snowdonia National Park: in the Conwy Valley, in the shadow of Carneddau; in the Wnion Valley, with an uninterrupted view of Cader Idris; and now in the Royal Borough of Caernarfon, with an uninterrupted view of Snowdon. I live in that environment from choice, as do many of us. For 18 years I had the opportunity to represent in another place a large part of Snowdonia. I am pleased to mention in this House my involvement as a vice-president of the Snowdonia National Park Society and the Snowdonia Appeal of the National Trust and the ramblers.
I mention those activities because it is important to remind noble Lords, and those in the conservation movement, that we who live and work in the parks are conservationists. We also care for our environment. There is not nowadays the conflict that there used to be between the local interests and the "national" interest referred to in the title of the Bill.
It is in that context that I also wish to pay tribute in this brief speech to the chairman of our National Park Committee in Snowdonia. Councillor John Tudor has been a long-standing sensitive and sensible chairman of a national park authority and I am aware that he is known to other Members of the House. He has set the difficult duty of park committees, which will become the difficult duty of the new park authorities under the Bill. I shall not take the time of the House by quoting it in Welsh, though I suppose I should, but in the English

339
translation the recent introduction by Councillor John Tudor to the Snowdonia National Park annual report states:
"The Parks Committee's job is to maintain the fragile balance between the very often conflicting aims of conservation, recreation and the social and economic well-being of the local people. This is not an easy task but we can only be successful in our objectives by working closely with the numerous other bodies which have their own individual objectives and above all with the local people who own most of the land in the Park and who live and work there".
I think he makes the point well that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made earlier.
I quote that introduction because in the Bill there is no change in the form of governance of the parks or in the balance of the governance. What we see in the Bill is a change of structure, a change of finance and a strengthening of representation. So those who in some aspects of local authorities have expressed anxiety in the past that there would be a move to nationalise the parks away from local representation are confounded by the Bill. It is quite clear that what we are seeing is a structure which is a change merely in terms of codifying the existing national park policies and legislation and establishing a structure of independent authorities but within local government.
In that sense, for those of us who have been following the progress of local government change, particularly in the recent Welsh Bill, it is important to stress that we may see in this model an example of what effective joint working within the local government framework might look like. We may have authorities which are comprised of a balance of local representatives. They will be very local and we hope that the local representatives will represent wards within the parks, as they sit on the authorities from the new principal councils; the councillors will represent their interests. Alongside we will have the balance, as we have it now, of those nominated technically by the Secretaries of State but representatives by nomination, as we heard in the short extract from the memoirs of the noble Lord earlier, on the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Commission in the case of England.
It is a useful model. It is a model of how to provide a function for an authority which is part of local government and which, for the first time in the Bill, will lead to equal partnerships between the nominated members and the members of local government. There was the feeling in the past that the nominated members and the local members were not on a par. I do not just mean in terms of allowances and how they arrived there. The feeling was that they were not full partners in the work of the authorities. However, obviously in the structure of the new Bill that equal partnership will be possible.
I also welcome the funding changes in the Bill. It is not for me to criticise Gwynedd County Council or any other authority, but there have been instances in the past where the local authority 25 per cent. has not been forthcoming when it should have been. That has created planning problems and funding cycle problems for the park authorities.
340
A number of questions arise in the context of the Bill. There is the whole question of how the authorities will function as unitary planning authorities; what is the relationship between them and the surrounding authorities. Pembrokeshire will be within one principal council but in the case of Snowdonia it will be within two principal councils. Brecon Beacons is a rather different animal. It will be in far more councils. I am not sure how many but possibly seven. It will obviously be difficult for the Brecon Beacons to have joint planning structures with all its surrounding local authorities. We should look to ways in which the national park authorities can co-operate as strategic planning authorities with their neighbouring principal councils. One of the problems in the past has been that we have had national park policies within the boundaries of the park, or within the designated landscapes of the park; but often there can be conflict between those policies and the planning policies of authorities next to them.
I have always seen the national parks as unique landscapes; as areas where conservation had to be paramount, and balanced (obviously) with the statutory obligation for recreation and the well-being of the local community. I always favoured the idea of a third purpose. That point was discussed at some length in the Edwards Report; namely, that there should be a reference to the socio-economic position of the local population in national parks legislation in the future. That would place the national parks clearly in the context of sustainable development. That is what we are really talking about. We are talking about very precious landscapes which should become models of sustainable development, from the environmental, landscape and socio-economic viewpoint; in terms of "green" tourism; and in terms of environmentally friendly industrial development within a rural context. All that is yet to come. But this Bill marks a very important step in the direction of creating sustainable development, not only in our national parks but in all of our countryside.
10.6 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I lack the natural oratorical skill of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. To my regret, I speak only one of the native British languages. Nonetheless, it is with great pleasure that I offer my strongest support to my noble friend Lord Norrie in carrying forward this Bill. I add my congratulations to his already well-swollen head.
It falls to me at this stage of the debate to emphasise the ways in which the proposal in this Bill to create free-standing national parks will offer potential benefits to nature conservation. First, as was emphasised by the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, the existence of these authorities will increase the independence of park administrations from pressures which are unsympathetic to the natural environment, or, indeed, to other purposes of the park. Among those, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, emphasised, recreation and public enjoyment are vital considerations.
I remind noble Lords that the national parks of England and Wales are repositories of biodiversity and the sites of rare species. Their value in that respect was

341
recognised when the parks were first set up. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has already reminded us of the Hobhouse Report 1:Cmnd. 7122), which stated that,
"The establishment of a system of national parks covering extensive areas of wild country will itself increase the potential protection of many species which cannot be included or confined within any reserve".
We have to recognise that Professor Edwards's panel identified a decline in the nature conservation resource in parts of the parks. But for the past 40 years or so, it has, in the main, been true that they have been important for nature conservation. The national parks still contain extensive areas of land and water that are of great conservation value. They also contain many sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves.
Because it shaald foster the protection of these important areas and the enhancement of their value for nature conservation, for landscape and for people, this Bill is a very welcome step. I have the confidence to make those remarks being a Secretary of State's appointee,—not one who bustles up and down to London, as one might say of the noble Baroness, but one who is largely there most of the time. I am the Secretary of State's appointee to the Suffolk and Norfolk Broads authority. That is a successful model, similar to, but not exactly the same as, the kind of free-standing authority that the Bill will create. The Broads authority is a multi-purpose authority with duties for nature conservation, public amenity and recreation and, in this special case, also for navigation. It is not covered by the reach of the Bill because it also has its own Act of Parliament.
The Broads authority provides experience of a national park equivalent body that is working in partnership with others to achieve its objectives. It exercises its statutory planning function with the assistance of the constituent local authorities into which the Broads executive area extends. Confidence is maintained by the balance of representation which marginally favours local authority members. At the same time, its appointed members—if I can say so without immodesty—bring expertise from all quarters. They include landowners and land managers, navigation and boating interests, public bodies, including the National Rivers Authority, the Countryside Commission and English Nature, and voluntary organisations from within the local communities. The authority has powers to levy on the local authorities. Those are accepted and the high level of grant from central government allows it to fulfil its functions effectively from a position of strength. It is a useful model that gives confidence for the future of the new authorities proposed in the Bill.
The Bill does not propose any changes to the statutory purposes of the national parks or to their associated duties. I remind my noble friend the Minister that the Government clearly stated, in the recently published biodiversity action plan that,
"there should he legislation to make nature conservation a primary National Park iDurpose".
The Bill is therefore a first step in a process. The context of the biodiversity action plan or the national sustainahility strategy may be the appropriate mechanism for future legislation which should take on board the
342
nature conservation purpose and other recommendations made by Professor Edward's national parks review panel.
I join my noble friend Lord Norrie and others in asking the Minister for assurance that the objective has not been lost sight of. I hope that he will confirm that future legislation for the benefit of nature conservation resource in national parks is on the timetable. Also, does he have any view of when the legislation may be introduced.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foot, speaking second in the order of speakers this evening, lamented that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, had covered the subject so comprehensively that there was precious little left to say. Nonetheless, my noble friend found quite a lot to say. Imagine the plight of the rest of us who, like myself, coming in ninth and subsequent in the batting order, in finding anything at all to say. But one thing I can do, along with other noble Lords who have already spoken, is to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for his patient and persuasive skills in getting the Bill drafted, accepted, and given a fair wind by the Government. I thank him also for his kind reference to myself.
I prefer to strike a positive and appreciative note rather than to regret the Government's delay in bringing forward their own legislation on national parks, as they promised to do in their manifesto for the current parliamentary programme. Like everyone in this House, I pray that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will become law during this Session of Parliament, especially so in the light of prospective local government reforms.
I should also like to place on record the long and persistent efforts of many others, both within and outside Parliament. I am happy to make a special reference to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—I am not sure whether it is proper to refer to distinguished personages who are seated behind or below the Bar, but I am happy to do so. He campaigned for upgrading the status and strengthening the powers of the national park authorities for many years past.
The review panel under Professor Ron Edwards did an excellent job in its report to the Countryside Commission in 1991 entitled Fit for the Future. But the commission itself, under the splendid leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, had already conducted a three-year campaign for the national parks between 1985 and 1988 under the title Watch Over National Parks. I am happy to pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barber, in that connection. The Council for National Parks, the CPRE, the CPRW and others, whose origins date from much further back, had all called for a stronger administration for the eight parks which are run by local authorities. Indeed, the Standing Committee for National Parks, which pioneered the movement in the 1930s, launched a campaign in 1972 which included a call for equal treatment as between all the parks. The SCNP was to become the Council for National Parks, of which I was privileged for a number of years to be the president.

343
It is worth recalling those early years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, did so movingly, of the national park movement which led up to the 1949 Act in order to make the point that the Addison, Dower and Hobhouse Reports, which led to that Act of Parliament, all assumed that the future parks would have equal status and powers. The first two national parks, designated in 1951, set the pattern which it was expected would be followed by all the parks to follow. The Peak District Park and the Lake District Park were then, and are now, controlled by independent boards, having full planning powers, precepting on local authorities for funds and appointing their own staffs.
When in that same year, 1951, the Snowdonia National Park was created, the local county council, Caernarfonshire—or, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, Sir Gaernarfon—insisted on retaining control of its administration. That park "authority" was not, and is not today, a true authority. It was a committee of the county council. All other local authorities in whose areas national parks were designated by the Act of 1949 followed suit. In effect there were, and are, two grades of national parks, unequal in status and powers.
It is in no sense a criticism of the national park committees nor of the local authorities in whose areas they are located to point out the limitations under which those committees have worked. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Foot of the kind of limitations which they worked under. They hampered strategic planning in the eight parks in terms of conservation in general, landscape protection, public access and quiet enjoyment.
I have been purely historical so far and I would insist that that is all water under the bridge. It all happened 40 years ago. But now the pressures for land development are greatly increasing. It is in the national interest that all the parks should have greater protection today by placing them all on an equal free-standing and firm footing of independence on the model of the boards which administer the Peak and Lake District parks.
The Bill must not be the end of the matter of ensuring our national parks for the future. I, too, hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government have in mind to bring forward further and more wide-ranging legislation relating to the countryside in general and designated areas in particular.
I end on a proper note: the future. We have a heavy responsibility to hand on these very special places to future generations. They were perceived as necessary for the health and ethos of Britain nearly 60 years ago. How much more necessary they have become today; and how much more so will they be in the future. We, and our descendants, will need the parks for their own sake and no less for the values which they offer to human society.
10.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for bringing forward this Bill. I can assure him
344
that his long track record of concern in this House on behalf of environmental causes is widely admired within the Church.
The matters which I would wish to share with this House are not directly and immediately about this particular Bill, but rather to ask some questions about the principles which undergird it. There is still a widespread assumption that, whereas the Churches are deeply interested in social policy, they are much less interested in the environment. Regrettably, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth pointed out in a recent debate in this House on the follow-up to the Rio Earth Summit, the Christian Churches have a very patchy record indeed.
But at that Rio Earth Summit there was a parallel meeting in less salubrious circumstances in Rio, of Churches from across the world. In the discussion which took place the intention was to draw out the relationships between human beings, human community activities and the environment. I believe that they have something to say to this House about that which underlies this particular legislation.
Our inherited, main Christian stream of thinking has been to see human beings as of supreme importance, the pinnacle of creation, and given the task of subduing unruly nature and bringing order out of chaos. Such a strand has been taught for many years and has supported an arrogant and exploitative approach to natural resources.
There is a new anthropology—no, a rediscovery of a strand which has been there all the time—which says that human beings are of the earth earthy, with the responsibility of continuing to share and care for the creation, mindful of the needs and interests of their neighbours, of future generations and of the value and worth of creation itself. It is this principle that finds, I believe, important expression in our national parks. They are places above all, and may be an example to all, where we try to develop the attitudes and disciplines on which to base sustainable development which does not spoil and destroy the future. Such sustainable development demands self-discipline, humility, reverence for nature and respect for the interests of the wider community and future generations.
I said that this undergirded the present legislation and our concept of national parks, but also that our national parks might be an example to the rest of the whole community in which we live, in balancing these concerns together. But sustainable development cannot escape the conflict of interests which are present in our own national parks. As we have already heard, conservation is part of that, but the livelihood and economic development of those who live and work within our parks are also of concern, involving such matters as housing, mining and quarrying. Balanced against these are the recreation, restoration and enjoyment of the citizens of this country.
Balancing such, at times conflicting, interests, demands a strong and broad-based authority to manage each of our national parks. Against this background I hope that the House will start with a strong presumption in favour of this Bill. In fact all the speeches this night have concluded that that is the right way forward. It

345
represents a great deal of careful consideration given, as we have already heard, by Professor Ron Edwards and his committee in its report to the Countryside Commission. It is important to remember that they listened to lobby groups; they listened to vested interests; they affirmed the integral importance of the people who live and work in the parks to the nature of our national parks as living and evolving places rather than wildernesses. Bearing that in mind, the committee also came to the clear conclusion that the legislation needs to be strengthened to safeguard the unique place of the national parks in our national life.
The Bill is needed quickly if the national parks are not to go into limbo. It is needed because they require a free-standing body with a majority of local authority and local members. Two principles are involved: subsidiarity and accountability. Both are to be found in the Bill. I hope that the House will give this Second Reading its full support.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the national parks are lucky and their cause is enhanced by the fact that my noble friend Lord Norrie is the sponsor of this Bill. I know a little bit about my noble friend as a sponsor because I was lucky enough to have him as one of my sponsors when I became a Member of your Lordships' House three years ago. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that there is a good chance that my noble friend will be recognised when he next visits Dartmoor. That is particularly appropriate. I am reminded of the fact that a few years ago, when one of the Dartmoor park wardens visited a local school wearing his green jersey with the black horse on it and began by saying, "Well, children, you all know where I come from", a little hand went up and someone said, "Yes, sir, is it Lloyds Bank?" That confusion could not possibly arise in relation to my noble friend Lord Norrie
I believe that the idea of having national parks was copied originally from the United States. Since then, however, the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard of the conservation and enhancement of the countryside. Government bodies such as the Countryside Commission and English Nature have played a part in that, as have voluntary bodies such as the CPRE, of which I have recently had the honour to be asked to be chairman, and the CI'RW. This country has an awful lot to teach other members of the European Union, and I believe that the Bill will provide a good path-finding demonstration.
I want to touch on only two points this evening because the hour is late and many of your Lordships wish to speak. I refer first to the question of planning. I hope that one of the big improvements that will result from the Bill is that the new authorities will be given a realistic and effective responsibility for the parks' structure plans. It would be desirable for the park authorities to collaborate closely with their neighbouring strategic planning authorities in exercising their planning powers. That is the basis already in the Lake
346
District, where the authority produces a plan jointly with the Cumbria County Council so that policies are co-ordinated. Each is an equal partner in the process
That may not be possible everywhere; for example, if there are too many such authorities, as in the case of the Peak District. As your Lordships know, the Lake and Peak District authorities are already structure plan authorities. I hope, however, that with this legislation the Minister will be able to ensure that in the future the new park authorities will at least consult closely. The ideal will be for each national park authority to be a structure authority unless it chooses not to be. I hope that when the Minister answers the debate he will be able to give us a little more detail of the Government's plans of how they will operate the legislation.
My second point relates to the importance of the Bill to the socio-economic interests in national parks. That has already been dealt with by a number of noble Lords, and particularly by the right reverend Prelate. I have a particular interest in this as a former member of the Rural Development Commission. I know that my noble friend Lord Vinson, as a former chairman of the RDC, would have wished to refer to that had he been able to be here.
We must remember that parks are places where people live and work. They must not he regarded as museums to be preserved in aspic. The NPAs should have a real role in supporting the local economy and contributing generally to the health of rural communities. Such projects are not just fully compatible with but enhance the parks themselves. People do not wish to go where they are surrounded by other visitors. In fact, if one is travelling anywhere and one wants to see oneself as a traveller rather than a tourist, the exciting thing is not to see other tourists but to see local people going about their everyday jobs.
I hope that the Bill will enable the NPAs to work with others to foster the social and economic well-being of their communities. The National Parks Review Panel made it clear that the NPAs have a part to play, and,
"an enabling role in the maintenance and creation of appropriate employment opportunities that contribute to park purposes. The issue then is one of identifying, supporting and fostering those economic activities that are sustainable and compatible with the purposes of national parks".
There is a good example which I hope will be encouraged by the Bill. The Peak District, already a free-standing board, as I have said, piloted a most successful integrated rural development project in the 1980s. Emphasis was placed on collaborative action combined with local initiative and commitment. It created 60 new full-time jobs and helped 24 businesses and 43 community schemes. All of that contributed towards environmental conservation in the park. I remember visiting the Peak District park with the noble Lord, Lord Barber, when he was chairman of the Countryside Commission. Incidentally, that was the first time that I met Michael Dower, the son of John Dower of national park fame, who was the creative and driving force behind that project. Of course, he is now doing an excellent job as the Director General of the Countryside Commission.
The new NPAs are ideally placed to prime the pump of similar initiatives. That should be able to contribute

347
to the health of rural economies and to the sustainable development which is the Government's goal. I welcome the Bill strongly. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House and I hope even more that it will have equal success in another place.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Feversham: My Lords, I join everyone else who has congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on bringing to us this timely Bill. It is timely in view of the mayhem which we are led to believe will be unleashed shortly by the Government on rural local government, producing, I have no doubt, widespread discontent and unrest in the countryside, almost certainly leading to massive Liberal Democrat gains in the shires at the next general election, always supposing that they can get their act together on country sports. Talking of country sports, perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the magnificent pictorial spread in a recent issue of Field magazine, available, I feel sure, in the Library, and showing in glorious colour the noble Lord relaxing in open country—I do not know whether it is a national park—in the company of his dog Gnat, or perhaps like Gnasher, the dog of Denis the Menace, the G should be hard, and it should be the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and his dog Gnat. He is explaining to his pet the opinion of the National Parks Review Panel that,
"The present requirement that dogs must be kept under control is insufficiently precise".
The noble Lord is giving Gnat that news, I guess, but noble Lords will, of course, want to judge for themselves, in terms certainly not less quiet and masterful than those which he employed in introducing the Bill.
It is late, and I hope that I shall not delay your Lordships for too long, given that I come to the debate armed to the teeth with an action packed brief from the secretary of the National Association of Local Councils, of which I am the president, and given that I live in the North York Moors national park and have views. As of a few weeks ago, I also live in a national nature reserve because my garden was declared as such. I do not know whether that is because I am a particularly rare kind of insect or what! Nevertheless, I live in a national nature reserve as well as in a national park.
In general I support the view that we need new national park authorities, as recommended by the review panel in the Edwards Report. The great sadness is that tonight we are not debating a Bill which promotes many of the issues in respect of which Edwards felt there was need for further legislation. I understand the reasons for that and for the pressing need to bring forward in a Private Bill new authorities for the parks. As one observes the mode, timing and progress of the Government's approach to the reform of rural local government, the desire to cling on to anything by way of a passing life raft swells in the bosom.
I also support the view that the membership of any new national park authorities should be made up of a majority of elected local representatives, much as they
348
are now. It would not be in the interests of parks to become quangos. Local interest must be built up in their activities if they are to prosper.
In the terms of the Bill, membership of the new authorities is something of a detail. However, it is a very important detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. We must look at that matter. I understand the expediencies required in steering a Private Bill through Parliament. This is an important Bill which I too wish to see on the statute book. Normally, I am as keen as the next man to rock boats but one tends to take stock before rocking the lifeboat!
In the Bill, although not in his speech where he was more forthcoming, the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has made gigantic efforts to avoid entangling himself in the hapless entrails of the Government's avowed intentions for rural local government reform. He has adroitly skipped past county councils, district councils and unitary authorities by producing an act of creation worthy of the noble and almighty Lord. With much writhing and anguish, he has given birth to that fine new beast "the principal council". Increasingly, one imagines that large numbers of civil servants and all those who have to lock horns with them are forced to spend much of the working day inventing names for these organs of local government. We pay our taxes to support them in this mighty endeavour.
I am not a county councillor or a district councillor. I am a parish or local councillor, which in a world of unitary authorities, for example, would mean that I was the only councillor who was not a principal councillor. It has long been the agreed policy of the National Association of Local Councils to press for one or two seats at the table of national park authorities to be filled by representatives of the parishes in the parks.
Historically, two main arguments have been produced against our case, both of them specious. The first suggests that the numerous small parish councils in each park would find it difficult to agree on who their representatives should be. We know that that is nonsense as we frequently carry out just such appointments to regional and, indeed, national bodies.
The second argument has been that the local authority members of park authorities should bring with them to the table a dowry from local taxation. Parish councillors are elected representatives, even though they operate on a small proportion of the community charge and would not be able to bring anything in the way of a dowry. However, the community charge payer should pay only once to the national park while being more than happy to have representatives of park parishes on the authority under the umbrella of the dowry of the principal authorities, which should still command a majority in committee.
I do not know what idea was recommended in Edwards, but in my view districts should not pay a dowry. The community charge payer should pay once through the principal authority. We are not convinced, as noble Lords should not be, of the arguments promoted against parish council representatives on national parks. Edwards suggested increased district

349
council membership on national park authorities because he identified a pressing need for the parks to get closer to their communities. The report says:
"There is a need to bring together the aspirations of the local communities with the pursuance of park purposes, and to minimise the conflict between them".
I ask your Lordships to note that there is conflict which needs to be minimised.
Again, from evidence received by Edwards, we learn that,
"local people consider that their interests are not properly represented".
In other words, th,. principal authority, with a dowry system employed at present, does not work in that respect.
The National Association of Local Councils told Edwards to get some parish councillors on the board. Edwards baulked at that, the panel heads no doubt spinning with dowry thoughts and fears of the conflict among the parishes in choosing their representative. However, Edwards had to solve the problem that local people did not consider that their interests were properly represented and that there was conflict. Thus, the idea was hit upon of dishing out more seats to the district councils; that would do the trick. Indeed, it may have done the trick were it not for the prospect of local government refer with the favoured option of the Government being unitary authorities which will be necessarily larger than districts and make local government more remote from local people than the present two-tier system.
It is likely to remain the national policy of local councils to press for local council members on national park authorities. Parish councillors in national parks have a beef about it and where parish councillors have a beef, it will be difficult to resolve the conflict. The best way to deal with that would be to give them a seat at the table.
However, apart from that, there are other ways which should be pursued to minimise conflict; namely, by courting local councillors. Edwards suggested that national park authorities should do so. It is suggested in particular that there should be systematic consultation with local councils regarding planning applications. In my experience, that is essential. It is suggested also that there should be regular forums with local councils to explain the implications of policy developments and to hear the aspirations and problems of park communities. I feel sure that that would be progressive. I understand that such a forum already exists in the Peak Park and I know that there is an Association of Local Councils in the Dartmoor Park which I feel sure would be raring to go with a forum. It strikes me that one advantage of such a forum is that a large number of parishes within the parks, if not all of them, could be involved with the forum and could be represented.
I believe also that it is hoped to set up advisory panels on the new national park authorities with representatives of various interests within the parks. It seems to me that parish councils have such an interest and could profitably be represented on such panels. In all those ways, I believe that i would be extremely helpful to the national parks to involve local councillors as much as possible in order to minimise conflict. Experience
350
suggests that a clear lead from the Government in stressing the need to work with local councils is helpful in making the kind of orders envisaged in the Bill.
That brings me to my final point which does not concern local councils but worries me somewhat. Local government members of national park authorities should include a significant number elected for wards actually situated in the national parks. Unless that is so the areas of conflict in the parks can only increase Edwards recognised that by suggesting that one-third of local authority representatives —those from the districts —should represent electors in the parks. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, believes that the wording of Schedule I will achieve something approaching that. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and one or two other noble Lords say that the Bill will produce greater democracy for people who live in the parks. I am not so sure. They may well be right, but I have a fear in that regard. I should like the Bill to be strengthened if possible. They may be right in the majority of cases but the Bill provides that the park authorities shall be composed of persons appointed by every principal council, any part of whose area is within the park and that appointments must be of members of those councils. I agree with that. The Bill provides further that regard must be had to political balance when appointing members. Since at present, and under most likely scenarios for reorganising local governrnent, many appointing authorities will have substantial areas not in their parks, it is possible that only a small number of appointees will be sitting for electoral areas actually in the park.
Given the likely size of park authorities, there is a real risk that the inhabitants of a park may see themselves excluded from proper democratic input into bodies supposedly designed to give them such. That democratic deficit could be exacerbated if., given the higher profile and the autonomous budgets of the new authorities, leading members of appointing councils were to serve in preference, for example, to local sitting members.
I should like to hear any views which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, or the Minister, when he comes to reply, may have on that aspect. They may say, "Well, we can work out the details to cope with it when we come to make the orders". However, like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I would prefer to see something written into Schedule I to say that local authorities should not only have to take account of the political balance—that is already there—but also the balance of their appointees who actually represent electors in the park as against those who do not. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It is a matter of balance. I am only concerned that we should get the balance right. In that respect as regards local councillors, Edwards thought that about half-and-half was the right balance.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I must, first. declare a personal interest in national parks, in that, for the past decade, I have had a Welsh base just south of Llangorse Lake in Brecon Beacons National Park. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, also lives in that park, as does

351
Professor Edwards, to whom justified tributes have been paid throughout the debate. Indeed, he is well aware of local needs and circumstances. Prior to that, I had a Welsh home within a few miles of the Snowdonia National Park. I cannot claim such close affinity with the Pembrokeshire coast park, which has its own special characteristics. But it is with a reasonably long record of personal experience that I declare my full support for the Bill now before us.
I am looking at the clock. It is not only my noble friend Lady Castle who has to find her way home. I have come to the conclusion that the kindest thing that I can do is to show restraint and not make the speech that I should quite like to make. We are only half-way through the speakers' list; indeed, I believe that I am number 13 on it. I have two distinguished noble friends on the Front Bench to speak for me, both of whom have Welsh connections and will, I am sure, wish to discuss the significance of the Bill, which we all welcome in the Welsh situation. Having said that, I shall now sit down.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie must be congratulated for his determination in introducing the Bill and for the hard work involved. I believe that everyone who is concerned and interested in the future of national parks is most certainly indebted to him. I am sure that we are all committed to the concept of national parks as places where natural beauty is protected and as an environment in which people can peacefully enjoy their leisure time. We set great store on both aspects of their purpose—conservation and enjoyment.
Obviously there are times when the two parts of that twin aim run counter to each other. A balance has to be struck to ensure that usage does not damage the fabric or that conservation does not stifle the natural life and economic well-being of the local communities—that is vitally important—and nor should it debar the park as a facility for recreational enjoyment by those from other areas, especially urban dwellers.
There are many organisations using the parks for recreational purposes. The Caravan Club, of which I have the honour of being vice-president, is possibly one of the largest of these. I wish briefly to bring to the attention of the House the views of the Caravan Club on the relevance of this Bill to it. The Caravan Club is typical of a large and well controlled recreational organisation which, through its administrative and management structure and its codes of conduct, ensures that its members enjoy their hobby in a responsible way. An example of this is recognition and observation of the special rules which govern caravanning in the national parks. In this respect the staff of the Caravan Club find it much more efficient to work with those parks where single authorities already exist than with those where it is necessary to deal with a variety of local authorities each of whom controls part of the park.
Experience suggests that the essential balance of interests is best maintained by a single authority with the entire park, and solely the park, as its sphere of interest. Such an authority is also best placed to set
352
consistent, fair and high standards on all questions of development and usage. Valuable two-way relationships can be developed between single authorities and main users but those between the users and a number of different authorities, each perhaps with different perceptions, are much less efficient. For this reason the Caravan Club, and I am sure similar organisations, are very much in favour of this Bill.
I was particularly interested in a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, that there should be better liaison between the national park authorities and parish councils. Surely it is essential that the people who dwell and earn their living within the national parks are adequately consulted for they are the people most affected by all proposals and plans. By and large they are also the guardians of the environment within and the beauty of the parks and therefore the idea of a parish council forum in each national park is surely to be welcomed. A parish council forum has the virtue of enabling all parish councils to join in and discuss policy and issues of park-wide significance as opposed to individual parish concerns. As the noble Lord said, they would also be able to feed back the problems and aspirations of the park communities. This builds on the recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel that the,
"consultant arrangements between the NPAs and the Parish and Community Councils should be strengthened"
When the National Farmers Union submitted its view to the Edwards Committee it expressed concern that the credibility of some of the national park authorities was in doubt in respect of how representative their members were of local people in the park area. Even with all the local authorities nominating a member to the national park authorities, the NFU is concerned that there is a possibility that those appointees may well live in urban areas outside the park boundaries and have no first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day problems or activities of the local people. I share that concern and I endorse the recommendation of the National Farmers Union that national park authority membership should consist of one-third appointed by the Department of the Environment, one-third appointed by the local authorities and one-third directly elected by voters living within the park boundaries. That recommendation seems to be well worthy of consideration for it would ensure that local communities are well represented. After all, they are the people directly affected by the activities of the national park authorities. I cannot stress too strongly that in my opinion it is vital that the national park authorities co-operate fully with the local community, and they must listen to and work closely with all the farming community in the more remote areas. Without that co-operation the Bill will not achieve all that we hope that it will.
I strongly support the Bill and I wish it a speedy passage through your Lordships' House and another place. I hope that we can prevent the whole question of national parks becoming enmeshed in local government reviews.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, in view of the hour I shall certainly follow the fine example of the noble Baroness, Lady White, in being brief, as I have frequently attempted to do in the past.
I should like to add my word in praise of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for bringing this Bill forward. It has many merits, but it has one great merit in that it is of narrow focus. It is therefore possible to deal with it without extending Jiscussion into more difficult areas which it is to be hoped the Government may deal with in due course in their own Bill.
I am particularly interested in the conservation and enhancement of the countryside because I am chairman of the recently formed Sussex Downs Conservation Board. We have the same concerns and interests. I should have liked to speak this evening on the social and economic factors to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred briefly, but it is better that I should omit that section of what I wanted to say and confine myself to one question to the Minister. In this case I believe that it is correct to put that question to the Minister rather than to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, because the answer will depend on his view and his action.
That question arises in the context of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, relating to the membership of the authorities and in particular to the number of members. The Edwards Report recommended that national park authorities should normally comprise between 18 and 24 members. I recognise the force of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, and it seems to me that that is a wise proposal. It enables the authority to function effectively and not be so large and diffuse as to be incapable of taking decisions. On the other hand, there is the need for proper representation within the councils of the authorities of those who live and work and have their livelihoods within the national parks.
It would be interesting to learn of the Government's view on that point, either this evening or at a later date when the Minister has had an opportunity to consider the matter further in the light of what has been said tonight. Both factors are vitally important, and I do not put the effective management of the parks in second place. Both are equally important, and I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's response.
10.58 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I too wish to become a member of the Lord Norrie appreciation society. I shall try to be brief. I should like to concentrate on one area of the Bill, namely paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. I, too, warmly welcome the undertaking in the Bill that any council —any county, distric: or unitary authority—whose area falls wholly or partly within the park shall be entitled to appoint at least one member to the national park authority. That is no: the case at present. Although at present every county council appoints members, there are district councils which share members through a
354
rotation system. That need to share is because there are not enough district council places for each to have one place all the time.
For example, in the Peak District National Park, three district councils—Staffordshire Moorlands, Macclesfield and North East Derbyshire—share two places on a four years on, two years off basis. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to the Brecon Beacons. In the Brecon Beacons, Dinefwr, Blaenau Gwent and Monmouth share two places; and Torfaen, Cynon Valley and Merthyr Tydfil share just one place. That is hardly satisfactory.
In its extensive consultations, the Edwards review panel found that over local issues many' people relate more closely to their district councils than to their county councils. The guarantee in the Bill of representation is therefore most welcome.
I have a specific question that relates to that aspect. Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3) states that the Secretary of State may make provision for excluding a council from appointing a member of the national park authority but only at the request of that council. I understand from my noble friend Lord Norrie that that provision is included in case there is any local authority with such a small area of land in a park that it would prefer to opt out from making an appointment or a financial contribution. I should therefore be most grateful if the Minister could clarify how the provision might operate and the area that he has in mind.
There is a related point on membership of national park authorities. The Edwards Report recommended that district council members should, wherever possible, represent wards within the national park area. That would go some way to addressing the concerns of local communities that their interests are not always properly represented. Therefore perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. How will the Secretary of State make provision for this to be achieved where possible'? And after local government review, where unitary authorities are set up, what logic will apply to achieve a similar effect under a unitary local authority structure?
I wish the Bill a safe passage and trust that it will riot be too long before I visit an area of park named the Norrie Plantation.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my congratulations to and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The hour is late and I shall endeavour to follow the wonderful precept of the noble Baroness, Lady White, and be brief. Almost every thing that I could have said has now been said.
The Bill gives precise legislative recognition to the central recommendation of the Edwards Report. It is a well crafted recommendation, and one which was endorsed by the Government as long ago as 1992. Applying the national parks structure which has been so successful in, first, the Peak District and then the Lake District is a simple concept. Subject to satisfactory clarification of one point, and with. regard to the other points raised, there appears no wish to see the Bill amended. It seems to me to serve admirably the recommendations of the Edwards report.

355
As some noble Lords know, I have the honour to be chairman of the National Trust. I think we can fairly claim some interest in national parks and how they function. We own over a quarter of the Lake District National Park; we have major landholdings in the Peak District; we have major landholdings in Snowdonia; and I believe that it is correct to say that we have landholdings in every national park, some of which are huge. That is not surprising because we are concerned with protecting the landscape, the wildlife and habitats.
To achieve that, we must concern ourselves with the welfare of the local communities and our own and other farming tenants. We must concern ourselves with archaeology and at all times we have to keep in front of us the considerations of amenity, of access and all the problems of visitor pressure—which have been mentioned but we must not forget them—of erosion of footpaths and so on; and then there is quiet enjoyment. All those concerns and objectives we have in common with the national park bodies. We have, I believe, now going on for 99 years' experience in the field and I think I may fairly say that we have excellent relationships with those who manage the parks.
It is our experience that the Peak District/Lake District model is the more effective model for achieving national park objectives. I say that without in any sense wishing to criticise the running of the eight other national parks. It is simply that the county council committee model will at times come up against conflicting priorities. That is perfectly understandable, but it is nevertheless unsatisfactory because we are dealing with national assets and national interests. The Bill, by establishing free-standing park authorities, will relieve these tensions. It should result, if the Peak/Lake District experiences are anything to go by, in a much better delivery of services and it makes much more management sense. Yet—and I emphasise this point —at the end of the day the new authorities will still be part of the local government family.
I do not wish to go over the detail of the Bill—that has been done already—but I should like to touch briefly on the matter of representation, which was dealt with at some length by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. One of the recommendations of Edwards was that to enhance local responsiveness the proportion of district council members on the authorities should be increased. The panel said that increasing this proportion would also be appropriate,
"in the light of the responsibilities of district councils in relation to the social and economic needs of park communities".
This raises the question of whether it is the intention of the Government, if a two-tier system exists in a national park area after the local government review, that the Edwards recommendation should apply. Specifically, should the local authority membership be half from county councils and half from district councils? If that is to be the case, how will the Secretary of State make provision for that to happen?
The Bill is an important first step in the implementation of Edwards. But much remains to be
356
done and I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House whether further legislation is likely to be forthcoming.
I have nearly done, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I end on a personal note. My father was much involved in the whole national park movement from its inception. He was a member of the Hobhouse Committee and was involved both in the passage of the 1949 Bill in this House and subsequently at the time of the local government reorganisation in the 1970s. One of his great concerns was to achieve the type of structure that we have before us tonight. Sadly, in those days the time was not ripe, but now the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, with, I am glad to say, the support of the county councils, the district councils, the CLA, the NFU and other bodies and all sides of the House, has brought the Bill before us. If, as I hope he is, my father is looking down on us tonight from "another place", if I may put it that way, I am sure he will be delighted and would wish to add his congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
11.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I too am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Norrie in his introduction of this Bill. It is very hard when one is the eighteenth Member to speak to find the right words to say that. But I assure the noble Lord that my support is very solid.
I welcome the Bill in particular because it fulfils the Government's undertaking in manifesto form to create (or establish) independent national park authorities. I also welcome an aspect which has been mentioned by several noble Lords who have spoken before me; namely, the increased representation of district council members on those authorities, and also the necessary offset (I shall return to this point) of the one-third membership to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
As some noble Lords have said, sadly the Bill does not seek to address many of the specific issues arising from the Edwards Report, though I believe that we are all agreed that these will have to be addressed in due course, and probably sooner rather than later. I appreciate nonetheless the immediate need for the objectives that this Bill seeks to achieve.
Although, as my noble friend Lord Norrie said in introducing the Bill, it does not cover recreation, which was in the title of the 1948 Act, I should like to speak briefly on the importance of the national parks in the context of tourism —here I declare an interest—as well as on the importance of tourism to the viability of the parks themselves.
It is estimated that visitors to the English national parks spend some £650 million pounds each year. It is estimated by the Lake District authority that some 30 per cent. of the jobs within the park are directly concerned with tourism and leisure. If one were to take account of the jobs that are supported by visitor or recreational expenditure in other sectors, such as shops and transport—which after all exist first and foremost not for the visitors but for the local community—one could probably argue that 50 per cent. of all

357
employment in the Lake District national park is dependent in one way or another upon tourism and leisure use.
A major issue facing the new national park authorities will be that of maintaining the balance between, on the one hand, the primary objectives of environmental conservation and access, and on the other the needs of the local economy. As noble Lords may be aware, Maintaining the Balance is the title of a report of the Tourism and Environment Task Force set up by the then Secretary of State for Employment in 1990. The report was published in May 1991, jointly by the Department of Employment and the English Tourist Board. The task force in particular, comprising a complete range of tourism, countryside, recreation and environmental interests, was very positive in its recommendations. It set down a number of principles for sustainable tourism in the national parks. It recognised the need for proper planning and that the enjoyment of the environment and its long-term survival should not be prejudiced by short-term consideration. Finally, it recognised tourism as,
"a positive activity wilh the potential to benefit the community and the place as well Ls the visitor".
I commend that report in the context of today's debate and of this particular Bill to those noble Lords who have not already read it.
In its response to the national parks review panel, the English Tourist Board suggested that the sustained viability of tourism and the benefits flowing therefrom within national parks are vital issues. Those of us who do not have the pleasure of living within national parks —and hence do not have the pleasure of being democratically represented, as several noble Lords have stressed—must bear. that fact in mind. The national parks do not exist only for those fortunate people who are residents. They cannot exist without the visitors. If one takes out the visitors, if you take out leisure and recreation, the national parks almost become sacred cows, existing only for the benefit of the immediate neighbourhood. I believe, as does the English Tourist Board, that these are vital issues which we must continue to look at, even if they are not perhaps germane to the Second Reading of the Bill which my noble friend has moved. In saying that, I am agreeing with the Edwards report which basically said that,
"tourism policies for National Parks should be clearly defined in the National Park Plans and in the strategies of the Regional Tourist Boards".
Those policies, as the report suggests, should be drawn up in partnership between the regional tourist boards and the national park authorities. I believe that Her Majesty's Government support that view and also endorse greater co-operation between the national park authorities and the regional tourist boards. They commended recent initiatives such as the development of Principles for Tourism in the National Parks and also the publication of a Guide to Good Practice for Tourism in National Parks. That is vital. If tourism overruns we destroy the parks; but if we do not have tourism, the parks cease to have justification for existing.
Although those appointed to national park authorities by the Secretary of State may not specifically represent particular interests, I hope that the importance of
358
tourism to national parks—I have argued several times for this—will be recognised and that those appointees will include at least one member to each national park authority who has specific involvement with the needs of the tourism industry. That need not be specific knowledge because one can have academic knowledge and that is not necessarily relevant; it is involvement that is of paramount importance.
Let me conclude as I started, by welcoming the 13i11. I am saddened that time does not permit me to elaborate on one last concern; that is, that the planning policies of the bodies which we are establishing tonight must not overlook the pressures which the existence of national parks impose especially on the immediately adjacent Green Belt beyond the national park boundaries. The fact that one has planning constraints within a national park area puts enormous infill pressures and all manner of other pressures on the Green Belt area just outside.
I am thinking particularly of the New Forest. It is my neighbour and perhaps I should declare an interest, though I have no interest in any of the many committees. However, I have an interest in the New Forest, as its neighbour, in that it seems to have gone into a sort of limbo. It does not know if it is a quasi-national park; it does not know if it is a proper national park. We in the New Forest area have long been waiting for a declaration of the Government's eventual policy. I hope that in replying—I have given notice of this question—my noble friend will be able to give us a little progress report on the New Forest.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, unusually, just for once, as I rise to speak in your Lordships' House I know what I am talking about. I have bodily experience of the Welsh national parks, for have I not climbed with my fingers and toes in Snowdonia; walked on my feet every inch of the Pembrokeshire coast path, and crawled on my belly as a national serviceman over half the Brecon Beacons?
The three national parks are at present run as committees of county councils which, after local government reorganisation, will cease to exist. There is a most welcome provision in the Local Government (Wales) Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred, which would make it easier to change those existing committee parks into free-standing boards on the Lake District and Peak District models. So that provision represents an insurance policy for those parks.
However, the Bill presented by the noble Lord is a much more comprehensive set of arrangements for the administration of national parks and would put the whole family of national parks in England and Wales on the same basis. As a vice-president of the Council for National Parks I naturally approve of that. I also approve of the fact that the Bill is drafted from scratch rather than being patched on to existing law in the form of a simple amendment. There will be scope to sort out anomalies and incorporate best practice.
I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for the assurance he gave me at the Report stage of the Local Government (Wales) Bill. It is now

359
abundantly clear that there is no conflict between Clause 19 of that Bill and this Bill, and that the latter is the preferred option.
As the former president of the Council for National Parks, the late and lovely Brian Redhead said:
"It is not enough to stop the bad. We must encourage good things in these beautiful places".
Brian Redhead cited farmers as essential to this process, and I wholeheartedly agree. And so does the Farmers' Union of Wales. Autonomous status will enable the park authorities to devote more of their time and resources to working with local communities. Support for farmers is just one example which will be most welcome in the national parks in Wales.
There is one aspect of the Bill on which I should be most grateful for some clarification from the Minister. The Bill says that the Secretary of State "may" make an order to set up one of the new national park authorities. That implies that he may not. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that it is intended that the existing national parks are all to have new authorities set up to run them? Can I be further assured that there will be no national park area designated under the 1949 Act that will not have a new authority to run it? To have an area without an authority would be a grave matter of not only national but international concern.
The national parks are unique places, repositories of a rich cultural heritage as well as beautiful landscapes. They deserve the best that can be provided in terms of their administration. I am confident that the Bill provides the best.
11.21 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Norrie for introducing the Bill, which I broadly welcome, and for doing it so clearly. Many of the points that need to be made have been very well covered by other speakers. I shall therefore confine myself primarily to Clause 4, with its presumption in favour of strategic planning powers being vested in the new national park authorities, and refer briefly to the status of local interests within the new national park authorities.
I speak largely from my own experiences of land use and planning. But I should also add, because of its relevance to Clause 4, that I am chairman of the Landscape Foundation, an organisation that has a particular interest in the impact on the landscape of planning. I am acutely aware of the pressures on land use that currently face many planning authorities. These pressures can be intense; they can be wide ranging; and they can demand difficult and sometimes controversial decisions. This challenge, which encompasses both planning strategy and planning practice, is often at its most critical in areas designated on landscape or environmental criteria. To achieve an effective, consistent and far-sighted response, planning authorities, especially those with a major responsibility for designated areas, need cohesive, strategic structure policies. Hence my broad support for Clause 4. No authority will have a greater responsibility for
360
designated land areas than the new national park authorities and therefore no authority has a greater need for proper structure plan powers.
At present there is no guarantee in legislation—apart from the two exceptions which have been referred to by other noble Lords—that the integrity of each national park landscape will be contained within a single structure plan. The Brecon Beacons, for instance, which appears to be the most densely populated national park, falls across four county councils and, therefore, four structure plans. Such arrangements are clearly not in the best interests of any area designated for its landscape value. The assumption in Clause 4 of one structure plan for the whole of the national park is a clear benefit of this Bill.
Much has been said about the economic and social interests of those who live and work in the national parks. I shall not add to the comments that have been made except perhaps to make two points. First, the livelihood and circumstances of residents are often crucial to the management and care of the landscape within the parks and the very landscape that the designation intends to protect. Secondly, environmental protection and environmental improvements are very often better served when local land use interests are able to thrive, are able to evolve and are able to feel a part of a wider strategy. Many noble Lords have said that a balance needs to be struck. I agree. That is why genuinely intentioned consultation is needed. The consultation should be genuine in spirit as well as in the letter of any new arrangement.
If any guidance or inspiration is needed on the sort of balance that could be aimed for, I would urge reference to the thinking behind Scottish Nature's new designation, the NHA or Natural Heritage Area. This designation recognises that the appearance, heritage and future of many areas of exceptional natural heritage owe much to man's active and passive land use in that area. The NHA designation, therefore, deliberately aims for flexibility, for local participation and integrating multiple objectives, both at local level and in terms of national strategy, in its management and policies.
I shall finish by making brief reference to Clause 3, which requires management plans for national parks. Clause 3 will provide a leading edge of strategic landscape planning and it will do so for some of our most beautiful landscapes. In doing so, Clause 3 will provide a splendid frame of reference for any other party involved in or affected by national parks' strategy. It will enable other parties to co-ordinate their own policies and actions.
As a result, if Clause 4 confers a clarity of purpose in terms of planning, Clause 3 confers an equal clarity of purpose in terms of management. I therefore wish my noble friend's Bill well and, as with many other noble Lords, would welcome any reassurance that attention will be paid to the state of local interests within the parks themselves.
11.26 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on bringing forward this Bill and, as is always the case in a debate at this late hour, most of the points I would have liked to have made have been made much more eloquently by others.
I shall begin by declaring my interest. I farm about 850 acres in some of the more beautiful parts of the Exmoor National Park. I very warmly support this Bill. I particularly hope that it may deliver an improved service to the local communities as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. It is crucial to carry local commitment in national parks, and that cannot be overstated. I also wish to enter a plea which has been referred to by others. Those who serve on the new national park authorities should have locational relevance to the park itself as a minimum requirement. I take that no further, but that, too, is very important.
Picking up points which have been very well made by others, I also express the hope that the interests of farmers and landowners are not just taken into account but that they are recognised as full partners in the management of the land in national parks and, with that, the provision of recreational facilities and the conservation of nature. That should be part of an inter-dependent process. I do not believe that there is one single factor that can have total pre-eminence. National park authorities should be enabling and facilitating and not dictatorial authorities.
The Government in This Common Inheritance said of the countryside,
"What we see today is the result of centuries of interaction between man and nature".
That must never be forgotten or we lose our heritage as well as the functional competence of activities as a whole within national park areas. I say that with great feeling. My late father worked out that the land I now farm with my wife has been in the family since the year before the Black Death, so it is a fairly longstanding association which we have with that location.
I too would like to see consultative panels set up in all parks and I look forward very warmly to the Minister's response on this point. Finally, I hope that Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, which is specifically referred to in this Bill, and with that also Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 7, will be honoured in national park areas as elsewhere. National parks have to function economically. Without an economic function there can be no deliverance of the essential goods which are required. In that I would like to reinforce what has been said by others. In its own terms this Bill is an excellent thing and I wish it every success through this House and another place.
11.29 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too start by congratulating my noble friend Lori Norrie on introducing the Bill and on the meticulous way in which he has addressed it to so many of us and allowed us to join him earlier in commenting on it.
My noble friend knows well that I have strong reservations about the way in which some of the national parks have been conducting their business. I
362
speak as I find. I am not against the principle of national parks and fully appreciate their objectives and the need to balance local requirements, visitor requirements and nature conservation.
Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I live in a national park and own and manage land in a national park. Indeed, I had the privilege of serving on a national park committee for six years. But I am bound to say that recently this has nothing to do with the fact that 1 am no longer a member of a park authority there has been a marked deterioration in the relationship between the local community and the park authority. I must say that I have found a far greater appreciation and understanding of the needs of realistic land management combined with a genuine wish to co-operate when I have dealt with other organisations. However, that does not apply to all national parks. I have recently become involved with the Dartmoor National Park authority and have been very impressed by the initiatives that it has taken to enhance the well-being of the environment through local involvement. People I know who operate and work in the Lake District have found similar co-operation.
I have no wish to dwell on personal experiences, but I am bound to say that I have some sympathy for the park authorities because in many cases other initiatives which might have gone to them have been given to other authorities, government agencies and, indeed, government departments. Therefore, much of the glory that might have gone to the parks has gone to those other agencies, leaving the parks very often with the more mundane and less attractive aspects of countryside management such as planning and public access.
That begs a very basic question: do we actually need national park authorities now if those other agencies can carry out countryside enhancement as effectively as they do? Environmentally sensitive areas are, for example, dealt with by MAFF. The SSSI system and the national nature reserves, many of which are in the national parks, are dealt with by English Nature, on the council of which I have the privilege to serve. 'The Countryside Commission administers stewardship schemes, and the Rural Development Commission promotes rural businesses. I often find that the park authorities seem to fall between too many stools being neither one thing nor another, but attempting to deliver countryside initiatives that are in many cases carried out so much more effectively by other organisations. That results in a duplication of staff, many of whom have no real technical support or proper career structure. As we see too often, that results in a constant change-over of staff which is very demoralising for those of us who have to work with the park authorities.
I put an idea to your Lordships which I am sure will raise a few eyebrows. In about two weeks' time we shall be debating the Unstarred Question that has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford on the proposed merger of English Nature and the Countryside Commission. I ask whether such an agency, if it were to be merged—I hope very much that that will happen—could not take over the countryside and public enjoyment responsibilities of the NPAs—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, not in Wales!
Earl Peel: My Lords, yes, and in Wales—thus leaving the planning to go back to the local authorities where I believe that it belongs.
I hasten to add quickly, as I see my noble friend Lord Cranbrook (my chairman) sitting there, that I have not been briefed in any way to come up with that suggestion. It is purely one of my own, but I believe that it would work, that it would be financially prudent to do so and that it would lead to a much more cohesive and effective running of the park authorities.
The problem at the moment is that for those of us who try to manage land and farmland there are too many organisations delivering many of the same objectives. The more cohesive and streamlined they become, within reason, the more effective they are likely to be in financial terms and in their ability to build up good working relationships with the rural communities, and that is the key to success. My noble friend Lord Lindsay mentioned national parks in Scotland. There are none, and things seem to work effectively there.
Having got that off my chest, I am realistic enough to know that NPAs are almost certainly a political sacred cow, and are likely to stay. As I said to my noble friend Lord Norrie, I want to be helpful, and I genuinely understand the purpose behind the Bill. If by giving the park authorities autonomous power that will lead to an improved and more cost-effective service, an improved relationship between the parks and the rural communities and genuine improvements in nature conservation resources, I most certainly welcome the Bill.
Many noble Lords have expressed their concern about local representation. I too have that concern. I do not wish to go into the matter in detail, except to say that if we are going to have genuine local representation it must come from councillors who represent wards within the national park itself. I give North Yorkshire as an example. A county councillor from York is not local to the North Yorkshire Moors National Park or the Yorkshire Dales National Park. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take that message loudly and clearly. It is one that has been expressed by many noble Lords.
My other anxiety so far as concerns the Bill is the question of structure plans. Again that topic has been touched upon by other noble Lords. How are the new structure plans for NPAs and the other authorities, however they turn out to be, to dovetail together? It seems to me that it is a question of getting together and trying to work out a mutually acceptable plan, but I ask my noble friend which strategic plan would prevail—the park plan or the county or local plan? That is something to which we perhaps need an answer.
As I have said, I believe that I have good reasons to be sceptical about enhancing the role of national parks, but I have no doubt that the purpose behind the Bill is a genuine belief that it will lead to a more locally accountable and efficient group of park authorities operating in a more enlightened fashion to the increased benefit of local communities and the environmental well-being of the areas concerned. That in turn—and it
364
is an important point—can only bring enhancement of pleasure to those who visit the areas. I sincerely hope that to free the national park authorities from the shackles of being simply an extension of local government will give them a new sense of responsibility to which I hope they will rise. A great deal needs to be done in some parks to win the respect of the local people.
I wish the Bill well so far as it goes, but I am worried about what might come afterwards. I hope that if the Government see this as a first step to future legislation they will consult widely and that we shall have a full-ranging debate on the many aspects recommended in the Edwards Report.
Finally, I wish to make a plea on behalf on one aspect of the local vernacular that is systematically being destroyed in so many parks. Please can we have no more brown windows?
11.41 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, it is late and I shall be brief. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I am pleased that the Government support the Bill and I look for further government legislation in the near future. I am aware of the urgency of the Bill due to local government reorganisation.
I wish to comment on one or two specific points because I can describe myself as a member of the midwife team that brought the Broads authority into the world. As the Broads are unique, special legislation was needed. I am sure that any new park will be unique and will need unique legislation. Therefore, we are not concerned with that tonight; we are talking about legislation to secure existing parks, which is important.
Let us not lose sight of the functions of national parks. They must be concerned with the protection of the countryside and its conservation and the repair, refurbishment and reinstatement of features both natural and man made within the park, but not to the exclusion of the interests of those who live and work there and those who visit it.
I wish to make a plea about planning. That is an essential function which should go with the authorities. I beg, however, that it will not mean the setting up of a further monolithic planning department for each national park. That expertise can easily be bought in.
As regards membership of the new authorities and the input of various other bodies, there have been rumblings, in particular from the NFU, the CLA, the National Rivers Authority, the National Trust, tourist boards and local universities. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, it is far more appropriate that those bodies should have an input through panels and not through membership of any particular board.
Such requirements have been achieved by the Broads authority, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said. The authority uses its local authorities for planning and uses panels for input from everyone else. It has special panels on such aspects as agriculture, water recreation and scientific research, which the noble Earl was too modest to say that he chaired. That is where the bodies which I have mentioned should be represented and not necessarily as members of the authorities.

365
I am proud to have been part of the team which set up the Broads authority. It is highly successful, locally popular and efficient. The authority's constitution bears a strong resemblance to what is proposed in the Bill. I know that the formula works and, with good will on all
366
sides, it will continue to work. I am sure that the authorities covered by the Bill will also make it work provided that everyone makes an enormous effort. I wish the Bill all the best.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am extremely happy to join with my noble friends Lord Foot and Lord Hunt, both of whom have considerably greater experience than I have, in welcoming the Bill from these Benches. In this party, we had hoped that we should have free-standing national parks along these lines as part of a Local Government (England) Bill but the Government would not have that. They thought that it was not workable and the fact that they have done exactly that in the Welsh Bill seems to reveal a certain lack of logic in their reasoning.
They promised us this Bill and they have not been able to deliver it. We are extremely grateful, as we have all said, to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for taking it on, but that does not mean that this is a satisfactory procedure; that a measure which is largely agreed to be necessary on all sides, including the Government, should be left to this kind of procedure. That is so, in particular, when the time of your Lordships' House, as I have said on another occasion, is taken up with Bills which then have to be withdrawn either in full or in part because the Government have got it wrong. Why do not the Government give proper time to deal with legislation which we all agree is needed? However, we must take what we have and, as I say, we are graceful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
There is now, as always on these occasions, pressure to deal with the Bill with speed. That is what makes these matters so difficult. We shall do what we can to help but I agree that we must get it right in this House because, whatever its fate in another place, there will almost certainly not be time to deal with it there. That means that we must get it right here.
I had hoped that we might have been able to save time by exploring some Committee points on Second Reading but the lateness of the hour and the length of the list of speakers have made that impossible. For example, I feel very strongly that limiting local authority representation to elected members is patronising and misconceived and is a variation on a point which I was fighting in your Lordships' House 20 years ago.
I see the opposite point of view which has been argued by other noble Lords; namely, that the representation should be from those councillors who represent wards in the national parks. That is almost equally acceptable. One or other is acceptable but the present situation is not acceptable. I propose to set that out before your Lordships in Committee.
This is basically a good Bill. We shall do our best to give it a fair wind. We must not be hurried into letting it go to another place in an inadequate state. If the Government will not father it or admit paternity then we, as its godfathers, must see that it is properly brought up. And we must do our duty.
11.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is late and we have all had a long day, or, at least, I have had a long day. I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long. I give a welcome to the Bill not merely on my own behalf,
368
as the president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, but also—and this is quite unusual—on behalf of my party. I have consulted extensively my colleagues on the Front Bench in another place and I can say to the noble Earl that the Bill will receive the support of the Front Bench in this House and in another place.
Therefore, we wish the Bill well in principle. As noble Lords have said, it fulfils at least part of the Government's commitment to implement Edwards. Of course, we would have preferred a government Bill—indeed, everyone would—but we understand the realities of the situation and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on taking the initiative to bring forward what is perhaps best described as half a loaf. However, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
The Bill is long and quite complex. In general, as I said, I have no problems in principle with it. However, there are a number of fairly detailed points that I should like to put to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, some of which I have given prior notice of. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said about amendments for the Committee stage. If we are to go into Committee, I shall keep my remarks fairly short. I do not want to go into long and detailed Committee points which I might otherwise have raised.
The doubts which arise in my mind when reaciniz the Bill are as follows. On Clause 1, there is the question of whether the Secretary of State should have a duty, or whether it should be a permissive power to order that a national park authority be established. If the Bill is to have any effect at all when it is enacted, it seems to me that the Secretary of State should have a mandatory authority to designate national park authorities where there are existing national parks, but that he should have a permissive authority to designate national park authorities where there could be parks in the future. That would provide a distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(1).
I now move to Schedule 1, because it follows on from Clause I. Several speakers commented on the schedule. I have many points about it which were raised by some noble Lords both as regards the wording and, indeed, some of the principles. I am not entirely certain why in paragraph 2, for example, the word "appoint" is always used rather than the word "elect". I always prefer to call a spade a spade. If we can use the word "elect" rather than "appoint" for local authority members, I would be somewhat happier. Similarly, I am not entirely clear as to what paragraph 2(6) means. But, again, that is a Committee point that we can resolve; or, indeed, perhaps the noble Earl or the noble Lord can resolve it at the conclusion of the debate. Does "retiring from any council" mean that a council has ceased to exist because elections are taking place, or does it mean something else?
However, the latter are very detailed points and I am more concerned about paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 as regards the aspect of consultation. Several speakers raised the point regarding the consultation that the Secretary of State shall engage in with either the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council

369
for Wales on his appointees. We must do better than that. Consultation is a very broad term. Your Lordships have discovered all sorts of formulae for police authorities during recent days which are much more transparent and open than what is represented by simply the word "consult". If the Bill is enacted, I very much hope that some formula will be found to allow a thoroughly open form of selection for Secretary of State appointees. In other words, they should not simply be cronies of the Secretary of State and the public should see them as not belong so. Of course, it is not for me to say how that should be constructed; indeed, it is for the Government or, perhaps, for the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, to indicate how he sees it in the legislation. But I think we have to do really rather better than what is in the Bill as such, although if the Minister can make a full statement about how he envisages the procedure being carried out we might well be satisfied on that point.
There is also the question of paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 and what the terms of appointment would be for members appointed by the Secretary of State. I am sorry to bore your Lordships with these Committee points but I have been asked to set them out in as much detail as I can to hasten the progress of the Bill. In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 there is the question of whether the chairman and deputy chairman of a national park authority should be elected by the members of the national park authority. It is as simple as that. Why they should be in some sense appointed, I do not know. Political balance is, of course, built into the measure but I never know what political balance means. Speaking from a Welsh point of view I can say that in rural areas political balance consists of independents who have one view and independents who have another view. They all stand as independents. What the political balance is between independents who favour one point of view and independents who favour another, I do not know, but I find that an odd concept in terms of national parks.
I now turn to compulsory competitive tendering, which appears to apply in this Bill. I do not see why it should if it does not apply to quangos. Will national park authorities in that sense be local authorities with CCT built in. or will they be much freer, possibly to trade themselves? In Clause 8 the levy gives rise to problems of capping of local authorities and the local authority contribution. Will the local authority contribution be built into the standard spending assessment or will it be ring-fenced in some way? Will local authorities be capped or will they be allowed to contribute in the way that the national park authorities wish. and will that come outside the capping procedures? How will all that be arranged? Will national park authorities be allowed to trade—of course at the moment local authorities are not allowed to do that—through shops, garden centres or through selling camping equipment or other goods?
I am sorry to be slightly disaggregated in what I have to say, but I am working through this in a rather different manner from the way I thought I would have to present it. On the planning question, a number of noble Lords have asked whether the planning policy guidance notes will apply to national park authorities. Will, for example, PPG7 or PPG22 apply? After all, PPG22 has
370
a presumption in favour of renewable energy—recently we had a short debate in which we discussed wind farms —and it encourages the development of wind farms. Clearly the national parks will have to take account of that. Would the national park authorities be subject to that provision?
The main point about Clause 11 is that it is a Henry VIII provision. It gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary primary legislation. As I understand it, that provision has been examined by our Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and it will report on it. We will take account of that report. The committee may well take the same view as it did about certain aspects of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, in which case we will certainly have a problem in Committee. However, if the committee does not take the same view as it did on the Local Government (Wales) Bill we will be happy to be guided by it, but certainly this clause will have to be studied by that committee and I shall follow its recommendations.
The only other detailed Committee point I have to make concerns Schedule 4. There are a number of Acts which are to be amended by this legislation. The Telecommunications Act is not mentioned. It is my understanding that under the Telecommunications Act British Telecom has powers as a planning authority in its own right for wayleaves where owners give up rights. I may be wrong about that. I have not had time to check the matter out because it was only brought to my attention today, but it would be very odd if British Telecom were able to override the planning decisions of a national park authority.
I apologise for the disaggregated nature of the speech that I have just given, but it demonstrates to the noble Earl that all is not quite as simple as some noble Lords have tried to represent. In principle and in general we —and I say "we" rather than "I", which is rare for a Private Member's Bill—support the Bill and wish it well. We hope that it becomes legislation. Nevertheless, there are some very complicated issues of a detailed nature which need to be addressed before it can go forward.
Midnight
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the hour is late, but I am certain that your Lordships would not wish me to skate over many of the points that have been raised on all sides of the House. It is 45 years since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act made provision for the creation of national parks. We all acknowledge that the landscapes which the Act sought to protect were the product of centuries of loving stewardship by many local people. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, in a very interesting and moving speech, reminded us that the establishment of the parks was a recognition that those areas were a national asset which had to be provided with national means to ensure that the qualities that we all cherish and respect were not lost. The 1949 Act thereby provided for the most beautiful areas of our countryside to be designated, protected and provided with a special administration
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us that it is vital that we continue to manage and protect those

371
national assets. Living in the foothills of Exmoor, as I do, where my wife's family have lived for many years, I too have the same strength of feelings on the preservation of national parks and all the riches that lie therein.
My noble friend Lord Norrie referred to the work of the National Parks Review Panel. I fully support his endorsement of the panel's report and would add my own thanks to the countryside agencies for their realistic recommendations. We set out proposals for the future of the parks in our January 1992 policy statement, and I share the regret that the pressures on the parliamentary timetable have not allowed us to bring forward legislation to implement those proposals in the current Session.
We were therefore delighted and most grateful to my noble friend Lord Norrie when he announced his promotion of this Bill to examine and address the specific issue of establishing a new and common administration for the 10 national parks in England and Wales. That was the principal recommendation of the review panel. Our 1992 policy statement accepted the recommendation that the administration of the national parks should be independent of any other local authority while remaining within the family of local government. The Bill delivers that objective and will enable the parks to be managed more effectively while maintaining their well-being as living, working areas.
I am happy, however, to reassure my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and many others who referred to further legislation that it remains our intention to introduce that legislation as soon as there is a suitable opportunity. We shall then reconsider and update the purposes of the national parks and return to further consideration of the review panel's recommendation that there should be a statutory duty on Ministers and public agencies in the exercise of their responsibilities as they affect national parks.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked for clarification of our plans for the New Forest following the consultation exercise in which we sought views on our proposals for the future care and protection of that unique area. We are considering the considerable correspondence generated by that consultation exercise and we hope to make a statement with our conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and many of your Lordships sought assurances about the relationship between national park purposes and the economic and social needs of local communities. We have said that we will clarify the national park authorities' duty to take full account of those needs when we introduce legislation. We have had placed before us several suggestions as to the form such clarification could take, including that which the review panel favoured. We shall be considering the matter again in the light of tonight's debate and other representations.
The Bill maintains the status quo. However, the new national park authorities will clearly have to take account of factors beyond the qualities of natural beauty and public enjoyment for which they are designated. I believe that they will continue to recognise the positive contribution which economic and social development
372
can make towards sustaining those qualities. The new national park authorities will need to work closely with other authorities and agencies whose primary responsibility is the economic and social development of their areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, raised the issue of Wales. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made clear that the Government support a common approach to the future administration of national parks in England and Wales. If the Bill succeeds, the three national parks in Wales will have created for them new authorities of the same form as are proposed in England. However, should my noble friend's Bill not succeed, the Government will rely upon the provisions in the Local Government (Wales) Bill. The Government's commitment to free-standing national park authorities makes it unreasonable to expect the new local authorities in Wales to have to set up new committees for the administration of the parks, knowing that this responsibility would soon pass to new national park authorities. That would be a recipe for uncertainty and disruption. For that reason, the Local Government (Wales) Bill contains provisions to establish joint or special planning boards in Wales similar to those already in the Lake and Peak Districts. These provisions will be used only if the Bill fails but will secure the continued effective administration of the parks in Wales.
There has been much discussion, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of the Government's intended use of the powers which the Bill confers, particularly the so-called Henry VIII clauses. Clauses 4 and 11 are of most significance. Clause 4 allows for a national park's structure planning responsibilities to be amended by order. I shall say more about that in a moment. The provisions in Clause 11 give the Secretary of State power to modify primary legislation for incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional purposes. The practical scope of this power is, however, limited by the primary purpose of the Bill to establish new authorities to administer the national parks.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked for an assurance that all national parks will have a national park authority. I can assure the noble Lord that it is our firm intention that every national park designated under the 1949 Act will be managed by a national park authority.
Some noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Peel, stressed the need for local people to be better represented on the authorities. We intend to increase district council representation to equal that of the county councils and to maintain that principle wherever a two-tier system of local government persists. We shall, of course, recognise the consequences of any changes which result from the present review of local government. We also intend to encourage the new authorities to set up local consultative groups where they do not already exist. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, that we shall also encourage them to make provision to ensure that the parish councils in their areas are given full opportunity to make their views known.

373
The Secretary of State will continue to appoint the remaining one-third of members who represent the wider national interests. We will continue to make sure that there is a reasonable mix of interests among them. We already seek nominations from a wide range of organisations and we are keen to ensure that there is a good field of high quality candidates from which the Secretary of State members can be drawn.
I have already mentioned Clause 4 which deals with the strategic planning provisions of the Bill. Your Lordships will appreciate the uncertainties the parks face in relation to local government re-organisation. However, I can assure my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Marlesford that it is our intention to give the new authorities the full range of appropriate planning powers. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell raised the question of consultation, and I can assure him that the National Rivers Authority and all other bodies which are statutory consultees will continue to be so when the new national park authorities are established. We shall also be advising them to consult widely on other park matters.
The parks are already responsible for local development plans and for development control. This Bill will also allow the park authorities a formal role in strategic planning. The manner in which this may operate will depend upon the circumstances of individual parks.
The pattern is already clear in Wales. The Local Government (Wales) Bill provides for unitary local authorities throughout Wales and for unitary development plans to replace present arrangements. That Bill provides for the three national park authorities in Wales to be unitary planning authorities and this will be the case whether new authorities are set up under this Bill or as planning boards under the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
There may be circumstances in which similar arrangements will be appropriate in England, perhaps in the Peak District where the national park authority already has responsibility for both structure and local plans. More common perhaps will be the position where the scale and geography of the national park make it most appropriate that it exercises the strategic planning function in collaboration with other authorities.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked a question concerning the interplay between county council and national park authority structure plans. In those cases, the national park authority will be solely responsible for the preparation of the structure plan for its area, but it will need to ensure that its plan is co-ordinated with those of its neighbouring authorities. That arrangement has worked well for many years in the Lake District and I believe that it may be a model with wider applicability. Nevertheless, I can assure your Lordships that it is our intention to give the new national park authorities a full and formal role in the strategic planning process.
Many noble Lords have sought assurances about the future funding arrangements for the parks. Placing the funding of the parks on a secure and sustainable footing is one of the main objectives of this Bill. It is an aim which the Government especially support. The Bill provides that all the parks will continue to be funded
374
jointly by central and local government. This is an essential principle if local accountability is to be preserved. The national park authorities will continue to receive 75 per cent. of their approved expenditure from central funds, with the local authorities contributing the balance. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that we will continue to look to the countryside agencies for their views on the appropriate level of resources, as well as considering the plans put forward by the individual authorities. In turn, we expect the authorities to operate efficiently and effectively and to have proper regard to the need to ensure value for money and to demonstrate that they do so.
The ability of the two board parks to raise their contributions from their constituent local authorities by levy is being extended to all the national park authorities. We expect the authorities to use that power wisely and to consult widely before submitting their expenditure plans to the Secretaries of State for their approval. All the local authorities represented on a national park authority will be expected to contribute to its expenditure. We recognise that extending the financial commitments to district councils represents an increase in the resources which they will need. They, along with the county councils, have the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State through the consultative panels on local government finance in England and Wales in respect of the burden which falls on them to contribute to national park authorities' expenditure. We shall need to issue advice on that and other matters about the operation of the new authorities, and we would envisage that that would be done by a circular well before the new authorities come into being.
My noble friend Lord Norrie has taken a very important step forward for the continued care and protection of the national parks. I accept that this is an interim measure that does not deliver all the commitments that the Government made in their 1992 policy statement. Without in any way reneging on those commitments, I recommend this Bill to the House as a way of ensuring that the most essential proposals are carried forward effectively and urgently.
Some of the questions raised this evening—particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Williams--are of a very technical nature and deserve to be taken at Committee stage. They need considerable thought and sensible answers. But if the Bill succeeds, the Government will be committed to the earliest implementation of its provisions to ensure that the long-term future of the parks is secured.
I believe that this Bill marks a major milestone in the conservation of our most beautiful landscapes, the spiritual value of which has been so eloquently expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. Your Lordships have an opportunity tonight truly to ensure that these unique national assets are fit for the future. I am therefore pleased to give to my noble friend's Bill the full support of the Government and I commend it to the House.
12.17 a.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, it has been a most valuable evening. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Arran for stating the Government's support for this measure so strongly. There have been some very interesting and informed contributions on this important topic. We have heard from all sides of the political spectrum as to why this Bill is so important.
National parks have always remained a matter of all-party consensus, and I am pleased that this Bill also finds favour with noble Lords from the opposite Benches as well as from this side of the House. I am hopeful that this level of agreement will make for a speedy passage to the Bill, without which, at this stage of the parliamentary timetable, it might indeed fail despite wholehearted support.
The debate has produced some very searching questions. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for being so forthcoming in his answers and assurances at the Second Reading stage. With a Bill of this complexity I may not be able immediately to answer every question that was addressed to me, but I am anxious to establish an early dialogue with any of my noble colleagues who feel that his or her concerns have not been sufficiently addressed. Tomorrow would not be too soon for that to happen.
I should now like to comment on some of the contributions made by noble Lords this evening. I shall start by referring to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. She observed quite rightly that the new authorities will in no measure be quangos. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made clear that those authorities would sit firmly within the local government framework. That has been confirmed by the Minister.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook raised a question that was echoed by so many other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on future government legislation for national parks which the Minister answered. I should like to add my support to that chorus of opinion, voiced not just inside but also outside this House.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his helpful clarification in response to my noble friend Lord Marlesford as to how he will exercise his discretion over the planning provisions. On the same theme my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Lindsay were anxious to see a wide consultation carried out in preparation of management and development plans. In answer to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell I would anticipate a close partnership and consultative process between national park authorities and the National Rivers Authority in the preparation of both management plans and the water catchment plans prepared by the NRA. The two parties have complementary objectives and their future relationship can only be improved by the Bill.
I am happy to reassure my noble friend Lord Lindsay that the national park authorities will continue to draw up their management plans after wide and public
376
consultation. In fact, national park authorities will consult widely, just as other local authorities do, in the exercise of their development plan functions. That is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 12 and no change in this system is proposed.
My noble friend Lord Peel expressed concerns and reservations about the current state of affairs in some of the national parks. We appreciate the sharing of his experiences on that subject. No one would deny that problems have existed and opportunities have been missed. Indeed, as was made clear in the debate this evening, we know now that the administrative structure of national parks has not been all that it might have been. That point was well made by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Foot, and the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, who have the advantage of the historical perspective on those early days of national parks.
All I can say to noble Lords concerned with the fate of those who live and work within the parks is that the Bill is intended to make the operation of national park authorities more efficient and effective, especially when it comes to delivering services to local communities and to improving the local responsiveness of national park authorities. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for pointing out the benefits that the Bill could bring to the health of rural economies, and to the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for reminding us how crucial it is that we equip national park authorities to cope with the many challenges ahead.
On the specific point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on a socio-economic purpose for national parks, I made clear that my Bill does not seek in any way to change the national park purposes or associated duties. My noble friend Lord Arran indicated that that will be addressed by the Government. I should welcome a more clear assurance from the Minister that any revision will be guided by the spirit of the Edwards recommendations.
Many noble Lords speaking tonight pointed out the advantages that the new status will bring to national parks. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for drawing a most helpful analogy with the Broads Authority, which is seen to act with the "vision and clarity" to which the Edwards report referred.
The noble Lords, Lord Chorley, Lord Feversham and Lord Nathan, and my noble friend Lord Addison asked questions on membership of the new authorities. I am anxious to see a greater degree of local responsiveness and for clear guidance to be given where the Bill's provisions can only adhere to the general principle. The Minister stated that the Secretary of State would be issuing a circular to include details of membership of the new authorities. As we heard, guidance on those key points will be consistent with the Edwards recommendations, which carry the consensus of support in these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, in pressing for a louder parish council voice for national park authorities, proposed a most welcome way forward in the shape of a parish council forum for each of the parks. That view was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. I am most sympathetic to the idea, which has the advantage of

377
enabling every parish council within a national park to gain access to the authority. Again, that is consistent with the Edwards report.
On a similar point, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised a question about consultative panels, which were recommended by Edwards to be created in each national park in order to provide a sounding board for various interest groups, and I believe those would be welcomed across the national parks.
Noble Lords w ho spoke from the perspective of Wales—the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Elis-Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, were most helpful in clarifying the relationship between the Bill and the Local Government (Wales) Bill. They made clear the advantages of a Bill which covers the national parks of Wales and England, levelling them all up in accordance with the Edwards recommendations. l am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for drawing attention to the central role of national parks in sustainable development. For this reason alone it is essential that in order to face future challenges they be given the most effective authorities that we can provide.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. We are most fortunate to be able to draw on the expertise of the Scrutiny Committee, and I am sure that it will advise us accordingly. We rely on the committee to make sure that parliamentary democracy is upheld in all cases. I note that in the case of this Bill the Secretary of State has explained clearly the basis on which he might make any order.
378
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked for more transparency in the Secretary of State's appointments process. This was an Edwards recommendation. Let us hope that the prospect of new national park authorities will encourage all relevant interest groups to put renewed effort into finding suitable people to nominate. I include here the tourism interest, so constructively referred to by my noble friend Lord Mountevans. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on his other more detailed points, which he described as Committee points.
On a personal note, I should like to express my gratitude to my team of 11, who make it possible for me to bring this Bill before your Lordships' House. Many organisations have been involved: the Council for National Parks; the Association of National Parks; the Countryside Commission and Countryside Council for Wales; and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Without their hard work, together with that of the government draftsmen, this Bill could not have been debated in your Lordships' House this evening.
Finally, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol for his contribution. In an era where we talk of the need for a more sustainable relationship between people and the earth's resources, it is perhaps fitting to end on this point. National parks are vital to the health and well-being of everyone, as well as to those who are fortunate enough to live in them, work in them or visit them. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.