Lords Sitting of 5 April 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EU: Single Currency
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to keep their options open on joining a European single currency on 1st January 1999.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, under the UK opt-out to the Maastricht Treaty, the Government have kept open the option of whether or not to seek to join any future European single currency. That remains our policy. We shall judge, in the light of the circumstances of the time, whether participation would or would not be in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. Can I assume that he is not willing, or would not agree, to go beyond what the Prime Minister said on Monday night about the single currency, when, in fact, he said nothing and took a long time doing so? Can he also say whether or not a single currency would have the same effect as destroying a nation state? More importantly, would the Minister accept that, if the options are to be kept open, it would be necessary under Article 109j.1 of the Maastricht Treaty to be within the exchange rate mechanism from 1st July next year for two years? Is that the Government's intention?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in his assumption that I would not go beyond the statements already made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. So far as concerns the ERM, the Prime Minister made it very clear that Britain will not join the ERM in 1996 or 1997.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whatever the ultimate result on this particular issue, from the nation's point of view it would he politically healthier for the overwhelming number in the Labour Party who disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to place on the record how they feel, even at this stage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me into the realms of speculation about what is or is not the Labour Party's policy with regard to either the ERM or a single currency. I believe that it is far too early for us to make a judgment about the situation in 1999. When we reach that point, we as a government intend to take any decision necessary, in the light of what is in the best interests of Britain, the British people and the British economy.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it surprise my noble friend to know that the earlier part of my life was spent under a single currency which had lasted for 100 years? It was called the gold standard. It ended only with the First World War. Nobody suggested that it interfered with our independence.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not go back quite so far as that. But my point about the single currency is valid. If we decide some time in the future that the situation is such that we ought to consider joining it, quite clearly any government—certainly a Conservative Government—would take into account what was in the best interests of the British people and the British economy. That has to be the right way to treat this issue.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can we take it from what the Minister said—without going any further than the Prime Minister did, which I fully understand—that, if the conditions are right, the Government's policy is that they will join?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the situation is as I said. We will look at the conditions. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 3rd February, unless the economic conditions are right, a single currency would tear apart the European Union. It is not just consideration of the interests of the United Kingdom; it is also in the interests of the European Union itself that, when we are presented with the option of joining or not, we then decide whether or not that is in our interests.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if, in the opinion of the Government, the conditions are right, then the Government will join—is that right?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the conditions are judged to be right—if it is in the interests of the British people—then the issue will have to be decided by the government of the day and indeed by Parliament, because it is a decision of very considerable importance.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend assume, from the Question put by the former Chief Secretary, and indeed others, that the Labour Party would now agree to a single currency if it should be in a position ever to exercise that authority?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that may well be the conclusion that one must draw from the exchanges this afternoon, and indeed from other remarks made outside the House and in another place. But I cannot believe that even the Labour Party would be so irresponsible as to decide now that they should join a single currency in 1999, 1997 or whenever, not knowing what the circumstances would be at that time. Not even the Labour Party could be that irresponsible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his noble and learned friend Lord

173
Hailsham is completely wrong in likening a single currency and economic monetary union to the gold standard? Does he further agree that far more than that is involved in a single currency and that loss of sovereignty could be involved? Will he tell the House whether the Government will agree to a referendum before we embark upon such a course?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always glad to welcome the authentic voice of the Labour Party to any European Union debates that we have on matters of that nature. The noble Lord is indeed right to say that a single currency raises serious economic, political and constitutional issues. On the issue of constitutional change, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, a referendum cannot be ruled out. It would be for the Government at the time to decide whether, in the circumstances, it was sensible to recommend to Parliament that a referendum ought to be carried out.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if a German Minister were currently to be asked the kind of flat-footed question which was just addressed to him by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, he would in no circumstances give a straight answer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether I should thank my noble friend for what was implied towards the end of that question. He makes a valid point. Ministers of other European countries also take largely the same view as we do and will do on the day on which a decision has to be made on behalf of their own countries; namely, they will take those decisions in the best interests of their own countrymen, whether they be French, German or in our case British.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, inadvertently, the Minister did not answer my supplementary question. I asked him, if the Government are to keep open their options about joining a single currency, whether, under Article 109 of the Maastricht Treaty, they would need to keep within the normal range of the ERM. I did not ask whether they would join it. I asked whether they would need to keep within that range. He simply replied that they do not intend to join it. Could he now perhaps try to answer my question?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought I had answered the question by saying that we do not intend to join it in 1997. However, the exchange rate criteria in the treaty was written at a time when the ERM operated under different rules. For example, there were narrow bands in the ERM which do not now exist. It is not clear now how the requirements would be measured. There is no legal or practical need for a formal interpretation of the treaty, nor for us to decide to join the ERM before 1997.

BBC Charter and Agreement
2.40 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether either House of Parliament will be able to amend the proposed new BBC Charter and Agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Royal Charter is granted by Her Majesty and the Agreement is a contract between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the BBC. However, we intend that both documents should be laid before Parliament and debated together by both Houses before they come into force. Should either House of Parliament indicate that the documents as drafted were unacceptable, then the Government would carefully consider whether changes were necessary.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a big constitutional point? We are about to introduce a new Charter and Agreement and it is only right—I am glad to have it confirmed in Hansard—that it should be discussed in both Houses. I am sure that we have something to contribute. Recent events in connection with "Panorama" and Channel 4—sorry, Clause 4, that is more important—underline the need for us to look at these matters carefully. I draw my noble friend's attention to today's Daily Telegraph where Simon Heffer has an interview indirectly with Tony Hall from which it emerges that the current Producer Guidelines—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Orr-Ewing: I have here a book containing some of the regulations that provide for them. The guidelines are 276 pages long, so I cannot summarise them. What has been issued is for guidance only. In no sense are these BBC rules or undertakings. This is a serious matter which should be discussed.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I do not start the debate on the BBC at this moment. In answer to his question that the BBC, in common with other broadcasters, is required to observe due impartiality when dealing with issues of public controversy, we intend to include specific and clear obligations along those lines in the new BBC Agreement. We have taken full account of the genuine and understandable anxieties expressed in your Lordships' House and, indeed, elsewhere.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that three times this week the Scottish courts have held that there is a prima facie case that the BBC is in breach of its duties in relation to due impartiality concerning the Scottish local elections? In those circumstances, if the BBC complains about political parties going to the courts, would it not be wise for the BBC to set up its own panel of governors to adjudicate in advance of a programme on any responsible complaints made by political parties in relation to due impartiality? Does that not underline the

175
case made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that the BBC Charter and Agreement should be subject to the same detailed scrutiny, including the right to amend, in both Houses of Parliament as are the commercial television stations under the broadcasting Acts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, refers to the recent actions in the courts in Scotland. I understand that those matters may be subject to further action in the courts and therefore it would be wrong for me to comment on the facts of the case. In relation to the points made about the Charter and the Agreement, I must emphasise again that there will be a debate in both Houses of Parliament. We will take any anxieties expressed by your Lordships, as we always do, very seriously. If the Charter or the Agreement were not felt to be doing the job properly, we would have to withdraw them and have new versions prepared.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the action in the Scottish courts in the past week has opened wide the whole question of BBC impartiality and whether the Royal Charter is the proper instrument for this purpose. That needs to be thoroughly investigated and Parliament must have the right to propose changes if necessary.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Parliament has the right to propose any changes it thinks fit to the BBC Agreement or Charter. Indeed, we had a recent debate in your Lordships' House and the Government gave the commitment that there would be a further debate once the Charter and Agreement are published. But the BBC is there by Royal Charter which is granted under Royal Prerogative. It establishes the BBC as a public corporation and sets out its powers. It is not, as such, subject to parliamentary approval, but Parliament has an important role to play in the management and the role of the BBC.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of us on these Benches are broadly in agreement with what he said in his first two answers? Is he further aware that although we may differ from the Government, perhaps quite strongly, about how governors of the BBC should be appointed and how the Charter should clearly specify the powers of the board of governors and the board of management, we agree with the Government that the governors must he trusted to govern without meddlesome interference from any outside body?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an Important point. I hope that when we publish the Charter and the Agreement we shall address the noble Lord's concerns so that it is entirely clear what the role of the governors and the role of the board of management should be.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, has the noble Viscount noticed that under "No day named" I tabled a Motion to resolve the matter by saying that we should not have a Charter at all? It should be an Act of Parliament.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, achieves a debate, and if I am asked, I shall certainly reply to his proposal and we can discuss the issue then.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when it was first decided that the BBC should have a Royal Charter, sound broadcasting was in its experimental infancy? Television was not introduced until 30 years later. Is my noble friend aware that the BBC is now an influential and vital part of national life? Should not Parliament therefore have the right to decide in detail how it should operate and be governed?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the current Royal Charter, Licence and Agreement were dealt with in exactly the same way in 1981. The Government agree with the Select Committee in another place that the BBC should continue to be established by Royal Charter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that while the Charter is not amendable and the Government can do no more than take it back if the opposition is sufficiently vociferous—which seems unlikely—the Agreement is amendable? Will the noble Viscount confirm that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Agreement is not amendable. The Government would have to take back the Agreement and the Charter. I should point out to your Lordships that Parliament has an important role to play with regard to the BBC. The BBC submits its annual report and accounts to Parliament and Parliament sets the licence fee. The BBC's activities can be scrutinised by a Select Committee.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, do we not have too many interminable debates in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading by way of amendment? Do we want to add a new class of them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes an important point. I am sure that when we come to discuss the Charter and the Agreement your Lordships will see the benefit of both.

Jewish Settlements in Arab Territory
2.49 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in the United Nations Security Council and in the European Union to prevent the establishment and maintenance of illegal Jewish settlements in Arab territory.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we and our European Union partners have recently reaffirmed to both the Israeli Government and the United Nations Security Council our view that settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that unless something is done soon about the settlements there will be no chance of the peace process going ahead? I acknowledge, as the noble Lord said, that the

177
Government have protested to the Israeli Government that the settlements are illegal and a major obstacle to peace, but why do they decline to exert pressure on Israel? For instance, why do they not with their partners in Europe press Israel to stop building these settlements?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it was only last month when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was visiting Israel that he expressly said that the declaration of principles signed by Israel and the PLO made it clear that there should be no more settlement activity. We are committed to trying to bring the peace process forward. Throughout, our emphasis is on constructive involvement to try to bring about a successful outcome.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the issue of settlements is one of the very important issues which has to be resolved and which will, we hope, be resolved through negotiation between the parties concerned? Does he further agree that to raise matters of this kind externally on one side of the argument or another is no contribution to the peace process but rather the reverse?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I said in my reply to the previous question, it is our role to support the peace process. We shall do everything we can to try to bring about a successful conclusion.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Israel is a democracy and that Prime Minister Rabin cannot just give instructions to dismantle the settlements? Is he further aware that Prime Minister Rabin issued a statement after his meeting with Chairman Arafat on 19th January 1995 in which he stated that, as he had promised when he became Prime Minister, no new authorisation had been given regarding buildings in the settlements, expansion of the settlements or the acquisition of land?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is the case that the programme of settlement has been curtailed. However, there is great anxiety on this point both about possible private developments and also about ideas that are being floated for the expansion of these settlements. As the House will be aware, the matter of resolving these problems was set on one side in the declaration of principles to be dealt with in the permanent status negotiations which are due to start by May next year. It is important, as was stated in the declaration of principles, that no unilateral action is taken on either side to prejudice the final outcome.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Israeli Foreign Minister when in London last week said that some of these settlements would have to be dismantled? Does he agree that this is an extremely important step towards peace? Can he tell the House whether the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, gave any indication as to the timetable for the dismantlement of some of these settlements, or indeed any details of which they would be?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important matter. I am not in a position to give
178
the House further details of the points raised but I shall be pleased to write to her with details if I can obtain them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the endeavours of Mr. Yasser Arafat and the Israeli Prime Minister have been quite remarkable and that they are genuine in their endeavours to achieve peace? Both sides listen carefully to what the British Parliament has to say. If we can encourage them with regard to this one issue so that the land can be returned to its rightful owners, I feel sure that the British contribution can ensure peace in the Middle East and help both sides.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is undoubtedly the case that in January this year very severe pressures were put on the declaration of principles. Both leaders played a significant part in bringing matters forward. We must all be united in hoping to see a solution to this long-standing, extremely difficult and well nigh almost intractable problem.

Prisoners: Pastoral Care
2.54 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that, under prison rule 12(2), individual pastoral care of prisoners by ministers of religion has a role to play in cases of bereavement, marital stress or breakdown and other personal crises.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): Yes, my Lords. We welcome the unique and important contribution that chaplains and ministers of religion are able to make, along with other agencies, to the pastoral care of prisoners in times of personal crises.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that up until recently the amount of time that individual ministers gave to their pastoral duties within the prison system was a matter within their own discretion but that now contracts are being let by individual prison governors which specify the maximum number of hours which can be devoted to a prison by a given minister? Under those circumstances there is a lack of flexibility and a difference between one prison and another which are hindering the visiting ministers from carrying out the duties that are mentioned.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am aware that as a result of the development of local management the arrangements now are made on a local basis. In setting the amount of time for which payment will be made regard is had to the requirements which are perceived to be necessary for a particular prison. They vary according to the different denominations which are predominant in various parts of the country. That is wholly without prejudice to the right of any minister to visit voluntarily without payment in addition to the hours for which he is paid.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, do I take it that the Government do not accept any responsibility for the

179
amount of religious worship—I use the word "religious" in its widest sense—that is provided in prisons? Do the Government accept any responsibility; or do they leave it to some governor, who might be an atheist?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as the noble Earl, who takes an interest in these matters, knows, there are provisions both in statute and in the prison rules which deal with religious observance and so on in prisons. Having regard to the obligations under statute and under the rules, the local management decides the best way in which the resources should be used in a particular prison. For example, in some areas there may be a requirement for more Buddhists or more Moslems to be visited; in other areas, more Roman Catholics. It is entirely a matter for the governor, having regard to the obligations which are placed upon him.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is it really satisfactory that matters of this kind should be determined by the governor? I am all in favour, as I am sure all of us are, of giving as much authority to governors as possible, hut are we really contemplating a situation where a minister of religion could be excluded if he required payment for what might be fairly onerous services?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, these matters are discussed with the chaplains who liaise with the various denominations. As a result of that, agreements arc entered into in the local area. There is no question of ministers of religion being excluded from visiting any particular person. The only question that arises is the number of hours of service for which they would be paid. That is determined as a result of negotiations with the chaplains and with the various people who represent the faiths. It is a matter on which, so far as I am aware, agreement is generally reached.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can we be assured that, whatever the position with regard to payment might be, a minister of religion is free to come and go and to extend his work if he sees fit? We cannot surely be moving to a situation of payment by results in religion.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I give that assurance. Indeed I would underline that them is no question of that. The question of access is dealt with on the basis that, so far as it does not interfere with discipline and so on, there is free access. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the question of the number of hours for which payment might be made. That is a different matter.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that it is profoundly unsatisfactory for him to say that ministers of religion can provide these services free? Is he further aware that in some prisons the amount of time that is allowed to be devoted to individual prisoners can be as low as 12 minutes per month? Does he not agree that the Home Office has a duty to consult representatives of all the faiths served
180
by visiting ministers in the prisons to see whether agreement can be reached on some common guidelines as to the level of service which ought to be provided?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that it is true to say that the Home Office and the Prison Service have taken a lead in developing over the years a way of handling the various faiths which are now represented in the prison population. Indeed, they have produced directories of information, and so on, which have been a model not only to this country but to countries overseas as well. Therefore, I would reject any suggestion that this matter has not been dealt with sensitively. On the contrary, my understanding is that agreement and consultation are very much the order of the day.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on health services in London.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. Speeches in the first debate should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes and those in the second to a maximum of six minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I remind noble Lords that when the clocks indicate six minutes, that means that six minutes have already elapsed and the seventh minute has in fact begun.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as regards the Statement, I understood that the Procedure Committee decided some time ago that on the days when there are two short debates and a Statement had to be made it would be made between the two debates. Is that practice now being discontinued?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, where possible, it is the practice to continue to accommodate Statements between two debates when we have two short debates on a Wednesday. However, the decision was taken after considerable consideration and discussion with the usual channels. It was decided that it would be for the convenience of the House to have this debate earlier on in the afternoon rather than later.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1994 and other enactments relating to merchant shipping. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments for the protection of shipping and trading interests. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Financial Services (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to make available, and to publish, reports made by inspectors appointed under Section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Haskel.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 43).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. APPOINTMENT TO SUB-COMMITTEES

The Committee has appointed Lord Inglewood to the Refreshment Sub-Committee in place of the Earl of Arran who has resigned.

2. PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTING BLACK ROD

The Committee has agreed to a new procedure for the appointment of Black Rod, suggested by the Leader of the House with the agreement of the Lord Chamberlain.

3. ACCOMMODATION

The Committee has approved a reallocation of rooms on the Ground, Principal, First and Second Floors of the West Front as the final changes in the major review of accommodation which has been taking place during the last two years. The moves will take place during the 1995 Summer Recess.

This reallocation will result in Black Rod, his secretaries and the Yeoman Usher moving to the south end of the Principal Floor corridor, into rooms currently occupied by the Chairman of
182
Committees, his Counsel and the Private Bill Office. This will help to consolidate and improve the efficiency of Black Rod's Department. It will also enable the present offices of Black Rod and his secretaries to be allocated to the Opposition and Government Whips respectively.

The Convenor of the Cross Benches will move into the Opposition Whips' present office, which will be enlarged. The Chairman of Committees will move to the room at the very southern end of the Principal Floor.

There will also be a consolidation of the Parliament Office on the First Floor, West Front, and the rooms thereby vacated on the Second Floor will become available as Peers' Desk Rooms.

The Committee has also agreed—

—in principle, to the provision of Peers' Facilities Rooms housing a PDVN terminal, photocopiers and facsimile machines in areas where there are concentrations of Peers' Desk Rooms, and that locations should be identified after the 1995 Summer Recess;

—that the question of the provision of a Spouses' Room should be given further consideration, in the light of recent changes made by the Refreshment Sub-Committee to the rules governing facilities for spouses;

—that consideration should be given to relocating the Record Office Map Room, Bindery and Reprographic room outside the Palace of Westminster; and

—that all the changes recently approved have exhausted the hope of identifying any substantial further accommodation for peers within the Palace; and to invite Black Rod and the Director of Parliamentary Works to investigate the possibility of further infilling within the Palace, the acquisition of extra office space and alternative residential accommodation for Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher in the vicinity of the Palace.

4. EFFECT OF THE WORKS PROGRAMME OF PEERS

The Committee has been informed of the precautions being taken to minimise disturbance to Peers over the next twelve months; and has agreed that a display be mounted in the Royal Gallery early in May to outline the plans for the South East Return and Black Rod's Garden.

5. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT PAY

The Committee has been informed of new arrangements for the grading of non-chef industrial posts in the Refreshment Department; of the introduction of a new staff reporting system to take effect on 1st April 1996; of a progressive annual reduction in working hours from 39 hours to 36 hours a week by 1st April 1997; of cash inducements to give up cash or weekly pay; and of a modification of the current profit sharing bonus scheme to take account of performance-related pay.

6. REVIEW OF THE ATTENDANTS

The Committee has been informed of an increase in the complement of, and of a new grade structure and shift system for, House of Lords Attendants, following a review of their grading and working practices.

7. STAFF OF THE HOUSE

The Committee has taken note of the early retirement of Mr C.A.J. Mitchell, Chief Clerk, and has expressed its appreciation for the twenty-seven years' service which he has rendered the House.

The Committee has agreed—

—the appointment of an additional Housemaid for 7 Old Palace Yard;

—the appointment of an additional Senior Clerical Officer in the Law Lords' Office;

—the appointment of an additional Executive Officer in the Computer Office;

183

—the extension of the post of part-time Architectural Archivist until July 1998; and

—the upgrading of the Parliamentary Works Directorate post of Project Sponsor from 7 to 6 for the duration of the Phase II development in Bridge Street; and of Deputy Director from 6 to 5, subject to review in 18 months' time on the current postholder's retirement.

The Committee has also agreed that the time-limited posts of Computer Executive, Deputy Computer Executive, Computer Assistant and part-time Senior Clerical Officer in the Computer Office be extended indefinitely.

8. REMUNERATION OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS

The Committee has noted that the Government's proposal that the pay of individual Permanent Secretaries in future be determined by a Remuneration Committee was not appropriate for determining the pay of the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Committee has therefore agreed that (in line with the salary of the Clerk of the House of Commons. the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration) the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments should with effect from 1st April 1995 be fixed to that of a High Court Judge.

9. PAINTING OF THE HOUSE IN SESSION

The Committee has agreed to a proposal for a painting of the House in session.

The day to day management of the project will be undertaken by the Advisory Panel on Works of Art; decisions on finance and on the Lords to be included will be taken by a group consisting of the Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art. It is the intention that the project should ultimately be self-financing.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I believe that it is in order to speak on this report. Very briefly, I have one or two points to make. I notice that in Paragraph 3, headed "Accommodation", there is a very substantial juggling of accommodation. Eventually, accommodation will be freed on the second floor and allocated as Peers' Desk Rooms. At some time before these jugglings are completed, the accommodation released on lower floors should be allocated to your Lordships for their Desk Rooms.
As regards Paragraph 4, entitled "Effect of the works programme on peers", I welcome the decision to make available an explanation to your Lordships as to what is going to happen in the coming 12 months. But why has that only just been suggested? The appalling chaos which intrudes itself in this place during Recesses ought to be explained so that we know what is going on. It is conceivable that at some time your Lordships may be able to suggest improvements to minimise the disturbance.
It is not only disturbance to your Lordships that should be reduced, but also disturbance to my blood pressure. Those of us who use Chancellor's Gate will have seen that transparent glass blocks have been laid on several parts of the pavement in order to let light into the cellars. Having laid these blocks, a few weeks later they were taken up and the glass changed from transparent to opaque. The cost of that must run into several thousands of pounds. I shall be grateful if the Chairman of Committees can explain to the House what happened on that occasion.
184
Finally, on Paragraph 9, "Painting of the House in session", for one moment I had a terrible feeling that all this redecoration is going to intrude on us while in Session. But having read the item more closely I see that it is to be a portrait of the House in Session. It is stated that there is "a proposal for a painting". Can the Chairman of Committees tell us where the proposal comes from?
I then read that Members of your Lordships' House to be included in the painting are to be selected by,
"Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art".
On what criteria is that selection to be made? Bearing in mind the precedent in the other place when a painting was made of the House in Session—those who were left out were so jealous and created such an enormous fuss that a second painting had to be done—can the Chairman of Committees tell us whether there are any contingency plans for that?
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a small point about the soundings which are taken among noble Lords when works are carried out in the building. Some time ago the telephone booths were removed. It is necessary for Peers to make private calls from time to time near the Chamber, but it is almost impossible to do so. We lost that whole batch of telephone booths. All the directories were removed to a small corridor near the main telephone booths to the left of the Peers' Lobby. I do not know whether any noble Lords have tried to look up a telephone number there. There is nowhere on which to put the book. One has to stand with the telephone directory held up and turn the pages over. It is quite impossible to find a number if one cannot get into one of the booths to put the book down.
When these minor works are carried out there should be some sounding out among Peers on how they feel about them. As far as I know, nobody has been asked about the removal of the booths or about the difficulties which have been created because of where the telephone directories have been placed. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will look into this and ensure that in future when this kind of work is carried out some people are consulted beforehand.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question on Paragraph 5, "Refreshment Department Pay". It refers to,
"a progressive annual reduction in working hours from 39 hours to 36 hours a week by 1st April 1997".
Does that mean that there will be a reduction in take home pay for the staff involved? Were they or their representatives consulted regarding the change? If they were, were their proposals considered and accepted?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, asked questions relating to disruption being caused in the course of the works. These matters of major works go back to recommendations which were made by the appropriate committee as long ago as the end of 1993 and the very beginning of 1994. It was envisaged and explained then

185
that there would be certain disruption. I am very conscious, as are the committees themselves, of the need to keep that disruption to a very minimum.
I can certainly inform your Lordships that it was envisaged at that time that there would be a certain amount of disruption and it was decided that rather than take a fast course for the works, which would have been particularly disruptive, or a slow course, which would have delayed considerably the improvements sought by your Lordships, a middle course should be taken. The intention and the hope is that any disruption will be confined, as far as heavy work is concerned, to the two Recesses and lighter work to term time. I emphasise that it was envisaged that there would be disruption because in order to seek the improvements which your Lordships require it is necessary that the work be carried out as speedily as possible. However, I assure your Lordships that the disruption will be kept to an absolute minimum.
To answer the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, I believe that the report of the Offices Committee explains what is to happen on the Principal Floor. The Lower Floor has been considered previously by your Lordships. If I can help the noble Lord on any particularly detailed points, I shall either speak to him outside the Chamber or write to him with further details about the arrangements for the Lower Floor. The Lower Floor does not feature in the report of the Offices Committee which is now before the House.
I am afraid that I cannot immediately help the noble Lord with his second question. However, I shall make inquiries and I shall hope, and seek, to satisfy him once I have made those inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, also asked about the painting. It has been suggested that, if the Motion is passed, the system outlined in the report of the Offices Committee should be followed—that is to say, the day-to-day arrangements for the painting will be in the hands of your Lordships' Advisory Panel on Works of Art, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. Other details, such as financial matters and the question of which Members shall appear in the painting, will be left to the group, as was suggested in the report. It is true that there will have to be further consideration about the details of the allocation. I envisage that that will be a matter for the usual channels. It will, no doubt, be an awkward decision to make because it is envisaged that the number of your Lordships who will be able to appear in such a painting will be limited to around 250, so some selection will be needed.
If the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will forgive me, I shall not venture into a comparison with another place, but it might be of some assistance to your Lordships to know that, informally, a group of your Lordships' Deputy Speakers considered the matter before the weekly meeting last Thursday. I say "informally" because, as Deputy Speakers, they have no locus in such decisions. We were conscious of the limitation on the number of Members who would be likely to appear in such a painting. We also ventured to consider the question of the artist. It was thought—I should not dream of revealing by whom—that if we were to have a Lowry-type artist, it might be possible to include all of
186
your Lordships. Another noble Lord immediately volunteered the suggestion—again, I should not think of revealing his identity—that if we were to have a Lowry-type artist, some of your Lordships—I cannot think why he said this! —might be flattered to be portrayed in such a way. As one who used to be as thin as a rake, I am moving rapidly, with age, in that direction. I commend the Motion to the House—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees sits down, will he deal with the point that I raised?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I have a note of his intervention. It is indeed the case that the staff concerned with those proposals were consulted beforehand, and I understand that the proposals were acceptable. Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord on his detailed point about the amounts involved. I apologise to the noble Lord for not including him in my earlier remarks. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Authorities Bill
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Health Authorities Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 2,

Clause 5,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 6 to 10.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Probation Officers: Recruitment and Training
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby rose to call attention to the Government's proposals for the recruitment and training of probation officers; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion perhaps I may say how grateful I am for having been presented with the opportunity of raising this subject now at the beginning of what is a comparatively short discussion period on the Government's proposals for the recruitment and training of probation officers. In passing, perhaps I may also say that I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has

187
decided to make this debate the occasion of his maiden speech. I am sure that we all await his comments with the greatest interest.
Although, to some, probation may appear a somewhat specialised and peripheral part of the criminal justice system, that is not the case. Most disposals of criminal and associated matters are settled in the magistrates' courts. Perhaps here I should disclose an interest as a magistrate although I stress that the views I express are purely personal and in no way representative of magistrates as a whole. In all those courts, the probation service plays a critical and constructive role. But that is not all. It is also active in the higher courts, in prisons, and in after-prison care. Its presence is crucial in family court proceedings.
There are approximately 7,000 staff in the probation service, dealing with a variety of offenders, totalling some 140,000. That can be compared to the rapidly rising—the daily rising—prison population which now stands at about 51,000. The House will see the importance of the service and note its relatively low cost to the nation of about £450 million as against the £1.6 billion spent on custody. In short, the well-being and competence of the probation service are essential to the smooth running of this country's criminal justice system.
Over the past few years, the Government have succeeded in alienating, or at least irritating, most elements of the system: judges, banisters, magistrates, the police and the prison service. I gave thanks in my simple way that the probation service had at least been spared their attentions. That was a naive conclusion, indeed, for the proposals contained in the Government's recent review of probation officer recruitment and qualifying training have succeeded in uniting all relevant practitioners in opposition to them.
The basic propositions, which I put as simply as I can, are that the recruitment net should be cast wider to catch those who today might wish to become probation officers but who are deterred by the current restrictive educational conditions, and that training should be better suited to the work in hand. I believe that both objectives are ill-conceived and fly in the face of current facts and experience. There is no shortage of recruits for the places available. Incidentally, there are now fewer places following a cut of some £17 million last November in the budget. It is by no means clear that the service is losing out in obtaining the mature recruits who are said to be wanted. In 1993, for example, over half the recruits entering the service were over the age of 30 and more than 40 per cent. had had previous work experience.
We are left, therefore, seeking other explanations for the Government's intention to dismantle a system which all the other parties involved agree is working satisfactorily. I shall return later to that important point. Broadly speaking, the Government have said that their objectives are to free up entry into the probation service; to dispense with outmoded and unnecessary qualifications, linked to the broader spectrum of the social services; to make it possible for older and more mature applicants with already proven relationship skills to join the service; to close down the two-year courses
188
at certain universities and transfer the responsibility for training packages to regional consortia within the service; and, finally, through those changes, to match service recruitment and service needs.
Given this far-ranging blueprint, one may be forgiven for thinking that the present service is in a bit of a mess, full of people of fashionable social service ideas and dogma, numerically unbalanced as between the various sexual, racial and class elements in our society, and indifferent to the presence of potential recruits of great experience clamouring to get in but unable to do so because they are not paid-up members of the social services club. That may be the perception in certain quarters where there is an inbuilt belief that the probation service is in some way soft, but it is a picture that I and, I suspect, many others do not recognise.
I have been a magistrate in Hampshire for over 20 years, during which time I have enjoyed the professional and constructive advice of the local probation service. I recall comparatively few occasions when I and my colleagues have not followed, at least in principle, the advice offered to us. Perhaps I have been lucky in that respect, but I do not believe my experience to be unique. There is no organisation in the country that does not bear repeated examination; nor is there one which, with a tweak here or a bit of fine-tuning there, cannot be turned into something better. If there are faults in the probation service and all are agreed on the diagnosis, let the matter be remedied. No doubt in such a frame of mind the Home Office invited the Industrial Society to review probation recruitment and training last summer. The society's verdict was:
"Our research suggests that the probation service is very effective in the training and recruitment methods it employs. None of the professions we looked into had better links with the education bodies delivering the training."
It is those links the Government propose to sever. Although the proposals are up for discussion over the next seven weeks, the relevant universities have already been informed that courses are being discontinued in October 1996 at the start of the academic year. That is what I call consultation!
In passing, it is extraordinary that the Government should seek to discontinue courses without the knowledge upon which one expects such decisions to be based. I quote from the Dews Report, the internal Home Office scrutiny conducted after the Industrial Society's survey:
"In allocating the quota of sponsorships to different universities and colleges the Home Office has no systematic information about the quality of different courses."
Why on earth not? Is that not the kind of information on which one bases any decision relating to such courses and whether or not they should be continued? The government discussion paper makes clear that the discontinuance of university courses and the consequent obligation upon probation officers to obtain a diploma in social work will help to reassure those of mature years seeking a second career in probation that such an ambition will not be unduly delayed in future. That fear may be present, but the fact that currently more than 50 per cent. of diploma in social work students are over the age of 30 scarcely supports the theory.
On the other hand, it may well be the case that the increase in the number of mature women who apply—I am aware that in some quarters there is a feeling that at present there may be rather too many of them for a proper balance—is due to the fact that, with the removal of the training salary in recent years and its replacement by university grant, not unnaturally some men of mature years with family obligations simply cannot afford to make the financial sacrifice.
One thing is sure. The elimination of the requirement to obtain a diploma in social work will undervalue probation officers, run the risk of discouraging high-calibre entrants and, most seriously of all, pose the threat, with the removal of university standards of excellence—particularly marked in the case of the probation service—of a fall in standards throughout the service at the very time when they are most in need of rising.
Because the implications of the many new criminal justice Acts which pour from Whitehall in a seemingly never-ending stream will require new skills, it is argued that probation officers should not be tied to predetermined university courses. But one of the matters that distinguishes the relationship between the teaching at these universities and the needs of the service itself is the practical co-operation between the two parties that is so effectively overseen, as required by statute, by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. In September of this year yet more changes will be brought into effect in the syllabus—I believe for about the third time in recent years—to take account of government requirements and recent legislation.
It has been said by some—and the point may be made again today—that it is unnecessary for probation officers to have such a diploma when it is not mandatory in the wider field of social services. But that world encompasses a vast range of services of varying skills. It would be neither practical nor useful to make it a blanket requirement in such circumstances. On the other hand, the work of the probation officer is precise and highly specialised. The demands that it makes upon its practitioners can be adequately recognised and measured only by structured higher education and the award of a diploma. I cannot emphasise enough that that is of critical importance in ensuring that the work is validated by an outside body.
It is only too easy to condemn proposals across the board. I shall try to be helpful in the few areas where that may be possible. The idea of regional co-operation between probation areas is a constructive one, which I feel sure can benefit the service. But if the Government are hell bent on making some changes, if only to indicate action in response to a perceived shortcoming, I beg them not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Why should easier entry for mature recruits preclude people who wish to pursue a long-term career in probation from obtaining a professional qualification? I say to those who fear that the two streams cannot exist side by side and that it will create a "them and us" divisiveness that they must have the courage and imagination to try to make it work.
I must refer in passing to the proposals issued in the middle of last month by the Government in relation to community sentencing. If implemented, they will raise the number of criminal justice Acts to about seven since 1986. One is almost tempted to think that the Home Secretary must be on a productivity bonus—or not, as some may feel. The proposals are not part of the present debate but if they are implemented they must have considerable repercussions on a probation service already trying to come to terms with the changes we are discussing, if the Government are unwise enough to pursue them.
I made the point earlier, to which I promised to return, that we should perhaps look elsewhere to discern the real reasons behind the Government's proposals. Indeed, the gaffe—if I may use the appropriate vernacular—has already been blown by a newspaper article at the end of February. That article called for the recruitment of more ex-servicemen and women as a means of instilling greater discipline into the service. Such new recruits, experienced as they are, will not naturally need some airy-fairy social service diploma; indeed, its requirement will be a positive deterrent to men and women who are bursting to get up and go. Perhaps I may again pray in aid Hampshire. Since it is the home of the Army and the Royal Navy, it has more than a passing knowledge of ex-servicemen and their many attributes. I am delighted to say that some already serve in the local probation service and are much valued. Do you know what they say? They say that, although their previous experience has proved useful to some degree, nothing they have done before quite equips them for what they have to do now. In view of the fact that their new areas of responsibility include drug and sexual abuse, family breakdowns and mental illness, that is hardly surprising, mercifully. Naturally, they have to receive extensive state of the art training in those areas.
In short, we are left with The inescapable conclusion that an entry and training system which has been refined over many years and which works, according to the Industrial Society and the people who have to implement it, will be dismantled, not through cost implications, for reasons of efficiency or because of a shortfall in numbers recruited, but as part of the ceaseless activity on every front which the Government so often mistake for a coherent policy on crime and its prevention. That policy will be damaged to a considerable extent if the proposals are implemented. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I must first declare an interest, in that I am president of the Rayner Foundation, which invented and founded the probation service and which has been much involved with it throughout its life. In that honourable position I had the honour to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose service to this country's criminal justice system is unique.
I thank, as I am sure the whole House will, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for raising this subject. The probation service is not just an integral part but is a vitally important part of our criminal justice system.

191
I imagine that the Government were already aware, before today's debate, of the dismay and the strong opposition which their recruitment and training proposals have caused within the probation service, and not just within the probation service itself but within many of our universities, and, collectively, in the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. My plea to the Government is to take those fears and objections very seriously indeed; do not, whatever happens, just dismiss them, let alone ride roughshod over them.
I am not for one moment saying to the Government, "Do not make any changes". Indeed, all governments have a duty to make changes if they believe that changes are necessary. What I am saying to the Government is that, in making changes, they should think deeply and clearly; discuss fully and carefully with those involved; and at least seek hard to arrive at some agreement before implementing them.
I am a strong believer in the need for change in changing conditions. Indeed, earlier in my political career I was a joint author of a book called Change is our Ally, but successful change needs to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Upsetting applecarts is not usually a good way to make progress.
How do the Government intend to proceed? I hope that we shall hear a detailed account of how they intend to proceed from my noble friend the Minister when he winds up. In their discussion document issued in February, the Government invited comments up to 26th May. That seemed to promise a reasonable opportunity for genuine consultation and discussion. But, as has already been said by the noble Viscount, in that same document the Government appeared to announce a firm decision—not for consultation—that after the beginning of the next academic year no further probation stream students would be sponsored through the universities.
If that decision is a firm and final one, it kills the present system stone dead. So what is there of substance left to discuss? It seems to show the offer of consultation to be no more than a sham. I do not believe that the Government intend to do that. I certainly hope not. So I beg my noble friend when winding up tonight to make it clear that there will be genuine discussions, which there cannot be if that decision is held over them as a final decision.
The present arrangement has been operating since only 1992 —barely three full years. Moreover, it is clearly still developing and changing in that evolutionary way that we want. Starting this September, I understand, it is intended to boost major developments within the current system; for university courses to be taken on a part-time, and not just a full-time basis; to be non-residential if required; to make use of distance learning; and for the system to make more adequate allowances for the previous experience of a mature candidate transferring in mid-life.
The object of those further developments—which are occurring within the system, not despite it, and helped by it—is to make it easier than it may be at the moment for older men and women who started life in all sorts of other careers to join the probation service if they have a calling to do so. I thought that that was just what the Government wanted, and want, to happen. It is
192
happening under the present system and, with good will and a bit of a push, it can happen more and more. There is no need to upset the applecart in this way. So why tear up by the roots this relatively new system which is developing satisfactorily? It is particularly difficult to understand when the evidence provided to the inquiry conducted by the Home Office by the assessor that the Home Office itself appointed (the Industrial Society) gave the present system such an excellent bill of health. The noble Viscount mentioned some details of that.
So all, I thought, was going well and going in the direction of change which the Government believe to be necessary. Therefore I beg the Government to listen hard and to think hard before committing themselves too easily to this charge into the valley of such acute dispute with a profession so dedicated and united on this matter as is the probation service.
I see, and I understand, the changes which the Government seek. They want the age structure and the breadth of background of the probation service to be broadened. But I am convinced that they could achieve that successfully by developing and working on the present system and not by destroying it, with all the ill will that that will cause. So I beg the Government to think hard and to realise that what the service wants desperately and will fight to the end over is to maintain its genuine professional status, which means that the training must include a genuine higher education element and a qualification which is validated independently and not just by the employer.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, in view of the limitation on time, as a precursor I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, whose analysis raised many of the points which would otherwise have taken time. I ask a question about the nature of this document. If the noble Viscount had not used the procedures of the House, would the House have had a chance to debate this discussion document? What do the Government have in mind? They were going to discuss the proposals with those interested. Were they going to discuss them with us? I congratulate the noble Viscount on giving us the chance to do that.
I want to talk principally about the nature of the discussion paper. I have spent some time looking at it in the past three or four days. What is it for? May 26th, and the discussion is over! Are all the points to be discussed and analysed? An administrative document—not a White Paper—written by civil servants in the Home Office is what has appeared. It is to be discussed within a matter of weeks. There are profound aspects of the matter to be discussed. As has already been made clear, a major change is to take place from the beginning of the next academic year. Can that be altered? The decision has already been taken. What is the point of discussing the matter? There are other points of discussion within the document. Is it a fait accompli? Are we wasting our time?
At page 17, paragraph 2.2, the document states:
"over a number of years there have been doubts in the Home Office … about … social work qualifications".

193
Who in the Home Office has had such doubts and why have they not been declared previously?
The introduction to the paper, which does not augur well for the future, states:
"This review has been undertaken on behalf of the Home Office who were concerned".
When before the war I was earning money as a pupil teacher I would have put a line through that straight away. But who were concerned about the matter? How can we analyse the situation unless we have the evidence? The report is only a partial analysis.
The report explains that 12 per cent. of the respondents—that is the probation officers—were of Afro-Caribbean and Asian origin and that that is well out of proportion to the population as a whole. Only 12 per cent. responded. When I visit prisons I find a high proportion of Afro-Caribbean men. It is valuable to have Afro-Asian probation officers to deal with the problem.
The report states:
"A high proportion of the offenders are black".
I thought that I detected a slight racial overtone, or undertone, in that. Whatever the situation in respect of the number of women, if there is a problem it should be attended to. One should not attempt to alter the situation by doing what is proposed in the document.
All noble Lords have received advice from probation officers and universities up and down the country, and I am grateful. I have received advice from the probation service in West Yorkshire, with which I have had close contact for the past 30 years. It is a good service and perhaps I may quote from a document that I received from its members based on their practical experience. Commenting on the point about younger people beginning their careers, the document states:
"Eighty per cent. of recruits are aged 27 or over and entering a second career".
That does not sound like young people in the sense in which we are talking. As regards the issue of more military personnel and police officers being encouraged to join, those in the West Yorkshire service point out that many former Armed Forces personnel, engineering workers, police, company directors, prison officers and rugby league professionals are involved. It may be a good thing to have former military personnel laying the law down and I should not like to have the law laid down by a former rugby league professional.
The deputy manager of a hostel in Leeds—I know him well—is a former regular Army warrant officer. At present he is a quartermaster in the TA and he states:
"It took a while to adapt from military attitudes. Most of the men in this hostel don't want to be here. We are intervening in their lives and the way to change their behaviour is through advice and persuasion and not by ordering them about".
If there is a weakness in recruitment and cost, do something about it. I do not find the document up to the standard that I expect from the Home Office. It is not a document on which to work out what to do. I do not have time to develop my argument at length but perhaps
194
I may refer to a point which arises on pages 22 to 23. The report praises the work of the Central Council for Education and Training. Then it states:
"There is considerable criticism of CCETSW. One commentator described it as running a 'crusade for social reform' which (when combined with the internal politics of social work departments) led to courses more concerned with ideology than with teaching skills for dealing with offending behaviour".
I hope that vice-chancellors read the document because there is a gratuitous criticism of university teaching by civil servants at the Home Office. I presume that they visited all the social work departments or perhaps they listened to this one chap, whoever he is. I ask merely for a chance for us to study the document. Can we not have a Select Committee? Can we not probe and ask questions about the document? It is not the way to make major changes after 26th May.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I follow two former Home Secretaries and therefore I approach the debate with considerable humility. I wish to confine myself to training and the type of courses for probation officers. When I read the Home Office review of probation officer recruitment, it became clear that in approaching the review of training the Home Office was influenced by the thinking and development of national vocational qualifications. The aim of the qualifications is to test the adequacy of people for a job by testing their competence on the job.
I am very much in favour of the development of the national vocational qualifications. For my sins, I am chairman of the lead body for the administration of NVQs. Therefore, I am well aware of the difficulties involved. A major criticism, which is highly relevant to the subject we are discussing today, is that under the proposed system it is difficult to test the adequacy of the knowledge and understanding required by professionals for the jobs they undertake. That is the core of the matter.
The criticism has come from many sources. The noble Viscount may be aware, for instance, of the work of Professor Smithers at Manchester University. His is only one of many voices. They have raised the difficulty of finding out under this system whether people have an adequate knowledge and understanding.
What is the knowledge and understanding that probation officers require? There can be no doubt that, first and foremost, probation officers deal with human behaviour—in particular, human misbehaviour—in complicated social situations. Probation officers need to be trained to dissect, analyse and understand that human behaviour and the way in which people who have transgressed may be able to return to a normal law-abiding life.
Human behaviour and misbehaviour in social settings is the very stuff of which the studies of psychology and sociology are comprised. Those subjects continue to be studied in universities throughout the country and have been so for many decades. Probation officers need to be well drilled in those subjects. How can they be well drilled unless the drilling takes place in institutions of higher education? In such institutions continuing

195
research is being undertaken and the various points of view, attitudes and studies can be discussed and challenged. Above all, those studies, which are essential and at the core of the work of probation officers, can be linked with their practical training on the job.
Such relationships between the theoretical study and the practical training are at the heart of good training in this area. That is being done well by university departments which have experience in the subject. Such linkage between practical training and academic study is of great value from both angles. The practical work illuminates the theoretical study; the theoretical study enables the practitioner to have greater insight into the practical sphere. There is no substitute for theoretical study in an objective higher education atmosphere together with its linkage, properly devised with the practical work.
Some people may say that such training in psychology and sociology is all airy-fairy stuff, that probation officers do not need it and that their job is a matter of common sense. Indeed, that thought appears to run through the report. If that is what the Home Secretary is saying, as appears to be reflected in the newspapers, he is in the position of the man who discovered that for all his life he had been talking prose. When the Home Secretary says that "prison works" and that what is required is "tough punishment" and "tough supervision" he is making a psychological statement, whether he knows it or not. We might call it "Howard's theory of deterrence". In a proper university setting, "Howard's theory of deterrence" would be examined along with all the other theories of deterrence and motivation on which psychologists and sociologists have been working for decades. He cannot escape from that.
It may be said also that on-the-job training is adequate. In the industrial field, where I have more experience of training than in the area of probation, that is well known as "sitting next to Nellie". There have been some extremely good Nellies. Our old apprenticeship system was based on sitting next to Nellie. The good Nellies did a very good job but the bad Nellies were a total disaster, and we all know they were. In my own experience, many years ago, I remember using a Nellie to train a new office worker. In that case, the Nellie was heard to say, "I discovered the best way to do this job. Why on earth should I tell her?" That is not an unknown attitude of the Nellies who are lumbered with training.
There is no substitute for proper training in the essential understanding of those enormously difficult problems. They are difficult because of the nature of human beings and they are difficult because of the extremely complex social society which we now have. I beg the Government to tear up that ridiculous document; to have proper discussions; and not to cancel the university courses until those discussions have genuinely taken place.
3.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, with all the buffetings that Bishops receive, I find it very restorative to be in such a polite and courteous place as
196
your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I make my maiden speech with considerable trepidation because I am all too aware of the wisdom that I find in the scriptures:
"As the work of the potter is tested in the kiln,
so a man is tried in debate…
Do not praise a man till you hear him in argument,
for that is the test".
With regard to this debate, I must declare a personal interest as a member of the Council of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and as chairman, since 1988, of its Young Offenders Committee.
Today we are considering the recruitment and training of probation officers. That is a matter of concern not only to probation officers themselves, and not only to the people who are placed under their supervision and whose needs require a properly professional service. The public at large also has an interest in the recruitment and training of probation officers because of the public's proper expectation that offenders who are supervised in the community should be supervised effectively. Therefore, it is a matter of concern to us all that probation officers should be adequately and appropriately equipped for the exacting professional task which they are charged to fulfil on our behalf.
As we have already heard, the Government propose to make far-reaching changes to the way in which probation officers are to be recruited and trained. They want to ensure that a wider range of people than at present should be enabled to work as probation officers. That in itself is a laudable proposal as long as professional standards are not put in jeopardy. They also wish to remove the training of probation officers from the universities and so from their long established links with social work training. That is a more controversial matter which I shall not pursue today. Nevertheless, I hope that I may be allowed to reflect for a few minutes on what we know about the tasks which probation officers have to undertake; about the characteristics of those whom they have to supervise in the community; and about the skills and attitudes which are therefore required of them.
The work of probation officers is varied. They prepare reports for criminal courts. They undertake supervision of a variety of offenders serving community sentences or after release from prison. They have an important role in assessing the best interests of children caught up in divorce proceedings.
Their case-loads include large numbers of people with a multiplicity of personal and social difficulties. One in 10 has been in a psychiatric hospital. One in three misuses drugs. Half of them drink too much or are addicted to alcohol. Only about one in five will be in waged employment. Many of the others will be living in conditions of poverty. This is particularly true of some of the younger offenders in question, notably those 16 and 17 year-olds for whom no income support may be available.
It is of course true that we are talking about people who have committed offences, sometimes serious offences, and that crime deserves punishment. But most of those offenders will not have committed crimes so serious as to

197
send them to prison, or if they do go to prison, it will generally be for a fairly short period. So whether they go to prison or not, they will soon be back in the community, and that is where they must be helped to learn to live constructively and without breaking the law.
Helping such people to live constructive lives in the community: that is the work of probation officers. It goes without saying that it is no easy task—responding to chaotic, disorganised people who will not do as they are told and who find it difficult to get up in the morning, let alone apply for work, attend interviews or keep appointments. They are people with little stake in society and therefore with little sense of responsibility to it or for it. Working with such people requires dedication, patience and skill, firmness and humanity, and proper professional expertise. Those are qualities to be found in abundance among probation officers. To do their work they need the kinds of skills which can motivate people, which can raise their spirits when life looks bleak, which can help them to take responsibility for their actions and which can encourage them to take opportunities to change for the better. It takes very special qualities to be able to exercise those skills day in, day out, with people whom everybody else has written off. It also takes a thorough and appropriate training.
Some of your Lordships may have seen the research which was published last year by the Policy Studies Institute into persistent young offenders. That small but intractable group illustrates at their sharpest the human problems which face probation officers. There is wickedness, yes, but there is also terrible sadness. That research revealed a picture of fractured and dispersed families, of weak relationships, of children seldom at school and, indeed, rarely in touch with the world of adults at all. Strengthening relationships with home, with school, with work, helping offenders to become aware of the consequences of their action—that is the stuff of work with offenders. It is demanding; it takes time; it does not always succeed. But unless such work is undertaken, supported and maintained, there is little prospect of young people turning away from crime.
I hope that there is no need to defend the importance and value of supervision in the community. There is plenty of evidence to show that supervision in the community can be effective in reducing re-offending and so protecting the public. I am told that a recent summary of research found that, while the re-conviction rates for community sentences as a whole are not strikingly better than those for custodial sentences, better targeted and organised programmes can make a considerable difference in terms of re-offending by as much as 20 or 30 per cent. Just as important, research has found that, compared with custodial sentences, community sentences do not generate long-term negative impacts on those who have been sentenced. By contrast, custodial sentences have been found to be linked to increasing social problems in the period following release from custody. That is not good news if we hope not only to respond to the crimes of the past but also to reduce the incidence of crime in the future.
198
For my conclusion I should like to be more overtly theological. All social questions are questions about the nature of human beings. They therefore, in the Christian view, have an inescapably theological dimension. Human beings are made in the image of God, and they find their true fulfilment in love for God and one another. It follows from this that we may write no one off. The image of God is indeed marred in every one of us, but it is also capable of re-creation by the renewal of relationship, trust, responsibility and love—but all at immense cost. If we write anyone off as beyond redemption or rescue, we are writing off not only our own flesh and blood, but the flesh and blood which, according to Christian faith, God made his own in the body of his Son. Next week the Church will keep Good Friday, which will remind us not only of the uncertainties of all human justice, but of the compassion and justice of God and of the true dignity of man.
That, in the end, is what we are talking about when we discuss things like the recruitment and training of probation officers. Probation officers need training which is appropriate to the true nature of a role which is grounded in our duty to the dignity, the frailty, the responsibility and the capacity of our own flesh and blood.
4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate and thank the right reverend Prelate on behalf of the whole House even though, with time being so short, I cannot say more than that his speech was a most impressive one, based on great knowledge. I hope that we shall hear the right reverend Prelate speak again in terms of equal quality, given—if I may be forgiven a personal note—the fact that we are both honorary fellows of the same Cambridge college.
The Oxford dictionary says that the characteristic principle of the Conservative Party is the maintenance of existing institutions, but I do wonder a bit when I think of local government, the police, the health service, education and, alas, the Civil Service. Now it is turn of the probation service.
In thinking about today's debate, I recalled that when some years ago it was decided, regrettably, to transfer the children's department from the Home Office to the DHSS, we had to consider what should be done about the comparatively small probation service. For a brief moment we even wondered whether we should follow the Scots, do away with it as a separate service and roll-up the duties with the rest of the social services—a course which, I imagine, would not have commended itself to the present Home Secretary. But, in the end, we concluded that, for England and Wales, it would be best to keep a separate service and develop a high level of training. After some experimentation, that is what I thought had been achieved. No service is perfect, and some of the criticisms in the Dews Report are perfectly valid. But there seems to be precious little evidence that, in general, the courts are dissatisfied with the service. I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Acton, who is to speak later, will be able to give the House the fruits of the research project which the Government have so far declined to publish. Like everyone else, I read the

199
blessing conferred by the Industrial Society. The Government tend to be a hit unlucky when they go for advice to outside experts.
I am not sure that quite so many people as might be supposed share this Government's passion for sending as many people as possible to prison, but there is probably some feeling that non-custodial punishments are a soft option. It is the Green Paper, not being debated today, which tries to address that issue. As regards today's topic, we are dependent on a newspaper report that the Home Secretary has said that he is looking for retired Army officers who would not stand any nonsense and would provide more discipline. A difficulty, though, is that no one will apply, or stay, unless he or she has some sense of mission. One does not take on the task of supervising a group of resentful youths clearing out overgrown ditches on a wet Saturday afternoon unless one really believes that it is all worthwhile.
Anyway, there is much more to probation work than community service, including the supervision of discharged prisoners some of whom are murderers who have served long terms in prison and who now have to re-establish themselves in the community. There is also the question of advising on the best interests of children in family disputes.
The trouble is that the individuals with whom the probation service is concerned are not just people who happen to have had a brush with the law. They can be drug takers, alcoholics, mentally ill, unemployed, homeless and possibly the victims of crimes themselves. To deal with such a variety of human behaviour calls for a high degree of skill and knowledge, perhaps going beyond the normal experience of an Army officer. It seems to me that simply to go back to direct recruitment, with in-service training leading to no qualification, carries great risks. It could discourage the good entrant so that we end up with probation officers who have had less training, who possess less skill and who are in greater isolation from other services in the community. The faithful in the party would no doubt greet with rapture any suggestion that life for criminals was to be made tougher. But the cheering would die away if one or two cases were to go badly wrong as a result of lack of expertise on the part of a probation officer.
I believe that the Government must take note of the fact, as we heard today, that two former Home Secretaries feel grave concern about the proposals. I am authorised to say that there is also a third Home Secretary who would like to join the other two. He is someone who happens to be president of a Welsh university which runs a successful diploma course. If, as I am sure, this is a genuine exercise in consultation, I join with others in asking the Government to think again.

Health Services in London
4.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the changes to the health service in
200
London which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"The decisions I announced yesterday follow four separate statutory consultation exercises about hospital changes in south and east London and around Barnet and Edgware. In each case, the decisions measure up against the Government's key objectives for improving the health service in London: to strengthen specialist services by concentrating them in centres of excellence; to preserve and enhance medical teaching and research in the capital; to provide more modem acute hospital services closer to the major centres of population; and to release money to increase investment in family doctor and community health services which are badly needed in parts of the capital.
"Those key elements of the Government's strategy will be familiar to the House. I set them out in a Statement at the time of the publication of the Tomlinson Report and again when I announced my response. They have been frequently debated. I said on those occasions and I say again: the objectives of this strategy enjoy widespread support within the clinical and academic worlds and from independent commentators such as the King's Fund. The need for change in london is widely recognised and widely recognised as long overdue.
"I hear and understand the concerns which have been expressed. We considered very carefully the points made during the consultations including those made by right honourable and honourable Members in their meetings with me and the Minister. I was, in particular, struck by the points made about the pace of change. The extended time-scale of some of the announcements yesterday respond to those points. Let me make it absolutely clear: no accident and emergency facility, or indeed any other, will close until Ministers are satisfied that the alternative facilities are not only available but capable of providing an improved service to patients.
"My right honourable friend asks specifically about the financial implications. The changes announced yesterday will be backed by £400 million of capital investment—that on top of the £210 million that we are already spending on improved primary care. This is substantial investment in a modern health service.
"That money will buy, among other things, a new NHS hospital for Greenwich, and an upgraded hospital in Barnet, complete with a state of the art accident and emergency department and a world-beating centre for neurosciences and neurosurgery at King's. It will support the changes at the Royal Hospitals Trust and Guy's and St. Thomas' which will develop them as centres of supreme excellence in treatment, teaching and research. In addition we are investing substantially in other hospitals such as the Homerton, Lewisham, King's and the Royal Free.
"Aside from the direct clinical benefits, we expect these changes to lead to substantial revenue savings which I estimate will be of the order of £75 million every year once the changes are complete. This is

201
money which can and will be invested elsewhere in the health service, both in community health services in London's areas of greatest need and outside the capital.
"I say to the House that, at the moment, rather than getting £75 million out we are putting in £28 million a year, supporting the duplication and fragmentation of services around the four areas covered by my announcement. That must be a good exchange by anyone's standards. As for St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London, the capital investment will total nearly £240 million. It is expected to deliver revenue savings of some £30 million a year. This compares to the current subsidy going into the trust of £8 million a year.
"I say this, however, in conclusion to my right honourable friend. The changes which I announced yesterday, and which carry forward our strategy, are not primarily about finance. They are about improving the quality of care. They are about better specialist services where medical expertise is enhanced by bringing clinicians together to benefit from each other's ideas. They are about better teaching and research—linking world-class hospitals to multi-faculty colleges. They are about equipping modern hospitals to respond more flexibly to the pressures they face and to harness the awesome advances in medical technology. And they are about providing more health care where Londoners most badly need it—in their communities, their doctors' surgeries, and the streets where they live.
"It is on this basis that I took these decisions. Change is not easy, but it would be harder for London if we do not change. These changes will build towards a first-class health service for London, fit for the 21st century, and they deserve the support of this House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating her right honourable friend's Statement. I am particularly pleased that she has done so because it gives your Lordships what is a rare chance to question the Government about important decisions in the NHS at the time they are made. It is somewhat ironic that the Statement has been forced out of the Government in another place on a day when yet another major NHS document has been published and circulated. It is particularly ironic that it is about openness in the NHS. However, today we are here to discuss the Statement which has been repeated by the Minister.
The Minister spoke in the context of the Tomlinson Report. Have the Government considered those reports which have been published and the inquiries which have been conducted since the Tomlinson Report and which give a rather different picture of the needs of London? I refer particularly to that which was conducted by the chief executives of the inner London health authorities, the one conducted by Professor Jarman, who considered whether London was underbedded or overbedded, and indeed the updated King's Fund report on the situation in London which does not entirely support the view of its earlier report, although it was of course that report
202
which stated that money for primary care should come up front before any other changes were made. I should like to ask the Minister whether the new changes pay due attention to the authoritative reports published since Professor Tomlinson made his suggestions.
As regards specific matters, the Statement says that no accident and emergency facility will close until Ministers are satisfied that alternative facilities are available and capable of providing improved services. Will the Minister comment on the situation at Guy's Hospital, one of those mentioned in the Statement as being subject to change, where I understand the A&E department, which has just had £1 million spent on it, is likely to be closed by 1999 without any suggestion being made for its further use? Will the Minister comment on the point about the need for investment in primary care before acute sector beds are closed? In the past Ministers have spoken about the inappropriate use—I think it has always been a rather inappropriate use of words —of A&E departments by Londoners because of the lack of primary care. However, as we all know, the lack of primary care is partly because it has not received substantial investment and there was no substantial improvement in services before these radical decisions were taken.
How much is known about the shift of resources between acute care and primary care which is supposed to lead to redistribution of services? I suspect that the situation in London is probably more like that which I know to exist in the health authority of which I am a member where the number of people registered with general practitioners has fallen in the past few years. So the ability to use primary care services has obviously fallen at the same time and A&E continues to be used "inappropriately".
Have the Government also considered the work done recently on the problems of homelessness in London and the work of the London task force on mental illness which again shows a particularly acute need for special services in London? The Minister will know that, as regards mental health beds, there have been several reports of bed occupancy being at 120 or 130 per cent. How can that possibly tie in with the closure of beds suggested in this report? How many beds will be closed as a result of the changes? How do we know precisely in what way need will be met by these, I am afraid, rather mythical improvements in primary care'? Is the money which is to be spent on more' capital investment in this field new money or—as I mentioned before—is it the result of a possible shift in resources which we do not know enough about?
In a debate in your Lordships' House last week on an amendment to the Health Authorities Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, a question was raised with regard to the need for a strategic health authority for London. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, who replied for the Government, said that the need for a strategic authority for London was probably redundant because a lot of the work that was needed was already being done by the London Implementation Group. She listed the particular concerns that the LIG had been looking at which included concentrating, developing and enhancing specialist healthcare services; taking action for

203
the benefit of teaching and research; and indeed improving primary and community health services. Somewhat surprisingly, the noble Baroness added that the work of the London Implementation Group is now complete. We know that the London Implementation Group will be disbanded in the very near future.
Can the Minister give any kind of end-of-term account of whether the London Implementation Group has been able to reveal the shift in resources and the improvements in the areas on which it has been concentrating in order to give us much greater confidence about these radical changes to acute services? I remind the Minister that although the Statement refers to the King's Fund as an authoritative source, she will know that the latest suggestion of that fund is that its judgment of the resources needed for London was greatly under-estimated. I ask the Minister to consider that these decisions are being taken in a rushed way without due concern for the long-term changes which need to occur before we can feel confident about the reduction in acute care beds in London. I echo the stance which has been taken on these Benches on many occasions. I believe there must be a moratorium on closures pending a full inquiry into all the health needs of London.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I do not wish to be carping but it seems to me a great pity that we should have to interrupt the debate on probation officers, which is an important subject, in order to turn our minds to another important subject. That surely is not the best way to consider matters which are of cardinal importance to a great many people.
I continue my grumbles by saying that this document was handed to me a few minutes ago. I understand that it was only available then. How one is expected to make any intelligent comments when the information arrives at such short notice, I do not know. This discussion surely could have been postponed until we had longer to think about the matter.
So many questions have already been asked by the noble Baroness, who knows a great deal more about the subject than I do, that I want only to emphasise one or two points. In particular, I should very much like to know and have some reassurance about what is meant by the words in the Statement that,
"no accident and emergency facility...will close until Ministers are satisfied".
Does that mean again that once Ministers are satisfied they will tell us what is to happen? Or does it mean that when a further report has been produced we shall be given the information and have an opportunity for a real discussion on the subject? It is not only in this context that we find the Government's understanding of the word "consultation" somewhat confusing, to say the least.
I should also like to ask what is really going to happen. It is tantalising. We are all extremely interested, and those of us who have been patients in some of the hospitals mentioned are particularly interested, to know what exactly will happen in respect of the amalgamation of Guy's and St. Thomas'. Or has that been abandoned? Everyone will be very interested to know. Whenever I go
204
to those hospitals I find that people are still confused. The staff are demoralised by the fact that nobody really seems to know what will happen. Is this not an opportunity to give people a clearer view of what is to happen?
Similarly, the Statement indicates that at St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London capital investment will total nearly £240 million. If the hospital is supposed to be running down or is ultimately to be closed, what is that £240 million to be spent on? Or will all the money go to the Royal London? Can the noble Baroness tell us?
Of course I accept, as a Londoner, that in the past certain parts of London have undoubtedly suffered from the inadequacy of primary health care. Nobody will deny that primary health care is the foundation stone of any health service. For example, those of us with experience of trying to look after seriously ill people at home who have wanted help in the night from the medical service have found it almost impossible to obtain the assistance one would hope would be available. If the changes mean that that situation does not arise in the future, most of us will be very grateful. Is that what is intended?
I am afraid that having read the Statement I am still very much in the dark as to what is to happen.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may address the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that this is a rare opportunity to debate the London questions. I remember very clearly having a major debate in this House on the health service in London and its future. Indeed, I remember on that occasion the noble Baroness making the very profound remark that nearly everyone who has looked at London's health services agrees with Sir Bernard Tomlinson's general conclusion that some rationalisation and reorganisation should occur. Therefore, we had some modest support from the noble Baroness at that time for major changes in London.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. That is a rather strange way to respond to what I said. I did not say that we had not had opportunities to discuss the situation in London. I said that it was useful to be able to look at a health service decision on the day it was taken. Of course I agree with what I said about Professor Tomlinson's report. However, I began my remarks by saying that many other people have reported since Professor Tomlinson. Have the Government taken any notice of those other reports whose conclusions have been somewhat different in making these decisions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course we have listened to other people. Indeed, we have listened to the King's Fund. On 9th March this year Robert Maxwell, secretary of the King's Fund, said:
"Our own position is that the strategic objectives of current policies are largely correct but that great care is needed with the handling, sequence and pacing of changes".
As I said in the Statement, we have taken account of those comments, and others, in that we have ensured that in relation to Guy's and Bart's we have allowed more time to bring about these major changes so that they occur at a slower pace.

205
We have also listened to many other people in addition to Professor Jarman. The noble Baroness will remember that Professor Jarman's concerns were not so much with the loss of acute beds as with the fact that primary care in London was very poor. That is a conclusion with which your Lordships have agreed every time we have discussed the subject. He was also concerned that there were not enough long-term, continuing beds. The health authority of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham has already received 650 applications for nursing home beds. Those are to be registered. The London borough of Lambeth is investing in 150 beds for long-term care. Therefore, we are trying to meet the problems that Professor Jarman outlined and are investing quite heavily at Guy's in mental health beds.
We have also listened very carefully to the independent specialty reviews that we ourselves commissioned. Dr. Chris Paine, president of the Royal College of Radiologists, said that he felt that there was a need for fewer, larger specialist centres, most closely linked to general hospitals, and that that would lead to a stronger service and research base than we have now.
In the cardiac review Professor Geoffrey Smith, president of the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons, when studying care in London, said that none of London's existing 14 centres provided adult tertiary cardiac services which met the criteria laid down in all respects, and many fell well short.
Service, research and development and teaching considerations all point to the concentration of resources and expertise in fewer, larger centres.
I could go on and mention Mr. Rab Hide, chairman of the neurosciences review, and Professor Sir Norman Browse, president of the Royal College of Surgeons. They were at one in saying that there was a need for services in London to be reorganised to meet the needs of the 21st century.
We are investing very heavily in primary care. Your Lordships have always felt that that was the way forward for London. Over the next three years we shall invest £210 million in over 1,000 primary care projects. Some of those are nearing completion and others are under way. A huge amount of investment is taking place.
The London Implementation Group was always a time-expired body, as recommended by the King's Fund, when the commission produced its report. The major decisions have now been taken. The implementation of those decisions is up to the two regional health authorities and the district health authorities. We rely on our normal management processes and systems in order to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about accident and emergency units and consultation. Whenever we make major changes we have to consult. All the proposals before your Lordships in the Statement today have been heavily consulted upon. If there are changes to the accident and emergency departments we shall of course consult further. We have given an undertaking that we will not close any department unless there is alternative provision which is at least as good.
206
I think that I have covered most of the points raised. If I have missed some I am very willing to come back to them.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend add a little to what she said about the closure of beds? I understood her to say that closure would not take place until alternative facilities had been provided on an adequate scale. Can she say what is the total number of beds it is intended ultimately to close under these changes?
Secondly, can my noble friend say whether allowance is made in these changes for the fact that the high standard of medical care in London attracts patients from all over the world, particularly from the Middle East? Has due allowance been made for the inflow of patients into London due to the high standards of care which it is appreciated throughout the world are to be found in London?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. As we see medical care change we see increasingly more patients treated on a day case basis. At one time operations for cataracts required 10 days in hospital. As noble Lords are aware, those can now be done on a day case basis.
Regardless of what happened, we would see reductions in beds. We seek to ensure that it is a controlled reduction, that it makes sense, and that there is sufficient investment not only in day treatments but also in community developments to make up the loss.
To be specific, with regard to the Bart's closure, we expect a loss of something like 188 beds. But with regard to the Royal London Hospital and Homerton, we expect more patients to be treated than are at present being treated within the three hospitals. With regard to Guy's and St. Thomas', we expect something like a loss of 263 beds. However, the time has come when we have to consider healthcare not in terms of loss of beds but of patients treated and the quality of care given. We know that many would rather be treated locally by their own GPs if only the primary care were good enough.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I speak as one who would certainly not agree with the Minister's view that the changes in some areas are moving at a fast pace. Does she accept that the Statement is of positive help? One hopes that it will enable those organisations which were reluctantly forced to block large payments in relation to Guy's rebuilding—in the case of my own organisation the amount was more than £9 million; and there were other large sums involved—to reconsider their position with a view to releasing those moneys and therefore ending at least some of the destructive uncertainty which surrounds the reorganisation at present.
Does the Minister also accept that there is an urgent need for the Government to announce a firm, clear policy and to stick to it? All the issues in this controversial area have been well argued and are well known to anyone interested in the subject. The possibility of the Minister and the Government finding

207
total agreement with their proposals is limited, to say the least. The key factor now is to get on with the policy and to stick to it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the work that he has done through the trustees chairing that body at Guy's Hospital.
The noble Lord is completely right. Uncertainty is very damaging not only to institutions but also to the staff who work within them and others who are in academic or research positions. I agree with the noble Lord that the case has been well argued, well reasoned and well debated. Indeed, we have had 20 reports in the past 80 years all saying roughly the same. I have to say that there has been no Secretary of State more courageous than the present Secretary of State. She has grasped the nettle and is determined to continue. We are firm. We are clear. We have a policy which we believe will improve the services for the people of London.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many noble Lords on this side of the Chamber totally support my noble friend's remarks concerning her right honourable friend the Secretary of State who has shown enormous courage and constancy in seeing through what we always recognised would be a difficult and in some cases a stormy process? However, is not my noble friend absolutely right to concentrate on the need to improve the primary care and community care services? Was it not astonishing to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, refer to mythical investment in primary care? I wrote down her words.
There are a thousand projects; my area of east London—it includes Walthamstow and Waltham Forest—has the highest concentration of single-handed practitioners in the entire country. Is my noble friend aware that many projects are financed through the London Implementation Group programme—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Baroness must learn to sit and take criticism and not to jump up every time someone criticises her.
Lord Richard: The noble Lord is supposed to ask a question.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was asking this question. Is my noble friend aware that in that area of London a great many projects are going ahead which will realise the ambition of a primary healthcare-led service? Is such a service not at the heart of the whole reform? It is what doctors and other professionals in the health service, including the chief executives of the inner London health authorities to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred, have been demanding for years. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is now delivering that service. Is it not right that she should be allowed to provide it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I had thought that he was sitting down; I misunderstood. As I am sure he
208
knows, I am perfectly capable of taking criticism. I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not respond to my original question. If there has been such successful investment in primary care where is the end-of-term report of the LIG?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is on the ground. The noble Baroness has only to come with me to visit some of the remarkable schemes that are now taking place. I do not refer to all the schemes because it takes time to appoint people and to build new health centres, and so on. But we are seeing a tremendous improvement, as my noble friend said.
There certainly is room for improvement. We know that in inner London there are 25 per cent. fewer practice nurses helping GPs than there are practices; that 80 per cent. of GPs nationally offer minor surgery but in inner London the figure is only 46 per cent., and that that accounts for some of the accident and emergency overload that we have experienced; that almost twice as many GPs work alone in London compared with the national average; and that in London twice the national average of GPs are over 65 years old.
Noble Lords will know that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is a GP working in London. When we have had debates in this House, he has often spoken of primary care. Indeed, he asked me for the list of the 1,000 projects. I have given him that list. If the noble Baroness would like to accompany me, we shall go round London and see what is happening on the ground.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, perhaps I may slightly shift the thrust of the questions and observations towards education and research. Can the noble Baroness give a reassurance—I know that it will be widely appreciated among the academic and research communities—that there is full support for the key objectives that she mentioned? The shift in the pace of change will be widely appreciated. It will give people the opportunity to think through their research applications and plans.
However, I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that there is a widespread hope in Guy's that a suitable division of specialist services and specialist beds between Guy's and St. Thomas' can be worked out. It is greatly hoped that there will be opportunities to improve the training of the undergraduates in primary care activities. It is hoped that such educational development, and a service bridging the gaps while primary care is built up, can be established on the Guy's site. It is very much hoped that the shift towards home treatment and outpatient services can be developed at London Bridge because of the wonderful transport connections. Indeed, some of us cast our eyes over to that remarkable polyclinic which is to be found in Leiden. The circumstance is similar to the relationship between the new hospital being constructed at Guy's and London Bridge Station. It allows people from a wide area to come to a centre where the research people are in a strong position to give what so many patients demand. Indeed they demand it in primary care. It is real reassurance about the diagnosis that they receive. That reassurance comes from a research, knowledge-orientated, teaching hospital environment.

209
Perhaps the noble Baroness will give reassurances that research in surgical, dental and psychiatric subjects will be cosseted and will make its contribution to the London scene. It is such a strong scene that we all realise that we can play only a part in it. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness will give me some reassurances to take back to my young men and women.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has a long-standing interest in medical education and research and has worked tirelessly to improve it. I am sure that he will be reassured to know that today the provost of University College London, Dr. Derek Roberts, has announced that University College London has been given £11.5 million by the Wellcome Trust and £14.5 by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to fund a new teaching centre for medical students and a major new medical research centre at University College Hospital.
I know that the noble Lord's particular interest is in Guy's Hospital. I hope that I reassure him that our vision for the future is for Guy's to be the centre of excellence in terms of teaching and research. We have much support from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of London. We believe that the linking now of medical schools with multi-faculty colleges will strengthen them, as indeed they have been strengthened in other parts of the country, for example, in Oxford.
We are concerned that our teaching and research should not fall behind. We want to be a world leader and a world beater. We want to attract students from all over the world to benefit from our medical education, which we believe is the best but which has to struggle very hard to maintain that position.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that there had been a lot of consultation. Was there consultation between the Secretary of State and her right honourable friend Peter Brooke? He does not seem to believe that there was proper consultation with somebody who had a real interest in that area and in Bart's in particular. Has there been proper consultation with all the staff of St. Bartholomew's? My information is that there has not been proper consultation and that they will by no means be satisfied with the Statement which the noble Baroness repeated today.
Can the Minister also explain why the Secretary of State for Wales seems to take a completely different line on reorganisation from that taken by the Secretary of State for Health? Apparently, he believes that many of the older buildings are perfectly suited to modem methods and that much of the reorganisation is for administrative and financial convenience. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would comment on that.
Finally, can she say whether the £210 million for primary care to which she referred is new money or is it to be transferred from elsewhere to somebody else's detriment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to consultation in that part of London, 5,000 copies of the consultation document were printed and around 2,500
210
were issued immediately to all interested parties, which would have included staff. A further 2,000 copies were issued in response to requests. At the same time 40,000 copies of a short leaflet were printed and large numbers were issued to relevant outlets, with a further 14,500 copies issued in response to requests. The leaflet also included a message in eight languages inviting the reader to telephone the language line service, which provided a telephone interpreter service in those languages. Three public meetings were held, one in each locality. They were arranged by the authority and senior representatives of the authority. Those people attended 15 other meetings arranged by the community health councils, professional groups, social services departments, and so on.
So the noble Lord will be aware that there was a very great deal of consultation among staff and among the general public. Indeed, to my certain knowledge, the Secretary of State has met with her colleague on several occasions, not least in the past week or so, when I believe she has met him three times.
With regard to the Secretary of State for Wales, perhaps the noble Lord will read very carefully what he said. He said that he felt that services in the future should be clinically driven. We believe in that. We are carrying out these developments primarily to improve the services in London: the health service, the academic teaching and research and development. Those are clinically driven services.
With regard to the primary care money, the total investment is £400 million overall in London, but the £210 million has been allocated through the normal budget round. It is new money. It came, as it normally does, through the distribution mechanism from the Treasury.
Perhaps I may also say that the noble Lord will be aware of the enormous amount of money that the National Health Service received this year—£1.3 billion extra funds.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister was as amazed as I was when the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—I sympathise with some of her worries—asked for yet another full inquiry to be made at this time and said that we were coming to rushed decisions. Was the Minister not absolutely dumbfounded—perhaps dumbfounded is the wrong word—when the noble Lord said that there had been no consultation with Bart's?
For 30 years we have had consultations with Bart's about getting into bed with the Royal London. Would they move? No. Every attempt to have any kind of discussions even of the problem have been completely and absolutely refused by Bart's. That is in marked contrast to what has happened in other parts of London. Does the Minister agree that in north London, for example, a marriage was arranged with University College and the Middlesex and that that has now become a very happy partnership? I believe that the Royal Free, which again for years refused to talk, is now beginning to move and become part of that partnership. The same is happening in west London.

211
I appreciate, as I am sure does the noble Baroness, the difficulties which face Guy's. But surely that is bound up with obtaining funds for King's pre-clinical school perhaps to move ultimately to the site by London Bridge and make one of the four new multi-faculty centres.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who has for a very long time taken an interest in the London hospitals. As a former Vice-Chancellor of London University, clearly he has a very keen interest in them. He is quite right; we are now seeing a huge sea change throughout London. There is a different attitude among many of the London hospitals, which recognise that in world terms they have to get together, that there has to be a critical mass and that they have to be linked in with multi-faculty colleges if they are to survive and indeed lead the world. There is a change, and change is always difficult.
Clearly, St. Bartholomew's Hospital is finding the situation more difficult than most. However, I believe that these changes are the right way forward. The new campus at Guy's will not only be a centre for education in medical terms. We also propose to take there the school of nursing. It will be very closely linked with other basic sciences within the university. I believe that it will prove to be a very new form of centre for teaching. It is an exciting development. I know that others involved share that view.

Probation Officers: Recruitment and Training
Debate resumed.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I presume that the probation service debate will now continue. Neither the probation service nor the Prison Service is listed among my special interests. However, the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse is a field of special interest to me. In that context I put down my name to speak in this debate, which has been so ably introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby.
I should like to say a few words on the Addictive Diseases Trust. That is a charity which has pioneered the treatment of people in prison who have severe alcohol and drug addiction problems. The implications of that treatment programme beyond prison, and therefore concerning the probation service, will be self-evident.
As noble Lords will know, addiction in prison is widespread. That was emphasised in the memorable maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate. It is the nature of addiction that people can change their chosen mood-altering drug. Thus, an alcoholic can become a drug addict. Because drugs can be more easily distributed than alcohol in a supposedly secure environment, drugs in prison have become the main focus of attention. It is thought that over 50 per cent, of inmates of our prisons have chronic, and often severe addiction. In some prisons up to 80 per cent, of inmates
212
are using drugs, and many inmates who were not addicted when they entered prison have become addicted by the time they are released, often through the pressure of drug pushers inside the prison.
It goes without saying that the consequences to the community are horrifying. It is estimated that nearly half of all property crimes is drug related. The average cost of keeping someone in prison is £23,000 a year. The average length of sentence at Downview Prison, where the Addictive Diseases Trust works, is four years. Therefore, with court and police costs, the total cost to the community for a Downview inmate is over £100,000. On release from prison there is a strong chance that an inmate will re-offend if he is still addicted. The vicious circle of addiction; offending; prison, and re-offending because of continuing addiction, has to be broken. It must follow that treatment while the addict is still in prison is the most cost-effective approach to the problem.
Only last week I was invited to Downview Prison and had the privilege of seeing something of the programme in action. It is based on a similar programme that has been used successfully in prisons in the United States over the past 14 years. Where it has been used, there is evidence that re-offending rates have dropped sharply.
I must pay tribute to Mr. Jonathan Wallace who, by dint of single mindedness and conviction, founded the trust. With equal energy and determination it is administered by Michael Meakin. They and others on the small permanent staff richly earn the support of a distinguished board of trustees, eminent patrons, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and an ever-widening group of friends. Through the efforts of those people and the absolutely crucial support of the governor, David Lancaster, there came into existence in April 1992 the first dedicated, stand-alone, intensive addiction treatment programme at Her Majesty's Prison Downview. It has been an outstanding success. But as far as I am aware there is still no directly comparable programme operating elsewhere in the prison system, in spite of the fact that the programme has earned warm endorsement from many quarters, among them from the governor; from HM Inspector of Prisons, his Honour Judge Tumim, and most significantly in the context of this debate, from Mr. John Harding, chief probation officer of the Inner London Probation Service. He said,
"On a recent visit to Downview Prison I was much impressed by the intensive Twelve Steps Drug Rehabilitation programme for drug misusers serving a prison sentence. The programme was well-focused, well managed by the staff and peer counsellors, and thoroughly participative in style. It was a working model which other prisons could well emulate to good effect in the collective endeavour to reduce drug misuse in prisons."
The "peer" counsellors to whom Mr. Harding refers are inmates who are themselves addicts and who have come through the programme and received intensive training. Naturally, they enjoy a high level of credibility among other inmates and their involvement is central to the objective of eliminating drug culture in the prison.
Precisely because there has been an inmate-driven culture change, Downview is well on the way to becoming a drug-free prison. There is a waiting list of prisoners applying to come from other prisons; inmates from over 60 prisons have received treatment at

213
Downview. While initially the programme was funded from charitable donations raised by the Addictive Diseases Trust, public funds have been made available for the current year, and for this the Prison Service and the Government are to be congratulated. Enormous credit is also due to the probation service, both for its support and for the tangible contribution it makes in respect of prisoners needing aftercare when they have been released.
I am aware that in dealing with any aspect of crime, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not looking for soft options. I can assure him and my noble friend the Minister that this programme is anything but soft. It is precisely the same programme that 16 years ago helped me to end my own long and wretched history of alcoholism. Even at this distance, I regard it as possibly the toughest journey on which I am ever likely to embark.
In the chronic stages of addiction, a person may be said to have disintegrated, physically, mentally and spiritually. Science has yet to come up with a definition of addiction. But empirical evidence points overwhelmingly to there being much more to the story than merely the physical effect of drugs. An addict's character becomes diseased. The ADT programme addresses this. The moving life stories we heard last week from three addicted inmates, whose careers had been a litany of crime, much of it violent, demonstrated the degree to which someone can change in a short time. The prison officers who had responsibility for those people, and who might be forgiven for cynicism at the notion of villains becoming reformed, themselves testified to the extraordinary changes for the better. I leave your Lordships with a single haunting remark made to me by one of the inmates that I met. "How strange I often think it is," he said, "that I had to go to prison to find my freedom".
I ask my noble friend to continue to give every encouragement and help to this important initiative. I sincerely believe that it holds the key to so much that he is striving to achieve. Above all, I hope that he will have it in mind when he comes to reflect on any proposals he may have for the probation service, whose work is so closely intertwined with the problem of addiction in our prisons and throughout our community at large.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to intervene briefly to tell your Lordships that this debate will now finish at 6.56 p.m.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, other noble Lords have dealt ably with the detail of the current proposals the Home Secretary is making in relation to the training and recruiting of probation officers. It is my intention to set those proposals within the wider context of the Government's penal policy. It is perhaps the single merit of the proposals that they are consistent with the rest of the current approach to penal policy.
214
That approach has two main characteristics. First, it is populist, designed to appeal to the most primitive human instincts of anger and a desire for vengeance. Secondly, it is characterised by its refusal to accept contrary research evidence and the experience of practitioners in the field. Other Tory Home Secretaries in the past saw such policies as a short-cut to electoral popularity. But some, like the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, had the wisdom to change their minds and to admit that short, sharp shocks do not reduce recidivism, are extremely expensive and may even create tougher and more resentful criminals.
There is no sign that the current Home Secretary has learnt from his previous mistakes or those of his predecessors. Indeed, the latest Green Paper is called Punishment in the Community. Not only does he continue to use words like "discipline" and "punishment" as though they are talismans that will ward off electoral defeat, but he also continues to bring forward policies based on emotion and irrationality that fly in the teeth of the evidence.
For example, a report of a Home Office survey into the use of soft drugs which was published in today's papers shows that cannabis use among young people is widespread, amounting to some 4 million users. In recognition of that fact, police forces for many years pursued a policy of cautioning or taking no action for the possession of a small amount of cannabis. Yet the Home Secretary, while that piece of research was going on, in a purely political and futile gesture last year, increased by fivefold the fine for cannabis possession. Behaving, as he so often does, like King Canute, is not a sensible way to conduct penal policy.
The current Home Office proposals for probation officer recruitment and training are but another example of that approach, based on prejudice and simplistic stereotypes of social workers, probation officers, magistrates and criminals. An example of the Home Secretary's thought processes is the speech that he made last week in which he said:
"Retired Army officers … understand the need for discipline and they won't stand any nonsense. That's exactly what offenders need!".
That is disgraceful from a Home Secretary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said in her powerful speech, he should realise that it requires considerable expertise, knowledge of psychology, sociology and experience in the field to be an effective probation officer.
Another thing that puzzles me is why we constantly turn to the United States for our ideas about penal policy. The United States has a murder rate approximately six times our own. It has 1.5 million people in prison. Indeed, Florida's gaols are now so overcrowded that they have had to introduce a capping policy and they are releasing prisoners on a purely arbitrary basis. At the other end of the country, in California, there are empty private prisons which are touting for custom because they are too expensive to fill.
There are much more effective penal policies closer at hand and I cannot understand why we do not look to Scandinavia, to Holland or to Germany where they have reduced crime and their prison population. I say that I

215
do not understand, but of course I understand only too well that their policies are not sufficiently draconian and eye-catching.
Instead, in this country we introduce ideas because they will capture the public imagination, even though they have already failed—the tagging of criminals (the trial in this country was a failure, but it is nevertheless to be introduced); secure detention centres for 14 year-olds (a re-run of the failed junior detention centres which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, introduced when he was Home Secretary and which were subsequently abandoned); and boot camps for 16 year-olds (persisted in despite American evidence that they succeed in reducing recidivism only when combined with substantial inputs of education and therapy, which suggests that it is the latter that are effective and not the tough discipline). Other misguided policies have been the introduction of private prisons— an abdication of government responsibility—and the failure last year to make crime prevention a duty of the new police authorities.
All these policies place the emphasis on punishment, which cannot within a penal system be an end in itself. It does not act as a deterrent. The chance of prosecution is remote and conviction and sentence are often months or years after an offence. Moreover, all the evidence is that punishment works, as in a family or school, only within a context of respect and affection, whereas within a penal system it is inclined to make people worse, not better.
If severity of punishment becomes an electoral gimmick to attract popular support, we are in serious danger of following another new trend in the United States in which politicians vie with each other in promising ever more severe retribution against criminals, including a variety of ways of killing them, to secure their election. This is a slippery slope which leads back to lynch mobs, public executions and, no doubt in due course, additional torments such as being hanged, drawn and quartered. We need penal policies based on knowledge and experience, not on prejudice and ambition.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, if I may say so, what a speech to be condemned to follow! I shall confine myself to four questions about the chronology of the Dews Report and to three respectful comments. I am sure that the noble Earl will answer them with his usual expertise and courtesy.
I concentrate on the Dews Report because it is the bedrock on which the Home Office recommendations are built. I am not clear what evidentially supported motives inspired the commissioning of the report. The first cohort of probation officers whose training statutorily embodied the diploma in social work emerged in significant numbers only towards the end of 1993. The review was set up early in 1994 with unambiguously skewed terms of reference which referred to Home Office concern,
"that present arrangements did not meet the needs of the modem probation service and did not offer value for money".
Yet the report itself acknowledges that,
216
"the probation service and the academic institutions argued strongly that the present arrangements met the service's needs".
By strong implication, the courts agree. The money savings will be small. My first question therefore is: what moved who in the Home Office to set in train a radical review of the new training when its first products had only just emerged in significant numbers?
The report says that the service needs to recruit mature people with a breadth of experience and,
"there is evidence of a recent trend to younger entry".
The report was published in September 1994 and records that the majority of the 1993 entrants were over the age of 30 and 42 per cent, had previous careers in a wide variety of occupations. Given the chronology, I ask my second question. What evidence is there over a sustained period to justify the claims about this "recent trend"?
The report acknowledges that,
"most people within the probation service argued that a social work qualification was appropriate to probation work but there was a strand of opinion"—
a strand of opinion, my Lords, that the jobs of social workers and probation officers were becoming significantly different.
The report was compiled in a little over 90 days—some time between February and September 1994. That was while the central council was conducting its second updating review to ensure that the training accommodated the latest Home Office requirements. The council approved the results of that review in February 1995. My third question is: what solid and sustainable evidence is there to back this "strand of opinion"?
It is repeatedly implied that the diploma in social work course is not all that relevant to the needs of the modern probation service. That is manifestly untrue. The report also claims that, despite the diploma partnerships system,
"both the profile of students selected and control of the training itself in practice seemed to"—
"seemed to", my Lords—
"rest with academic institutions rather than the probation service".
That claim is inherently implausible given the part played by the Home Office, via its bursaries, and by the probation service, via its partnership status, and the fact that one third of the diploma training course is on the job and therefore entirely the responsibility of the probation service. So my fourth question is: what specific evidence over what period is there to support this cloudy claim? I have in mind the explicitly contrary conclusion drawn by the Industrial Society, whose findings in this and in many other respects clearly and cleanly contradict the recommendations in the Dews Report.
I now venture three brief comments. First, there is a disturbing disconnection between the evidence and the recommendations in the Dews Report; and it is the latter, not the former, which are aggressively repeated in the doubtfully literate discussion paper.

217
Secondly, it is sad to see departmental Ministers dragging two relatively junior named members of the Civil Service into a highly visible and unusually contentious experiment in ideological engineering. It is thoroughly unfair on the officials concerned.
Thirdly, your Lordships will recall Mr. Gradgrind, Mr. Choakumchild and Mr. Bounderby in the novel Hard Times. The last named, Mr. Bounderby, was the Bully of humility—a certain resonance there—who disbelieved profoundly in "your model schools, your training schools, your whole kettle of fish schools", but he believed profoundly in "hard-headed, solid-fisted people". I suggest to your Lordships that the shade of Mr. Bounderby presides over this—and I regret having to use these words—affront to rationality and good government.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, first I must declare an interest; not, I regret to say, a commercial one, but nonetheless real for that. I was one of the founders of NACRO some 29 years ago. Noble Lords who listened to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate will realise that there are two people in this House who work for NACRO and who are very keen. It is now the largest and, with the exception of the Howard League for Penal Reform, the oldest of the voluntary bodies set up to help accused people on remand, sentenced, in prison or coming out of it—in other words, the offender from beginning to end. Basically, its work has continued to develop, but always developing in the closest possible association with the probation service.
I have heard nine speeches today. After 25 years in your Lordships' House I do not believe that I have ever got up to speak after nine speeches having agreed with every one of them and, on the whole, fully. The only speech which strayed a little was that of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, who spoke about something which interests us all very much indeed, but which was not quite so directly on the probation point, but none the worse for that. I feel that I shall not only not have to exercise my own wits very much, but I believe I shall give noble Lords some pleasure if I do not.
It is worth saying that when we first started NACRO we pressed very strongly for a welfare officer to be put into every prison. I need hardly say that the first one was a probation officer.
I have a particular interest in this debate because our work in NACRO is so closely associated with, and so largely dependent on, an efficient probation service. In rough figures, we employ about 1,200 workers who deal with about 200,000 cases a year. Almost every one of these cases is either sent to us by, or is returned by us to, a probation officer so that there is no organisation in this country which knows more about the probation service than we do.
I tell the House all this because I want to make it clear that our opinion of the probation service is based on nearly 30 years working closely with it and our opinion is perfectly clear. Probations officers are doing
218
a really good job. We make mistakes occasionally, and they do, but, by and large, really good work is achieved by our association together.
We deplore the Home Secretary's wish to change, by changing the training, the type of man or woman now recruited and carefully trained for the service. We particularly deplore the lack of deeper training, which is the university side. Among other things, the Home Secretary is proposing to remove a great deal of the decision-making which is now part of each probation officer's daily, normal procedure. In particular, the proposal to do away with social work training shows no understanding of at least half of a probation officer's duties. I will not go on about that because we have heard again and again how different the probation duties are and what special treatment is necessary.
I do not believe that I have ever met a prison governor who did not believe that quite a large number of his prisoners should not be in prison at all. As regards re-offending, those on community service orders do distinctly better, but not as much as we had hoped, than those who come out of prison. Even though that difference is not very large—it is something under 10 per cent.—our people cost £25 a week whereas those in prison cost £437 a week, which is about 20 times as much. I can never understand why the Treasury have never got on to this specific waste of money. Perhaps they will read this debate and ask some questions.
We often find the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is to reply, left with rather sticky problems. He is asked to defend the indefensible and to answer the unanswerable. We all know that nobody does it better than he and we like him for it. But I hope that we can persuade him to persuade the Home Secretary to think again and to leave well alone so that the probation service can go on with its excellent work without being fussed about.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for bringing this important subject before us for debate today. Perhaps my placing in the list is suitable because had I spoken earlier the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, would perhaps have been unable to say that he agreed with everything that had been said.
I have been on the Bench since 1968 and for much of the time since then I have been a member of the probation liaison committee. When I first joined we were a small Bench of 26, with two probation officers—an experienced middle-aged man and an exceptionally good woman. Our meetings with them consisted of a review of their current, and sometimes past, offenders in their care. Perhaps I may say at this stage that I cannot remember the word "client" being used in those days. They were always useful and informative meetings and I felt that our frank discussions led to a friendly and professional relationship.
But by the time we got to the 1970s everything seemed to go haywire, with a political agenda and some very different recruits. I suppose it was part of the "doing your own thing" syndrome. The attire of officers

219
with their informal approach certainly raised eyebrows. Some of us found it difficult to accept their very liberal recommendations offered in reports.
It seemed to me a great pity that they did not give realistic recommendations. They did not seem to emerge in their reports. Often when we believed that only a custodial sentence could be considered, never once was custody recommended. In fact, we were told that it was a disciplinary offence for an officer to take such a decision. If only that had been realised magistrates would have had more confidence if an officer made such a suggestion.
That lack of trust spread to the general public who saw probation as a soft option and offenders just getting away with it. However, over the years things have improved. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 probation officers have become very much more important in sentencing. The development of community sentences and community service orders has led to a more professional relationship with magistrates.
I have always felt that the probation service is essential for best practice in sentencing in serious cases. The pre-sentence report can reveal much of the background so that an effective sentence can be imposed by magistrates. I believe that we should always remember that it is the magistrates who take the final decision.
I am sure that some of your Lordships will find it impertinent for me to comment on the training of people who hold such an important and influential position. However, as a lay person perhaps I may be allowed to make a few observations. First, I believe that the work performed by probation officers is demanding and difficult and requires training that gives them the specialised skills and experience required. The competence they acquire should be recognised by the award of a diploma, but I do not know that it need necessarily be a diploma in social work. I also believe that people who are non-academic could gain qualification by training on the job.
Secondly, I find it strange that a probation officer must have a social work diploma but there is no such obligation for a social worker. Thirdly, it seems to me that to go straight from school to university to qualification is narrow. I should like to think that all probation officers will have had experience of life and a job in the wider world. Fourthly, I feel that sandwich courses with distance learning would be far more beneficial for the more mature entrants. Perhaps in that way they could be self-supporting and not face too great a drop in salary. Finally, I find it strange that community service organisers do not have the constraints of qualification. Of course, they cannot progress to become probation officers without undertaking a university course; but with training, why not?
We need people in the service with varied experience and backgrounds. A mother who has successfully brought up a family with all the problems that can occur could, for example, bring a wisdom and understanding that cannot be learned from a book. I am sure that the sharing of views would enhance the quality of the reports.
220
Probation officers are respected and valued by the courts but, I am sorry to say, not always by the public. Our role must be to ensure that people have confidence in the system. They need to feel that probation is not a soft option and that a community sentence is a punishment that provides really challenging unpaid work for offenders.
We have moved to a society in which people may have two or three careers during their working lives. I feel that the proposed measures should be developed and studied in detail and with care to take forward a service which has changed over the years and which now needs to adapt to the challenge of the proposals that are before us today.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I am a little confused because I was not the next speaker on the list. However, I thank my noble friend Lord Tenby for initiating this most appropriate and timely debate. We are in the middle of a consultation period and I hope that the Minister will take back to the Home Secretary the comments that have been made here today. We have heard from many respected speakers so far, among whose views I have felt very much at home until, if I may be frank, the last speaker. I became totally lost by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, who has served on a Birmingham Bench.
I rise to speak for two reasons. The first is that I have spent the past 25 years as a magistrate, about 20 of which have been spent in a small rural court—perhaps that is the difference between the noble Baroness and myself—latterly as chairman of that Bench. As my noble friend Lord Tenby said, 95 per cent, of the crime that comes before the courts of this country is dealt with in such courts, mostly by the lay magistracy. My experience is that about 40 per cent. of those who come before the courts and are convicted need help, not punishment. That is when I turn to the probation service.
Indeed, I have turned many times to the local probation service in Norfolk where I have received the most enormous help. I have not found the social services to be something airy-fairy. It is obvious to me that probation officers need a strong social service attitude. It is also obvious to me that what is most important is, as the right reverend Prelate said, the relationship between probation officers and their clients.
I am not soft on crime. I have had the unfortunate job as a magistrate of sending people to prison. I do not like it, but I am not soft. The work of probation officers must be based on mutual respect, fairness and commitment to both helping their clients and getting them into a frame of mind such that they want to help themselves. That is what the training is supposed to be about. That work must be kept quite separate from punishment. Punishment is not the job of the probation service. Under that heading, perhaps I should add that tagging has nothing to do with the probation service either.
My second reason for wanting to speak is that I have a daughter who is a qualified probation officer. I know that there are problems with the present system of training which can be expensive to families in terms of

221
both cash and relationships. As a chief probation officer said to me recently, the current system is not perfect, but that does not constitute a reason for rushing headlong into a similarly less than perfect alternative.
It is essential that probation officers have a university-validated and recognised qualification. That means that they can transfer to different disciplines in this country and that their qualifications are recognised in other countries, particularly in the EU and the Commonwealth. Here I must mention the University of East Anglia. I know that the Minister comes from that part of the world and that he is involved with the university. For 20 years that university has been producing the highest quality of probation officer for this country. Indeed, the vice-chancellor has told me that, contrary to the Dews Report, students there are not,
"too young and too female".
Indeed, its intake over the past three years shows an even balance of age and sex. I am horrified that the two-year MA course which my daughter took has now come to an end.
I should like to make a few positive points about change—I hope that the Government listen to this. We need to align training more closely with projected staffing needs. A far less cumbersome route would have been to devolve training money to allow services to second staff, rather than create the bureaucracy of the proposed training consortia. We need a variety of routes into qualification. The current arrangements discriminate against people who have commitments and who are unable to move to one of the few sites where the courses are run, and who then run the risk of not knowing when or if they will have a job afterwards. The move to demonstrate competence rather than to undertake a course is welcomed, but, given the will, that could have been built into a qualification which retained its social work link without the hurried and radical changes that are proposed.
At this stage of the debate, much has been said already and I am sure that much of what I wanted to say has already been said by others, but perhaps if enough people say it enough times the Government might hear. I shall be looking in the Minister's reply for a commitment to training which leads to a properly validated professional qualification for probation officers that is recognised in this country so that holders of the qualification are capable of transfer during their career paths to various other similar social service-based jobs. Furthermore, any such qualification should be recognised throughout the EU and, as is the case at the moment, throughout the Commonwealth. I await the Minister's reply.
5.28 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as possibly the last noble Lord to put down his name to speak in today's debate, I feared that I could be shortening the time available for speeches to only six minutes, so I had better make sure that my contribution is worth while. My plea in mitigation is that I have done offender work in Scotland for many years, serving, among other tasks, as a probation supervisor, a social inquiry report writer,
222
a community service by offenders supervisor, a prison social worker, an aftercare licence supervisor and a project worker on an intensive probation project—that is, a 20-day group work project run by SACRO. I should confirm that probation work in Scotland is incorporated in social work departments and is not a separate service. However, we have separate offender specialists within our one-door approach to social care.
To enter a career in social work, in 1968, at the age of nineteen-and-a-half I attended an experimental three-year diploma in social work course in Scotland, following a year as a community service volunteer. That took place before the establishment of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. The course was experimental on at least two counts. It took school-leavers, or near school-leavers, and it aimed to give students who were entering their first careers a broad-based knowledge of the whole social policy area, as well as theoretical and practical training in social work techniques. I went to 16 different supervised practical placements during those three years, covering youth clubs, social work departments, residential homes and a Borstal.
First, I should like to comment on the age of my fellow students and myself. I was very keen, but far too young. Indeed, as a boarding school child brought up away from home, I was fascinated to study the family during sociology lectures and seminars. I am glad that the age of entry to social work courses has been raised. Experience of adult life is an essential prerequisite to effective social work, as is knowledge of the many different cultures and lifestyles of our citizens. Secondly, I am glad to have had a broad social policy education which includes economics, sociology, psychology, the organisation of central and local government, housing, education, health, leisure and recreation, among other things.
Thirdly, criminal justice social workers need to be knowledgeable about how our society organises itself. Only with that knowledge base will they be able to help offenders to keep to the terms of their orders; that is, by coming to terms with the effects of what they have done and who they have done it to, by planning a future lifestyle that does not impinge upon others and, most importantly, by implementing a probation plan making the necessary changes in their lives. This task requires considerable patience, encouragement and support as the probationer tries to move on, usually in the face of his delinquent peer group, sceptical neighbours and often from a position of disaffection.
By way of definition, I believe disaffection to be the feeling that success in life is for others, not yourself. I believe that any attempt to promote social change in individuals by state bullying is doomed to failure, because this client group has heard it all before. The idea that people may come in from the Army has been praised. I do not believe that the Army accepts probation officers without training.
In conclusion, I believe that success in social work with offenders depends upon having the right personality, a broad-based knowledge of life, social

223
policy issues and good practice and a determination to enable clients to understand their lives and to move on to something better.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, this afternoon we are discussing the probation service and the training that is thought to be necessary for the future. In this country we have for many years seen an escalation of crime by citizens of all ages. We know that something must be done. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given us a Green Paper that goes into present and future problems in depth. My 30 years in magistrates' courts and consequent four years on the parole board made me realise how enormously I relied upon and trusted probation staff for the guidance and education of offenders, both young and old.
Probation staff will be responsible on a one-to-one basis for organising the new community sentence, which appears to me to be a good idea. As all noble Lords who sit in magistrates' courts will know, they are also responsible for keeping in touch with offenders and their families if those offenders are serving prison sentences. They are also relied upon to supervise and guide a prisoner on his release. It is quite likely that a prisoner will serve only one-third of his sentence in prison, the remainder being served on parole. Often, this means that a weekly report has to be prepared, primarily to ensure that he is not reoffending.
The life of a probation officer is very full. He must be dedicated, determined, selfless, conscientious and caring, apart from having broad shoulders and a sense of humour. The suggestion has been made that the services should provide probation officer recruits, but there are many other avenues for finding suitable people to give up their time and their path in life to help those who have offended during the course of their lives. We need more probation officers to train the young in lawful rather than lawless ways. Those officers will be required to oversee community service orders imposed by the courts, having first produced reports.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, told us that 50 per cent, of the new intake were over 30 years of age. That is good news. They will have had some experience of life.
This afternoon much has been said about qualifications, diplomas, training etc. It is not in a spirit of jealousy that I declare that I have no university education or degrees. The Second World War got in the way of my higher education. But the standards laid down by Parliament and government have to be observed, and I am sure that we can rely on the probation service to implement those standards in future.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, introduced this debate with such a powerful speech that in a sense all of the most important things were said at the beginning of the proceedings. He was followed by two former Home Secretaries, one of whom was a Conservative. If anything needed to be said which had not been said by
224
the noble Viscount, it was said by them. I missed what I was told was an eloquent speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. All of the other speakers added a lot of weight to the argument. No doubt the implications of the speech of the noble Baroness, who speaks with a great deal of relevant experience, will be carefully studied by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.
One may ask what there is left to say. In that sense, I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. One can only say a few words from one's own angle. I mention just one aspect of the issue. It came to mind because a week ago I had a long discussion with four probation officers, all of whom were over 30. One of them was a trainee. That gentleman was 42. He had been in business for many years. He had plenty of business experience, but he was the first to insist that he needed professional training. I have been visiting prisons for 50 years and I suppose I have met a good many probation officers during that time, including many concerned with aftercare, and I have never met one who did not value the professional training he had received. To put it briefly, I agree with everything that has been said already about such matters.
I have had a further thought. In my view the probation service will have to expand a good deal in years to come. I suppose that that will happen when the present Home Secretary is laid peacefully to rest. I hope that the time will come when more enlightened counsels will prevail and alternatives to prison will figure more largely. That will mean more and more responsibility being cast upon the probation service.
When we were discussing the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, I moved a probing amendment. It was something about which I feel strongly. There should be a statutory obligation upon the authorities to provide aftercare for ex-prisoners. That will mean further responsibility falling upon the probation service. Its duties will be increased in future in any national plan. That, in a sense, is what I want to say about the detail.
When I look at the matter more broadly I am very much in sympathy with the approach of my noble friend Lady Hilton, although we might have an argument about the word "punishment". I have written two books on punishment, and I do not use the word in quite the same way as she does. But let us leave out the semantics, and let me say that I agree with her general approach.
I am sure that all Members of the House are familiar with the story of Lazarus and Dives in the New Testament. Noble Lords will remember that Father Abraham said to Dives, then resident in Hades:
"Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed".
He said that one could not pass from Hades to Heaven or vice versa. I feel more than ever today when we have these valuable discussions that there is this great gulf fixed between those who rely upon knowledge and reason and those who appeal to mob emotions or even feel those mob emotions. On the one hand, we have the judiciary, the more enlightened half dozen Conservative Home Secretaries before the present incumbent, and going back a little further the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is to speak

225
later, and those who speak from what is usually called the progressive point of view. There are all the other experts. We have the probation service, the police, prison governors and prison officers and the other people who have knowledge of these matters.
Who is there on the other side? There is what is called the general public or the mass electorate, whoever they may be —those to whom Mr. Howard, under the tutelage of the Prime Minister since the 1993 Conservative conference, has decided to appeal. Then there is the party altogether, with the tradition of his six immediate predecessors, not to mention the noble Lord, Lord Carr, Lord Butler and his other great Conservative predecessors. So what do we find?
Let us take the mass electorate and where their views are represented. The Sunday Express recently had an article by someone called Judge Argyle. I do not know whether that name is familiar to anyone. He is a former judge. In his article he said we had been ruled for some time by the "pro-crook lobby". That would be strange news to the six Conservative Home Secretaries who preceded Mr. Howard. At any rate, that is what Judge Argyle said in the Sunday Express.
I rang up the political editor and asked to be able to reply. I pointed out that Judge Argyle's views would be ridiculed in this House where people would hardly be able to bear to listen to them. The political editor said that he was very popular with his readers. Well, he may be. I believe that the same gentleman has gone to town lately in the Mail on Sunday. There is a wide tabloid press for expressing such extreme views. That is, if one likes, on one side of the gulf.
The question is how we communicate with those people. How, in the language of Father Abraham, can we come from them to us or can they go from us to them? In due course the leaders of the tabloid press become ennobled. Editors, proprietors and such like come here. They join us. But we find it difficult to break into them. I submitted an article which I was told would receive favourable consideration, but of course it was not published. There we are. We have this gulf fixed. In the end, how will that gulf ever be bridged? It will not be bridged by the present Home Secretary or the Prime Minister.
I realise that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, cannot leap up suddenly and say, "As a matter of fact, I am on your side of the gulf. He is a loyal spokesman. The historian Lecky said of the union of Ireland that it was opposed by the whole unbribed intellect of the country. I must not use the word "bribery" here. All the same, one might say that Mr. Howard's policies are opposed by the whole unpaid intellect of this country. I cannot put it more plainly. I have no doubt used up my time.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I deplore the Dews Report's recommendation—endorsed by the Home Office in its discussion paper—to abolish the diploma in social work for aspiring probation officers. One point where I agree with Dews is paragraph 2.13:
"Probation officers are first and foremost officers of the courts and the courts' views are thus most important".
226
Unhappily, Dews states:
"We were unable to canvas the courts' views systematically".
Later, however, the Home Office research and planning unit undertook a study to measure the satisfaction of courts with the probation service. A survey was done of 498 lay magistrates. The key finding was that 89 per cent, of those magistrates were very, or quite, satisfied with the work of the probation service in their area. Moreover, 94 per cent. of the magistrates said that they had a very, or quite good, working relationship with the probation service. Those outstandingly positive results are a firm indication that magistrates are content with the composition and training of the probation service.
I am indebted to the chief probation officer for Greater Manchester for those findings which he gave in a speech to the National Probation Conference on 16th March. A request to the Home Office, on my behalf, to provide a copy of its report for today's debate was met with the reply that the report was not due out until the first half of May. As the Home Office has called for comments on its discussion paper by 26th May, that is a most worrying state of affairs. The report ought already to have been published. Parliament and all interested groups and individuals ought to have the full benefit of the courts' views long before 26th May. I request the Minister to say that he will use his best endeavours to have that vital report made available forthwith.
The Home Office fails to appreciate the crucial contribution of higher education to probation training. A thorough knowledge and understanding of a large body of statute law —the Criminal Justice Acts, the Children Act 1989, and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—are necessary for trainees. Formal instruction in those laws is essential.
Moreover, increasingly the probation service is dealing with serious offenders who are in the community on licence following custody. Such serious offenders require intensive supervision and knowledge of ways to tackle their specific addictions or other failings. Higher educational establishments are best placed to teach the criminology and penology necessary for coping with these offenders.
The training institutions which carry out research into probation-related matters are able to teach their trainees the results of this up-to-date research. They can also teach their students a research approach; how to monitor their own effectiveness. The result is that when the trainees go into the field as probation officers they will have the analytical attitude necessary to evaluate what they are doing well and to pass their conclusions on to their colleagues.
A further point arises from the Green Paper, Strengthening Punishment in the Community, which envisages the courts playing a larger role in deciding on the detailed supervision of criminals. Paradoxically, the result of this policy would be that probation officers' pre-sentence reports, including information and advice on supervision programmes and their likely effects, will become all the more important. Higher educational institutions are best fitted to teach what to put into those

227
reports and how they should be written. As was recently emphasised by the chief probation officer for Greater Manchester:
"The work of probation staff is extremely complex and needs the kind of analytical approach that draws on a wider educational stance to learning".
Despite the opposition of practically every group which knows anything about probation, a Conservative Government and a Conservative Home Secretary are hell bent on destroying the diploma in social work. I ask the Minister to remind his colleagues of the venerable and singularly apt words of the second Viscount of Falkland:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as the 18th speaker almost everything that I wanted to say has been said, but with the agreement of your Lordships I shall make four brief points. As a director of social services I have worked alongside probation officers and, since retirement, have been closely in touch with their service. It is rarely realised that social workers and probation officers must often share cases. Social services deal with the mothers and the children who are obviously at risk and in trouble when the man in the family is in prison or subject to a community service order. Therefore, there must be an understanding between probation officers and social workers.
Probation officers and social workers have the same basic training, which helps them to understand one another. Then, of course, the probation officers specialise in the type of work which they have to undertake under Acts different from those relating to social service departments.
Home Office figures indicate that as regards young men of the same age who have committed comparable offences, 54 per cent, of those who go to prison re-offend. However, the 43 per cent, placed on probation with a community service order re-offend. That is sad, but there is a big difference between the number of those who go to prison and those who are under a community service order. Surely my noble friend the Minister agrees that we should increase the number of community service orders, that we should help the probation service to develop that service and that the necessary resources should be available.
As regards recruitment I suggest that, as mentioned by many noble Lords, we should embark upon the training. Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has been consulted? I and many other noble Lords have received letters from the universities. Have the universities of East Anglia, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, Nottingham, Kent and Exeter been consulted? The University of Exeter has as its Vice-Chancellor Sir Geoffrey Holland. It runs a course for probation officers and social workers and he speaks highly of the course and of the work subsequently carried out by the probation officers. I see no evidence of the universities having been consulted.
228
Surely the Home Secretary is wise to seek to reduce crime and we all support him in that. However, I beg him to look before he leaps, and not always go into uncharted waters.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. The quality of speeches, and often their passion, must reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, if he needed it, of the wisdom of choosing the subject for debate today. It demonstrates how useful this House can be in scrutinising small but important parts of government policy.
I must be almost the only Member of your Lordships' House speaking tonight who has had no experience of, or responsibility for, the probation service. I have always believed that probation officers carry out a difficult, unglamorous but essential job. I was under the impression that in recent years they had faced up to many changes and had become increasingly professional in the process. Therefore, when I looked at the Home Office discussion paper I found it difficult to understand what the Government had in mind. I was also puzzled when I read the Dews Report.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships to learn that having heard all that has been said today I still find unanswered the question: why did the Government embark upon this course? Unless, of course, I understand only too well why they have chose to do so. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not here today. I am sure that she has good reason for being absent from the House but she is the Minister responsible for these matters. I hope that she will read most carefully all that has been said and will find an opportunity of coming to the House and giving answers on aspects where the noble Earl's response does not entirely satisfy your Lordships.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that it is difficult to know what new comments one can make on the subject. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that the proposals might lead people to believe that the probation service is in a bit of a mess when it is not. In a most powerful and tough speech, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, referred to widespread dismay and said that the offer of consultation was a sham. He asked, "Why upset the applecart?", and in doing so he summarised what most noble Lords have said. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked what the document is for. That question is at the heart of the matter facing us. My noble friend Lady Seear spoke about NVQs, drawing on her great experience of them. In making the point that they are inadequate for the purpose now contemplated, she said that there was a need to understand human behaviour. She emphasised the linkage between academic and theoretical studies and practical training.
Having listened to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, I wish that he and others on those Benches would contribute more often to what he described as the theological dimension of social problems. We should benefit greatly from hearing what he has to say to us. He was cautious in

229
his remarks but referred to proper professional expertise, very special skills and thorough and appropriate training.
Before the Statement, we heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who referred to great risks being incurred if the Government pursue the course on which they appear to be embarking. That is a remarkable, powerful indictment of the papers before us, based on deep anxiety.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, was among those noble Lords who referred to the report which lies behind the discussion paper—the Dews Report. I too find it distinctly uncomfortable to be discussing a paper by two comparatively junior Home Office officials which is sandwiched between the decision of Ministers to set up the scrutiny review and their provisional decisions, as we hope them to be, described in the discussion paper.
By definition, the report is politically motivated. It is not a very good paper. But by referring to it, as we must today, we put two junior civil servants in the firing line and inevitably prejudice their careers. I ask the noble Earl to tell us in passing whether there is any precedent for two civil servants being asked to produce a report which inevitably becomes a matter of political debate and to what extent that is an unusual departure. Was the head of the Civil Service consulted?
Whatever the noble Earl's reply, it is extremely undesirable that such a thing should happen and it should stop. That is not open government. It would be open government only if Parliament were given access to all the Home Office internal papers on the setting up of the Dews Report and access to all the internal papers produced since that time. I should greatly welcome it if that were the proposal but it would come as a surprise.
It is a very odd document and shows signs of the authors struggling with themselves about where their duty lay. Inevitably, it shows signs also of discussions in the department with their colleagues. They refer to exemplary briefings and acknowledge the help of their colleagues in the introduction. Indeed, there is a certain amount of back-scratching which, again, is inappropriate.
In those circumstances, one can see the way in which the document was put together. At a stage when they were reporting, for the most part the probation service had a good clean bill of health but the authors had suddenly to change direction and say that despite only a few criticisms from within the service and academic institutions they had doubts about the service and that something must be done.
More seriously—and this is a point of which account should be taken—at paragraph 4.27 the authors state that,
"we have reached a different conclusion from the Industrial Society who thought the present arrangements quite effective".
One must then turn to Annex F which reports the findings of the Industrial Society. It states:
"Our research … suggests that the probation service is very effective in the training and recruitment methods it employs".
230
I cannot find any reference to the word "quite" in the report of the Industrial Society. I do not know on what authority the authors of the report translate "very" into "quite" in the principal part of the text.
My noble friend Lady Seear and the noble Lord, Lord Acton, referred very properly to the question of NVQs and to the nature of the proposals with regard to the education of probation officers in future. Indeed, that is the nub of the matter. Are we to substitute training on the ground for the academic training which goes together with the present experience of probation officers? I am, and remain, a strong supporter of NVQs at levels 1 to 3 but it would be a grave error to squeeze out highly specialised training of the kind probation officers have simply to make their system conform with the NVQs which are appropriate at a lower level but to which the Government seem to be increasingly committed. Probation officers need education and not only training. An NVQ is no substitute for a diploma.
All noble Lords in the debate have expressed the view that if we go down that track there is a very real danger of lower standards, diminished intellectual growth and, in the long run, a probation service which is less successful than it has been. There is still time for the Government to think again. I very much hope that they will do so.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, for the benefit of noble Lords following the speakers' list, it is obvious that I am not my noble friend Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, who apologises for his absence. I am Lord Plant of Highfield and I was to have spoken earlier.
I am sure that we should all like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for enabling us to have this very valuable debate. In particular, it has been enlivened by the very notable maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham.
Before embarking on my speech, I should declare an interest in that during a 28-year academic career I have intermittently taught courses for trainee probation officers at the Universities of Manchester and Southampton. Many of the students were mature students, and particularly in Hampshire many were ex-servicemen and women. However, I was slightly startled when I read the Dews Report to find that what I had been doing for 28 years was impossible, given that one of the courses which I taught to trainee probation officers was about values. Page 26 of the report states quite confidently that courses on values cannot be taught. So there we are. One must envy the intellectual self-confidence of the report in that both the authors of the report disclaim any knowledge or experience of teaching. They do not cite any evidence for the view that courses in values cannot be given. Therefore, I have wasted my time, and I am sorry for that.
The Government are proposing a root and branch reform of the probation service in the teeth of opposition from practitioners, senior managers, CCETSW and the universities. No doubt they will all be dismissed as vested interests. The reform is based on a Home Office review which most people—and, indeed, most noble

231
Lords—regard as being very thin and which draws inferences which are not supported by the evidence provided in the paper.
The proposals in the paper need to be looked at in three parts: first, recruitment issues; secondly, the place of probation in higher education; and thirdly, the relationship between probation and social work education and training. I do not believe that the analysis and prescriptions in the Home Office review paper are defensible in any of those areas.
Many noble Lords have drawn attention in their speeches to issues of recruitment. It is not necessary for me to reiterate points already made. However, the following points bear some emphasis. First, in the context of the new diploma in social work, 50 per cent. of recruits are over 30 and the number would have been larger if the Home Office had not discontinued the trainee salaries. The authors of the consultation report are keen to see more mature recruits entering the probation service, and that is being achieved under existing arrangements.
Secondly, it is claimed in the report that the existing training pattern is too rigid, but it is very difficult to believe that that is the case. The diploma in social work offers different routes into training, and there are ways of combining work and study on most diploma courses. Thirdly, it is argued that the academic structure of the course deters some sorts of candidates. But it is difficult to see why that should be so when the following points are borne in mind.
In the first place, prior experience or qualification of an appropriate sort—that is to say, relating to the competencies required for probation officers—is taken into account when recruiting on to courses, and exemptions are given in such cases. In addition, distance learning and modular based programmes are available and will become more so. Most universities are moving to modular courses and credit accumulation and transfer schemes. When they can afford the technology to do so, they are investing in distance learning mechanisms. It is also implied that people are put off because of the overly academic nature of the course. However, the course is not overly academic, but rather embodies a 50:50 split between supervised practice and a knowledge and understanding of the research base necessary to become an effective probation practitioner.
I now move on to the place of probation in higher education. Most—I suspect virtually all—practitioners would see themselves as belonging to a profession. They certainly work alongside other recognised professions in the courts. If they are to be regarded as a profession, it is necessary that they should have a close link to the knowledge and research base of their discipline. That may of course work to the detriment of ancillary staff who aspire to become members of the profession. But in how many other professions would it be suggested that recruitment could be broadened by undertaking a large-scale deprofessionalisation of the discipline into which it was hoped to recruit more people by undermining its link with the knowledge and research base, rather than by looking for ways in which the academic and practical side of the work could be made more accessible to groups of people who might want to
232
become probation officers? Such opening of access in a way not damaging to the profession is already being undertaken, as I tried to show in the first part of my speech.
It is also argued in the Dews Report that:
"Present arrangements were set up at a time when practical standards or competencies for probation officers had not been settled and predate the changes in work of the probation service introduced by recent criminal justice legislation. There is no direct match between these competencies and any current qualification".
That is simply not true. The diploma in social work originated in 1989 and has been updated twice since that date. It takes full account of the recently published competencies for probation officers published in 1994 and recent changes in criminal justice legislation.
It is also not the case that probation courses can be characterised as being devised either by ivory-towered academics or, worse, trendy social scientists with little experience of practice. That is not so for several reasons. First, the curriculum is designed and delivered with input, through partnership, from the probation service. As the report says on page 29, the probation service has a strong influence on training in the diploma in social work course via the partnership arrangements. Indeed, the evidence of the Industrial Society supports that view.
However, from the rather superior stance which, I have to say, comes through time and again in the document that claim is disparaged. Its authors argue that the universities remain in control. Formally that may be so, in that it is surely right that in autonomous bodies the formal validation of courses for a degree or qualification of that institution has to remain vested in that institution. But that formal position belies the practice, and courses have been devised in partnership with the probation service. I challenge the review authors or the Minister to show where a university has overturned such a curriculum developed in partnership with the profession. The control is purely formal. It is about the attainment of standards; it is not about the detailed content of the course. Certainly the professionals are entirely happy with the new arrangements under the diploma in social work.
It is also claimed in the report that the link between academia and the probation service has led to a lack of attention to probation issues. That is a wholly unsubstantiated criticism and is absolutely not a criticism that has been made by either students emerging from the new courses or by the practitioners involved in the design and delivery of the courses, as well as the supervision of the students.
The aim of the present arrangements is, as the report says, to produce reflective practitioners. The report says on page 25 that that model, linking practice with current research, is clearly valued in the service. But it goes on to say that that does not mean that it is the best model, only that it is the current model and that most professions will tend to favour training which perpetuates the current model. Again, I have to say that I find the idea that professions merely follow in a blinkered way what is in their own interests very arrogant and patronising. There is no conception in the report that people reflect on what they do and want to preserve a model because they think that it is valuable

233
or right. Again, a profession and its culture, as so often in recent years, have been reduced to just another vested interest, with a culture of professional self-interest governing all that it does. That is wholly unacceptable.
In the final part of my speech I should like to turn to the relationship between probation and social work. Here I believe that the report is inadequate as well as inexplicit. There are various elements in the report critical of the relationship, but the issues are not clearly spelt out. I suspect that the main reason why the report wants to move probation away from social work is that at the Home Secretary's instigation, as we have heard, people are suspicious of what they take to be social work values and the way in which those values might influence a more punishment oriented view which should pervade probation.
Perhaps I may say at the outset of this part of the discussion that I think it is absolutely vital that probation should be seen as part of the criminal justice system; that it is wholly right that there should be punishment of offenders and that such punishment ought to embody elements of reparation to society and deterrence to others; and that offenders should be made to feel responsible for their crimes, and that part of this involves confronting the impact that they have made on the lives of victims.
However, none of those commitments leads me to want to distance probation from social work. There are three main reasons for that. First, offenders should be made to feel responsible for their behaviour. That is central to the justice element in probation. But part of the existing responsibility of the probation service is to help prisoners to live law-abiding lives, and to work with other agencies in dealing with offenders and offences. If we are to make realistic interventions in the lives of many offenders to achieve those constructive goals, we have to be aware of the background circumstances in which criminal behaviour occurs. I hope that noble Lords will please note that I do not say caused; I am not seeking to excuse criminal behaviour. This was a theme of the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham.
A recent survey of 214 probationers in Dorset undertaken by Professor Colin Prichard of Southampton University and Mr. Cox of the Dorset probation service found that 25 per cent. had suffered from depression which had required clinical help; that 6 per cent. had suffered from mental disorder requiring clinical intervention; that 35 per cent. suffered strong anxiety states; that 14 per cent. had attempted suicide; that 22 per cent. had learning disabilities; and that 46 per cent. had problems with alcohol and about 40 per cent. with other drugs.
If the probation service is not only to help quite properly with punishment and reparation to society but also to help offenders to live law-abiding lives, it is vital that some of those background problems are tackled. As far as I know, there is no better way of approaching this than through social work training. The report disparages all of this by blithely saying that a social work ethos leads to a concern with the needs of the offender rather than the victim or society. However, attending to the
234
needs of the offender is not a matter of bleeding hearts; it is rather crucial to trying to meet the needs of society and victims in attempting to remove some of the circumstances which correlate with criminal behaviour.
The second reason I have for wanting to keep the link between probation and social work is that it is quite false to imply, as the section of the report on social work values does, that these are in some sense soft values. They are not. The report states that social work emphasises individual choice and that this is inappropriate in dealing with delinquency. I have to say that this is just a parody of social work values. Certainly one of the values of the profession is that of client self-determination, but in the literature and in the teaching of what this means, to reduce that to individual choice is laughable: it is rather all about getting clients to take responsibility and to make choices which will enable them to live constructive lives.
Finally, the report speaks of the need for probation officers to work with other services and agencies. Some of these are social work agencies which will perhaps be dealing with the family of an offender. It is vital, first of all, that to allow proper inter-agency discussion and maintain matters like confidentiality, probation officers should be seen as full professionals. I think that the proposals in this report will decimate the professional status of probation officers. Surely a strong probation pathway through what is overall a social work qualification—given all the changes to the Diploma in Social Work—is the best way to facilitate inter-agency collaboration.
I conclude on the following note. I have two specific questions for the Minister which are entirely procedural. The first is: what does consultation actually mean in this context when the Government have already given notice of withdrawing these places from universities and that has basically settled the issue? Secondly, if the Government are not prepared to withdraw their proposals, what exactly is the mechanism for securing this change, and how will Parliament be involved?
6.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for having introduced this debate this afternoon on what is a very important matter. I think that all of your Lordships will agree that it has been an informed debate. On a personal note, I find it a pleasure to be catapulted back momentarily—as the Americans would say—into the cockpit of Home Office matters. That gives me the great pleasure of being able to debate with those with whom I used to share that happy experience on matters relating to the Home Office, even though the problems seem to have lost nothing in either their difficulties or their controversies. I might add that that applies to some of your Lordships in the contributions which you have made.
I am bound to say that when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says that, with two former Home Secretaries present, she feels a certain degree of humility in taking part in the debate, all I can say is that that is nothing to

235
what I feel, particularly when, in addition to that, there is one former permanent secretary of the department I used to be in—
Baroness Seear: Two!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that there are two. I do not know whether there are three, or perhaps just one. I think there is only one. The noble Baroness really must not try to upset me. It is most confusing. What I wanted to say was that I was not quite so frightened by what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said because I am used to him always disagreeing with what his old department does. He does that conscientiously and in an agreeable way. I hope to try to point out to him that he need not be quite so concerned.
The debate was notable for the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. He correctly diagnosed the difficulties and what was needed to turn people away from crime. I thought it was a philosophical, theological and a practical speech. He ended by saying that we must write no one off, and of course he is absolutely right. He started off by saying that it gave him pleasure, in view of the buffetings which Bishops receive, to take part in such a civilized debate. The nearest circumstances which I am likely to experience as regards being a right reverend Prelate is sharing as a Minister the unhappy experience of being buffeted, which apparently is the experience that they also receive.
The proposed new arrangements for the recruitment and training of probation officers—and the place which they have in the programme of change in which the probation service is involved—are very important. I shall do my best to try to explain what it is that the Government propose and why. I know that changes often cause dismay. People like what they know and that is understandable. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, in what I thought was a deeply impressive speech, and for a Minister an uncomfortable speech, thought that he saw the shades of Mr. Bounderby in the Government's proposals. I hope I shall be able to persuade him that that is not so.
I wish to assure your Lordships that we are not, as it were, throwing probation officers into a free fall. I wish to reassure particularly the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that we wish them to be trained specifically to be probation officers rather than that they should have to undertake a course which is generally designed for social workers. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, made what I thought was an astonishing speech. She castigated my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for almost everything he has done. She criticised him for taking note of what people feel. I do not think I need apologise for my right honourable friend for doing that. The noble Baroness also criticised him for saying that criminals need discipline. I frankly think that they need discipline and they need help as well. But what really worried me was when the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that he agreed, almost word for word, with what the noble Baroness had said. That made me think that she must be wrong. The noble Earl applauded the progressive views of some people in a
236
somewhat donnish way —if I may say so—of which, of course, he has some experience, and suggested that everyone who took a contrary view was wrong and their views constituted the views of the mob.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, also talked a lot about the gulf between "them" and "us". He asked whether anyone could go from one to the other. He then introduced Dives and Lazarus. He did not say who he considered Lazarus to be, but I rather gather from the trend of his observations that he thought that he was Lazarus and that possibly those of us who took a contrary view represented Dives. All I can say to that is that I do not think I shall have to wait to die in order to discover what it is like to be roasted in the—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was going to say that I do not have to wait to die in order to discover what it is like to be roasted in the fires of hell, because I think I have experienced that this afternoon.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Earl abandon his charming facetiousness and reply to the serious points which I and many other people made?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I shall answer the points. I am sorry the noble Earl thought that I was facetious but it was he who started talking about Dives and Lazarus and I was merely questioning which he thought he was. I have a jolly good idea about that.
In recent years the probation service has been through a pretty fundamental change. It has changed from being a social work agency to being a criminal justice organisation. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, felt that it should be part of a criminal justice organisation. That is a substantial shift. Over the past few weeks the Government have announced a series of proposals which aim to bring the service more into line with the proper expectations of the courts and of the public, and this will affect the future direction of the service. I am thinking here of the revised national standards and the Green Paper on community sentences. Today's debate though relates entirely to the issue of probation training.
Having announced our proposals for the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers on 22nd February, we said that there would be a three-month consultation period during which people could give their views on the proposed new arrangements. Your Lordships* debate this afternoon will form an important part of that consultation exercise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lord Carr said "Tear it up". I wondered what it was that they wanted torn up and assumed that they meant the consultation document. The consultation document is a document for consultation and it would be a great pity if it were torn up.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, my noble friend Lord Carr and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, were all concerned about whether there was to be consultation, as was the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. My noble friend Lord Carr said that we really must listen to people. It was stated clearly when the scrutiny report and the discussion paper were

237
published that the proposals were subject to a three months' consultation period and all the interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but if it really was a consultation period why were the universities told that the courses will stop? That is at the centre of the matter about which there was supposed to be consultation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was just coming to that point had the Baroness not pre-empted me. The Government have to say what they think ought to happen, and then they consult on the subject. The Government said that they believed that those courses should come to an end. That is part of the consultation process.
We thought it quite right that those concerned, including the universities and people interested in becoming probation officers, should be warned of what the Government had in mind. Final decisions will be made after the consultation period.
A First meeting will take place on Friday between the Home Office and the main interest groups. Sponsorship of courses will continue until and including those starting in the autumn of 1995 and finishing when students graduate in the summer of 1997. We do not anticipate sponsoring new students in the autumn of 1996.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend Lord Carr, wanted to know whether that is part of the discussion. It is part of the discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked whether it was a. fait accompli. It is not a fait accompli because, if it were, there would be no discussion. However, I am sure that your Lordships will understand that the Government have to say what we propose and then people can discuss it.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether universities have received copies of the report and the discussion document. All universities received the report on 22nd February. Their views are welcomed as part of the consultation process.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, asked whether the survey of magistrates and judges carried out by the Home Office Research and Planning Unit will be published. Magistrates and judges were asked for their views about the standard of performance of various kinds of probation work. There was, in general, a high level of satisfaction. I can tell the noble Lord that the report will be published shortly.
Lord Acton: My Lords, will the noble Earl kindly expand on the word "shortly"?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords, I cannot expand on "shortly". It is rather shorter than longer.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether "shortly" means during April?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot do that. The noble Lord will know that that is a perfectly normal parliamentary expression. If I could have told him that the report will be published in April I would have done so. I can tell him that it will be published shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked why it was necessary to review the present system when it is so new and also what evidence there is that the system does not meet probation service needs. As to the first question, although the Diploma in Social Work is fairly new, it replaced the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work on which the present system of probation service qualifying training is founded. That system has been in operation now for more than 10 years and has given rise to many concerns, which are summarised in Chapter 3 of the scrutiny report.
As regards evidence that the present system does not meet the needs of the probation service, the fact is that probation officers and social workers do different work. Previous speakers have stressed the specialised nature of the work and the skills required. The corollary is that it must be open to question whether it makes sense to have a common training regime and qualification. We do not accept that the revised diploma will necessarily deliver the core competencies laid down for probation officers.
Most of your Lordships seem to think that the proposed changes are an attack on the probation service. They are not. The probation service is a vital part of the criminal justice system, and the Government have a responsibility to support it and to ensure that it works well. We do not underestimate for a minute the dangers and challenges faced by the service in its work. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, from his personal knowledge, recognised that there were difficulties and that there needed to be changes. The fact that changes were necessary was also mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend Lord Carr. I pay my respects to probation officers, because they do considerable work, often in very difficult circumstances under difficult conditions. I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod that they have a difficult task and need broad shoulders.
Trying to reduce offending is a formidable task. The service will need to be highly professional, and it will require first-class training if we are to ensure that all probation officers will have the necessary knowledge and skills for their duties. We do not believe that the present sole requirement for probation officers to have a social work qualification is in keeping with the changes which the service is undergoing in becoming a criminal justice agency.
Here I agree with my noble friend Lady Seccombe. We think that that requirement deters many suitable applicants who have much which they can offer the service but are at present excluded, and that the current arrangements for training do not provide good value for money. For instance, a prospective probation officer can

239
be sponsored through university for two years but he or she has no strict obligation to join the probation service afterwards.
Last year we set up a scrutiny of recruitment and qualifying training. The scrutiny team was asked to consider how entry routes into the probation service might be enlarged in order to attract those with suitable experience, and how Home Office funding might be better directed towards qualifying training for the probation service. The scrutiny—or the Dews Report, as it has become known—was completed in September. It was published in February, and with it we produced a discussion paper which set out our views on the report and our proposals as to how best to proceed in the light of the report. It is usual for the authors of reports to be identified.
The Dews Report drew attention to some of the strengths of the present system, and rightly so. But it also highlighted some very important weaknesses. In particular, it said that the statutory requirement for the Diploma in Social Work inhibits the recruitment of many potentially valuable recruits. It also said that there is no direct link between Home Office sponsorships on Diploma in Social Work courses and subsequent employment in the probation service. In addition, it said that, despite recent changes, the Diploma in Social Work is insufficiently relevant to the work which probation officers are actually called upon to do. Those were pretty hefty criticisms.
Therefore, we proposed to remove the basic requirement that one had to have a Diploma in Social Work before one could become a probation officer.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, what were the qualifications of the people who made those criticisms? We need to know whether they were professionally qualified to criticise professionally qualified people.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that one has to be professionally qualified to criticise a professionally qualified person. The fact is that it is part of the duty of the Home Office to undertake scrutinies of organisations in order to see whether the right thing is being done. It happens all over the place.
We propose to remove that basic requirement that one has to have the diploma before one can become a probation officer. That does not mean, of course, that a person who has a Diploma in Social Work could not be recruited into the probation service. It merely means that that particular monopoly of training can no longer be justified.
I now come to a point which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, dismissed but which I believe to be perfectly valid, as did my noble friend Lady Seccombe. Those who are employed as local authority social workers are not required to have a social work qualification. Therefore it is very difficult to see why probation officers should be required to have such a qualification. That does not mean that there is not a social dimension to probation work. Of course there is. But it merely highlights the fact that social work is not the only discipline which is relevant.
240
Probation work is, of course, special and distinct work, but we have to recognise that, as well as trying to rehabilitate offenders and addressing offending behaviour, community sentences are a punishment which involve significant restriction of liberty. I make no apology for that.
Of course, community sentences do, and must, involve a restriction of liberty. But the fact is that how to look after people serving a more punitive sentence, in which the freedom of the individual is restricted, does not fall happily, if at all, within what we might describe as the caring and enabling roles for which social work training prepares people. The work of probation officers needs specialised training. And it must combine practical skills as well as appropriate knowledge.
The competencies for probation officers, which were published in May 1994, include the skills, knowledge and understanding which are required. But there is no direct match between those competencies and any existing academic qualification. Many social work skills are relevant to probation work but they are not uniquely so and they do not provide a guarantee of competence so that it can be assured that the holder of those skills will be, in practice, an effective and competent probation officer. We think that there are advantages in relating recruitment and training directly to the required competencies, rather than trying to find a new or modified academic qualification which would of itself indicate that that person has the competence to practise as a probation officer. This should enable the intake to the service to be broadened, and it should enable people who wanted to pursue second careers to be able to apply to join the probation service. They may well have valuable experience and potential, but they may be people who were unable to spend two years at university or who may already be working as probation service officers.
I accept that the proposal not to rely on a new or modified qualification would, of course, be more radical than the scrutiny report suggests. But the link to competencies should ensure that the training which is given would be directly related to the work which they would have to undertake as probation officers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, were concerned about the balance of mature and young people. I agree that the number of mature candidates is unusual. But there has been an increase in the percentage of under-25 year-olds from 1 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the intake in the past three years and that is a worrying trend if we look ahead towards a balance of the workforce.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, sought validated qualifications. Would the qualifications be recognised in this country and in the European Union? Probation officers can qualify as social workers but the Home Office will not pay for that. Social workers are not to be debarred from the probation service if they meet the standards of the competencies. There is no direct equivalent in the European Union. Therefore there is now no impediment, and none is intended.
My noble friend Lord Carr wanted to know the details of what we are doing. The proposed changes include the abolition of the requirement for a person to hold a

241
Diploma in Social Work, or its equivalent, before he or she could be appointed as a probation officer; and a new scheme under which probation services recruit trainees directly, following a regional selection procedure and an initial training period for up to two years. Probation services would have to maintain very high standards, but they would be able to draw on a variety of backgrounds, skills and disciplines in order to provide a well-balanced workforce. Individual training should be undertaken within an area probation service. Programmes would have to be used which combine practical teaching and theory with the disciplines of analysing and presenting complex information. Before achieving qualified probation officer status, trainees would have to demonstrate that they had the competence to practise on the basis of a thorough assessment of their knowledge and practical skills.
The central funds which are presently allocated to the sponsorship scheme would be devolved to probation services for the operation of the new scheme. Recruitment would have to be directly related to the central needs of the services. The sponsorship by the Government of new students on Diploma in Social Work courses at universities should cease after the intake for the academic year 1995–96. Those changes would be implemented without adversely affecting the employment prospects of existing sponsored students or those who will start courses in the coming academic year.
The abolition of what one might describe as a unique requirement does not mean that relevant qualifications—including social work qualifications—will not be welcomed. Of course, they will be. But the Government would like to see probation committees encouraging officers to acquire academic and vocational qualifications as part of their in-service development where these will be able to improve their competence and professional ability. I would not wish to rule out the establishment of a national vocational qualification at the proper level in order to recognise the competence and development of individual probation officers.
I stated at the beginning that there is a three months' consultation period. I can assure the House that the views that your Lordships have put forward today will form part of that consultation and that the Government will take note of what has been said. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that my noble friend Lady Blatch will also take note of what your Lordships have said.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this topical debate. In particular, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on his maiden speech. I am sure that it has made Oliver Twists of us all—wanting more. I hope that we may have more soon.
We have had some distinguished and, I hope the Government will feel, constructive contributions. It is perhaps a measure of the importance of the subject that the House has benefited from the thoughts and presence of no fewer than three former Home Secretaries. I am
242
very glad to be tussling again with the Minister in, I hope, a civilised way. He has defended a difficult section of the line with his customary courtesy, thoroughness and pluck. (I think that pluck is the right word in this context.) The military analogy is not a random one. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, whenever the going gets rough or the proposals are unpopular, it is the noble Earl who stands the Government's ground, to the applause, if not the general agreement, of the whole House.
I very much hope that the noble Earl and his colleagues will take careful note of what has been said today. There is a genuine and widespread feeling that what is being suggested in respect of the probation service is as a response to outside and ill-informed pressures and that the proposals, if I may be frank, owe more to the four-ale bar philosophers and tabloid leader writers than to rationality and experience.
The House will be relieved to know that I shall not weary it with a reiteration of the many points made. An important debate is waiting in the wings. But I am glad of the noble Earl's assurance that this debate will form an important part of the consultation period. If the views expressed today are anything to go by, the battle might be thought to be won. But that, alas, has not always been the case in recent months.
I beg the Minister to take these points to his colleagues for earnest consideration so that the seven-week period can see a genuine exchange of constructive views and so that the Government ultimately do not go down a turning they will later regret. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Arts and Heritage Funding
6.48 p.m.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer rose to call attention to the general funding of the arts and in particular the architectural heritage, including historic houses; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is over a year since we last had the opportunity to debate the arts and the architectural heritage, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak and indeed to those who scratched at the last moment and/or indeed resisted the temptation to put their names down in order to allow a few more moments for others to speak. I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke, and my noble friend Lord Rothschild have chosen this debate in which to make their maiden speeches. Three maiden speeches in a debate must be something near to a record.
I am grateful to my fellow Cross-Bench Peers for choosing this debate and I am proud to have the chance of introducing this important subject, as my family title was one of the very first which had an arts connection. The London Gazette of 23rd June 1933 cites my great-grandfather as being created a Peer for services to music. I hope that that now puts paid to the general

243
assumption that our title was given for baking biscuits. His obituary in The Times of 10th December 1948 stated that he was,
"the first man to be created a Peer for services to music".
He was very largely instrumental in founding the Royal College of Music; and it is with music and the Royal College in particular that I wish to start.
Before doing so, I should like to say how fortunate we are to have the noble Viscount the Minister winding up for the Government tonight. I know how important he believes the arts and the architectural heritage are to this country. He was brought up in one of the finest houses in England with a magnificent art collection. Indeed, he was a distinguished artist himself. Few people are better qualified to wind up what I am sure will be a wide-ranging and fascinating debate.
For centuries the arts and architectural heritage have given enormous pleasure to the inhabitants of these islands and now, with air travel in the grasp of the masses, to people from all over the world. The vast majority of the 19 million visitors each year to this country come here to visit our great buildings and to enjoy our wide variety of arts. That in turn brings in £33 billion per annum. It is for that reason that the arts and architectural heritage must operate at a high level of performance and for that they need funding. The Government are constantly trying to encourage partnerships between the public and private sectors. I believe that the private sector is doing its bit and it is now time for the Government to do their bit a bit more.
When the Royal College of Music was founded in 1888, there were just 92 students. Today there are 517 undergraduate and postgraduate students. The majority of those students need an instrument of professional quality and many have to scrimp, save, beg and/or borrow to find the appropriate funds. Good string instruments now cost upwards of £10,000 and more.
Nowadays, the vast number of committed students, certainly in music, recognise the need to continue their studies at postgraduate level. At the moment, there is no logical system of postgraduate awards. The funding system has simply not caught up with educational developments. Postgraduates are dependent on local authority discretionary awards in order to cover their further tuition fees. Very few are fortunate in obtaining them. Postgraduate students have to find tuition fees of around £1,000 a year and a further £4,500 maintenance. That is a large sum of money for full-time students to have to find.
Britain's musicians are among the best in the world. As the recent document Overseas Earnings has shown, they contribute significantly to the British economy. Adequate funding for the education and training of musicians is not only a valuable investment in terms of what these musicians can bring to society as a whole but also a way of ensuring that this aspect of the British economy can continue to thrive. Net overseas earnings by the United Kingdom music industry in 1993 were £571 million—I repeat, £571 million. I ask the noble Viscount to look most carefully to see what he can do, particularly with regard to the funding of postgraduate students.
Since its inception, the Royal College has produced many famous musicians, such as Walford Davis, Vaughan Williams, Clara Butt, Benjamin Britten, the Lloyd Webber brothers, James Galway and John Lill, to name but a few. If we are to go on producing such talented people, funding must be kept at a high level.
Music is not the only form of art being starved of funds. It is depressing to read the latest available figures, which compare the percentage of gross domestic product spent on the arts in different countries. In France it is 0.22 per cent.; in Germany 0.21 per cent.; and here in the United Kingdom a miserable 0.14 per cent. Expenditure on the arts in the United Kingdom as a percentage of total public expenditure is therefore very nearly half what it is in France and Germany. Central government spending on the United Kingdom arts is half per capita to that of the Netherlands.
When one looks at the planned budget for the Arts Council this year, we are spending less per capita per annum than the price of two large gin and tonics. Viewed like that, it is surely pathetic. I also find it depressing and sad that the planned amount of money that the Department of National Heritage aims to spend this year is some £13 million less in actual terms than was spent in the years 1992–93. I do so hope that the Minister will be able to give us some cheer tonight.
I turn to the second part of the Motion. Here I must declare an interest as a director of the Historic Houses Association, a member of its executive council and chairman of its Scottish region; I also live in a Grade A listed house which is exempt from inheritance tax and has attached to it the country's very first maintenance fund.
Maintenance funds received Treasury approval back in 1978. Since then, only some 60 have been set up. Some have huge reserves and others, like my own, have minute amounts. The reason that more have not been set up will, I hope, become obvious. All maintenance funds serve the same purpose and that is to help to maintain the historic property with which they are connected. They are unable to carry out any form of commercial operation, which is right and proper. However, what is wrong is the tax treatment they receive. At present, the annual income from a maintenance fund is taxed at the basic rate plus 10 per cent. additional trustees' rate.
The noble Viscount said on 10th June 1992 (Hansard, col. 1298) that he would "study carefully" this point when it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold and myself. I believe that it is now time for him to take action. In an ideal world maintenance funds ought to be completely income tax free and, indeed, where investment gains are made and devoted to heritage purposes, they should be free of capital gains tax. If the Government cannot go that far in one fell swoop, they must at least remove the additional trustees' rate. I would urge the Minister most strongly to look at that again. With so few maintenance funds in existence, we must be talking about a very insignificant amount of revenue to the Treasury. I am only sorry that such figures, for various, obvious reasons, are not available.
It must not be forgotten that the settlors of maintenance funds have given away their own money, land and/or chattels in order to finance those

245
maintenance funds to help maintain their properties for the good of the visiting public. Even to have that extra 10 per cent. would be a major boost.
Where grant aid is offered and exemption agreed, there is often talk of personal gain to the owner of an historic house. Here there is no argument. Many, if not all, owners of listed buildings over the years have pumped a vast proportion of their own money into their properties for the enjoyment of the visiting public. They suffer great discomfort by trying to live in them, especially in the winter—I do speak from experience. We must not forget that most owners of open houses are heavily out of pocket at the end of the year.
There is no doubt that the visiting public do prefer visiting a house which is actually lived in. I shall never forget one visitor we had at home tripping over my wife's slippers in her bedroom, which was then open to the public. This visitor then had the gall to ask if we actually lived in the house.
The grant-aiding policy from English Heritage and Historic Scotland is difficult to follow and indeed at a rate of only 40 per cent. is derisory. Section 3A grants offered by English Heritage—and here I emphasise offered—to the private sector were just £1.7 million in the last year for which figures were available, which was 1991–92. To avoid any doubt at all I stress that this figure was provided by English Heritage. That £1.7 million offered is equivalent to 530 yards of motorway construction.
The Government's attitude to the privately-owned heritage is puzzling. Contrary to their privatisation plans, where the private heritage sector is concerned, the Government seem to favour public ownership. If the leader of the Labour Party favours dropping Clause 4 from its manifesto, surely this Government can be persuaded to treat the private sector in a less hostile manner.
The mechanics of capital taxation are indeed more favourable than they were. Some credit should go to Her Majesty's Opposition, who, when in government, implemented some of the Historic Houses Association's suggestions. Since this Government came to power they have indeed improved the heritage legislation in some respects, but in more recent years they have seemed reluctant to undertake measures that are now necessary to meet the high running repair costs of maintaining these great buildings.
I do so hope that the noble Viscount the Minister will give the private sector the help it so desperately needs and deserves. He has a great opportunity tonight at so little cost to the Treasury and I just hope that he will grasp that opportunity. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am profoundly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving us the opportunity tonight to debate arts funding and architectural heritage, as well as for his magnificent and closely reasoned speech, with nearly all of which I
246
agree. I look forward to the maiden speeches, including that by my fellow distributor of the National Lottery funds, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has got his timing absolutely on the button. The publicly-funded arts organisations are in considerable difficulty. But they are also on the threshold of a great opportunity. It is of course my job to dwell on the difficulties, but that does not mean that I am not immensely excited, enthusiastic and grateful for the opportunities. Perhaps the most exciting thing of all is that, in spite of the difficulties, the arts in this country are in rude health; creative, competitive, winning fame and often fortune for their practitioners and for this whole country around the world.
Allowing for the contribution to tourism, the arts are the second or third most successful industry. They are perhaps the first in being the best known. While Britain was always influential in terms of literature and drama, today she is —to borrow a Foreign Office phrase—boxing beyond her weight in music, opera, dance, architecture and the visual arts as well. If one includes the British element in American-backed movies, we should also include film.
Culture, like agriculture, depends on the soil and the weather. I am not too gloomy about the weather. I believe that the arts are moving up the political agenda of both the major political parties. The Government have delivered the lottery to the statute books with all-party support. They deserve credit, the Prime Minister especially, for doing so. Others, including myself 10 years ago, tried and failed. The Treasury was hostile. Its First Lord has now got it through. It is my experience from travelling throughout the country that even the fiercest political opponents recognise that achievement and welcome it. The Arts Council of England, even allowing for what some of its members must feel is the dubious political past of its present chairman, certainly does so. And the lottery is not just about buildings; it is about musical instruments, artistic commissions, films and many other things.
Then again, all my own contacts with Her Majesty's Opposition in this House and in another place, on the council itself and among the predominantly Labour-controlled local authorities, make me confident that Labour is serious in its intention and is looking at our industry right outside the context of electoral politics. So the outlook is in general good from both perspectives.
I shall now bite the hand that I know will make an effort to feed me better. Confident about the weather, as I have just said, I am extremely worried about the soil. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, the discretionary grant system at local authority level is in chaos. Investing in our artistic future through the educational system is vital. The Secretary of State for Education has been kind enough to see me and I am confident that she will do her best.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage was rightly praised for refusing to accept the commitment to stand-still funding which he inherited on taking office. He refused to say, as it were, with the Duke of Wellington, "They have their lottery; pass the port".

247
He fought for and won a £5 million increase in the Arts Council of England's base line funding. Unfortunately, at the likely inflation outturn of 3 per cent., that still represents a cut in real terms. It means, too, that we have not clawed back any of the unworthy and unnecessary cut made to the council's grant in 1994–95. Assuming that continuing real rate of inflation of 3 per cent., the council's grant will need to increase from £191 million to £207 million to get us back to where we were in 1993–94.
What is the argument for going back and not forward, even if modestly forward? It cannot be the need, with which I happen to agree, to cut public expenditure totals. There is a difference between £100 and 3p. It cannot be impatience with an insatiable lobby. The subsidised sector is the merest seedcorn in an industry which makes massive returns to our economy in the form of tax, overseas revenue and employment. Even the present Secretary of State for Employment—whom I find hard to criticise as he is as passionate about Wagner as I am—must recognise that the subsidy-job ratio in the arts is £483 to one. In agriculture, the next cheapest, the ratio is over £4,000 to one. And while overall employment has increased by 4 per cent. in the past 10 years, in the arts it has grown by nearly 50 per cent.
In art terms I am impossibly, perhaps foolishly, what used to be called "dry". I happen to believe that the Arts Council could manage to serve the arts on rather less money than my colleagues or the arts practitioners themselves believe. The lottery will improve current funding as venues get better. We, the consumers, will be enticed by good environments and exciting buildings to get off our backsides, to leave our tellies and enjoy the wonder, indeed the spiritual regeneration, that participation in living events can bring. That will help on current account, but it takes time. We have to get from here to there. We need £15 million on the baseline. Even if one extrapolates an increase of this kind across all the relevant cultural activities in this country, one is still left well short of 1 per cent. of public spending.
In conclusion, without a restitution of that kind we shall continue to preside over crisis management in our orchestras, our regional theatres and particularly our local art centres. One can manage crisis for a while; as a permanent atmosphere, it saps creativity. It is not much to ask, and I ask for it now.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Rothschild: My Lords, in March 1980 the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, wound up the debate in this House on what became the National Heritage Act by saying that it would prove to be the most important piece of legislation in the heritage field since the Second World War. Under the inspired leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, the National Heritage Memorial Fund made that prediction come true. The well nigh impossible task of following in the noble Lord's footsteps has fallen on me.
In those 12 years of his chairmanship our notion of this country's heritage was enormously extended. It covered not only historic houses like Kedleston, Calke Abbey, and in Scotland, Thirlestane and Fyffe Castle, but also Sir Donald Campbell's Bluebird, the first letter
248
that Nelson wrote with his left hand, a collection of trade union banners for the Museum of Labour History, and a rare breeding colony of the greater horseshoe bat in the roof of an old school kitchen.
For the heritage, the 1993 National Lottery etc. Act is likely, I think, to become even more important than the 1980 Act. Within just a few months the National Lottery has become an important factor in British economic life. Some 58 per cent. of the adult population are playing every week, spending just over £2 a week, and an estimated £3 billion in revenue seems likely to be raised in the lottery's first year. Our fund already has about £60 million available to it after 19 weeks in existence compared with the £8.6 million we received for the whole of last year. Quite soon, the National Heritage Memorial Fund may be giving away more than the Ford Foundation and the Getty Museum in the United States by quite a large margin. The National Lottery is well on its way, as someone said, to becoming one of those national events like the Grand National, the last night of the Proms, or the BBC's weekly "Match of the Day".
In addition to the lottery factor we have a strong following wind for the heritage. It has become a hugely popular movement. Consider for a moment the extraordinary growth of the National Trust, whose centenary is being celebrated this year under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. It now has 2.2 million members—a larger number than all the political parties put together.
Noble Lords may ask what principles should be guiding us in our allocation of resources. Before we get carried away with these large numbers, we should remember the vast areas to be covered: historic buildings, the landscape, museums and their collections, books, manuscripts and archives, industrial transport and maritime history.
Let us just consider for a moment one aspect of the built heritage, and perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for raising this important subject and for giving us the opportunity of discussing it- In addition to the subject of historic houses, which I know will be raised quite often in the debate, we want to help the Government over the rationalisation of their holdings of heritage significance. I wonder whether we have seen anything on this scale since the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. The Ministry of Defence is withdrawing not only from Greenwich but also from Woolwich, Plymouth and a long list of great historic forts and sites. We want to help churches too and to think of uses that can be found for redundant churches in an increasingly secular society.
Close to this House, Westminster Hospital is just one splendid example of the type of building which is in need of a new future. The Lord Chancellor's Office wishes to find alternative uses for many 18th and 19th century distinguished law court buildings, often grade I or grade II.
The principles which will guide our grants are evolving all the time but some are already clear. We share the concern that has been voiced that lottery moneys provided by the less well off should not be

249
directed in the main towards the narrow interests of the better off. The lives of those who have provided the revenues should benefit from how they are spent. We therefore want to identify small local projects which will have a profound and lasting impact on the communities of this country and the people who live in them.
Popularism and elitism are often represented as irreconcilable but they need not be at odds with one another. For example, our citadels of culture, our great national museums, not only have great quality but are also hugely popular. They surely deserve our support.
On the whole we do not want to encourage grands projets like the French. We will be cautious about breeding herds of hungry white elephants which would require a great deal of feeding in the future. It is our incomparable existing stock and fabric which we believe should be our first port of call. We have been asked to concentrate on capital projects and will do our best to avoid adding to the problems of revenue funding when the arts and heritage sector is already so hard pressed. We welcome the freedom we have been given to provide endowment funds in exceptional cases.
We should concentrate on making our heritage more accessible, making use of the revolution in technology as an unparalleled opportunity to democratise knowledge and to break down walls. We wish to avoid the "UK lottery factory" in the international art market. Recently we helped to acquire and conserve for the future an area of great natural beauty on one of the west coast islands of Scotland. The cost of the site was £500,000. If we had acquired the original painting of it by Turner it might have been valued at £20 million. We felt that it was better to acquire the original original. International art prices are already high and our resources may well be better spent right here.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, began his first annual report of 1980 by quoting Sir Francis Drake, who wrote to Sir Francis Walsingham in 1587:
"There must be a beginning of any great matter, but the continuing unto the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory".
May I, too, please conclude with this quotation as we begin the second chapter in the life of the memorial fund with our first lottery grants due to be announced on 26th April? As Sir Francis Drake wrote more than 400 years ago, we look forward to a,
"voyage of mercy with many ports of call".
7.19 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, it is a great honour and a pleasure, on behalf of the whole House, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, on his memorable maiden speech. The noble Lord was a most successful chairman of the trustees of the National Gallery during an important part of its development and he has also been a generous benefactor to the gallery. I believe that he was rather too modest, if I may say so. He was an ideal choice to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, in 1992 as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The noble Lord is also chairman of the management committee for the National Trust House of Waddesdon, the great
250
Rothschild house, to which he has also been a generous supporter. I renew my congratulations and I hope that we shall have the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord on many other occasions.
I should like to say a few words about the British Museum and with particular reference to the built heritage which has been the subject of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The British Museum will celebrate its 250th anniversary in 2003. The BM is one of four great museums of world stature. The only others in the same class are the Louvre, the Hermitage and the Metropolitan in New York. The BM attracts six million visitors a year, more even than the Louvre and the Metropolitan. As a nation I believe that we are surely very lucky to have inherited this wonderful museum although I am sorry to say that this has not always been recognised by governments in their funding.
I remember in the 1950s that there was considerable public concern about the inadequate conservation of many valuable objects at the British Museum due to the lack of funding. In recent years, I am glad to say, the grant-in-aid has become more realistic, but the British Museum's income has been eroded over the years by inflation. This shortfall will become more acute as funding for the arts passes increasingly to the lottery committees. I heard with great interest the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. Lottery money, while welcome, can only be used, as we know, to finance new capital projects, but of course these require additional finance for running costs.
When the British Library moves to St. Pancras it will make available 40 per cent. of the Bloomsbury building and will allow the Great Court, where the Reading Room was erected in 1852, later than the foundation of the museum, to be returned to its original conception, providing a central concourse for visitors with many badly-needed public services.
For the first time in 150 years there will be easier access between the north and south halves of the museum and visitors will be able to circulate throughout the building at ground floor level. The former King's Library will be restored to its original condition of 1828 and will house a new exhibition on discovery and learning in the Age of Enlightenment. The extensive ethnographical collection will be moved back to Bloomsbury from the Museum of Mankind in Burlington Gardens. These development programmes will require extra capital funding, I understand, of about £100 million, and a corresponding increase in grant-in-aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned France. During the last 20 years or so the French Government have funded 12 grands projets. Here I must beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. I do not believe that these are all white elephants. One thinks of Le Grand Louvre, to which a most magnificent extension has been arranged since the departure of the French Ministry of Finance to the Quai de Bercy, and one thinks of the wonderful pyramide in front of the Louvre.
One thinks, too, after what the French have done, of what might have happened to our own National Gallery extension if we had not had that very generous donation from the Sainsbury family. I am very glad that the noble

251
Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, is going to speak in this debate. I believe that all the Government were prepared to do was to allow what they called a "mixed project", which means shops, and some offices with a few rooms allotted also to the National Gallery. But, due to the tremendous generosity of the Sainsbury family, we now have this beautiful extension. But that is no credit to the Government at all, while I believe we must agree that the French Government have come out well with what has been done in the Louvre.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will lift their sights a bit, take a long view and provide adequate and continuing funding for the splendid new projects I have attempted to describe which are planned for our greatest museum.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, I first declare an interest in that I am chairman of Welsh National Opera and a trustee of Cardiff Bay Opera House Trust. The first of these has given me considerable experience of arts funding. The second will add to the architectural heritage for the next century.
Opera provision, particularly outside London, has been one of the great developments over the past 20 years. The main regional opera companies—that is, Welsh National Opera, Opera North and Scottish Opera, together with Glyndebourne Touring Opera—now work to exceptional standards and have built a very substantial and enthusiastic audience in the main cities throughout Great Britain, but like most arts organisations their funding situation remains precarious. They have to plan their work, book and contract singers up to three years ahead, but their income levels, particularly grant levels, are not usually known until a month or two before the start of the financial year and sometimes indeed not until the year starts.
Over the years there have been various attempts to give longer-term funding commitments by the arts councils, but these commitments have always erred on the side of extreme caution, I suspect from Treasury influence. As a consequence, arts council companies have been unable to plan to them because to do so would have meant planning for closure. Fortunately, the events turned out to be less dire than forecast in most cases. Any permanent companies such as Welsh National Opera which, incidentally, employs some 250 people, is very sensitive to swings in funding levels. Relatively small cuts in funding result in relatively large cuts in output. An extra 1 per cent. of grant enables Welsh National Opera to increase audience by 6 per cent. All the companies work on a knife-edge, and the recent reductions in grants in real terms have made matters even more precarious. There is, of course, nothing new in this, but in the past the companies have only survived because after years of financial squeezes they have been forced to cry for help at the point of desperation, and that help has been forthcoming. Our worry is that our cry this time may not he heard or, if it is heard, not acted on.
Following cuts of varying degrees of severity, the three permanent companies expect to survive through the present financial year which has just started, but if standstill grants are applied to the next year, as presently
252
indicated, they are all going to be in severe difficulty and will have to make cuts to their quality and quantity of output, which will put at risk their very justification for existence.
Opera is inevitably an expensive art, but great opera can provide intense enjoyment and pleasure for its audiences. Opera done badly is simply not worth the money. How much more sensible it would be if the arts councils were to discuss with the companies how their work and output could be optimised and supply the modest increases in grants which would be necessary to achieve that. Unfortunately, even when the arts councils have the funds to do so they do tend to think that it is more interesting to spend their money on development projects rather than to maximise the benefits from what they already have. As we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, they have not even had sufficient funds to do that in recent years. I do hope that the arts councils and the separate arts councils in Wales and Scotland, are listened to and receive the support from the Government which they need.
The Government are to be congratulated on the great success of the National Lottery. Among the many good causes which the funds generated will support is the built environment in which the arts will be performed into the next century. That is something to which we can look forward with pride and pleasure. However, if we do not look after and cherish the great performing companies, which we have built up and developed during the last part of this century with such great success, the new buildings for the next century will he just silent mausoleums for our citizens to stare at rather than the vibrant and bustling centres to thrill and enhance the lives of the coming generations which they should be, and can be, if we take proper care of those who will breathe life into them.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate and I am delighted to learn that the National Heritage Memorial Fund will, as a result of the increased income from the lottery, be in a position to fund, among other things, the built heritage. The impact of such a large increase in the funds available for grants could be enormous on listed buildings and monuments in public ownership but will not directly benefit those which are privately owned.
Generous as the increase in funding may be, the grants will still be subject to the imposition of value added tax at 17.5 per cent., and I suggest that a more radical approach from the Government would be to reduce or abolish the tax. The question of whether VAT should be charged on the repair of historic buildings has been raised in this House on several occasions, recently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in his debate on 31st January 1995 to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, replied. It is not necessary to go too deeply into the arguments expressed so eloquently and movingly by the right reverend Prelate and many other noble Lords as they are well known.
However, one issue which has not yet been highlighted is the fact that at the moment VAT is charged on repairs but not on improvements. If it is

253
impossible to zero-rate both categories, should we not reverse the situation? Many of the buildings that are so important for the preservation of our heritage require frequent and expensive repairs rather than additions or Improvements. The current tax situation offers a disincentive to owners to effect those vital repairs while at the same time encouraging development or substantial reconstruction. That can in some instances lead to over-repair and alteration, damaging the historic aspects of the building. That was not the Government's intention when making the tax concession but, unfortunately, that is sometimes the effect. It is the repair and maintenance of historic buildings, more than improvements, which need the encouragement provided by such a concession.
The importance of historic buildings in our country is self-evident. As the chairman of English Heritage said at a recent anniversary conference, the evolution of the public consciousness and concern about the heritage has rapidly accelerated during the 1980s and early 1990s and has become a national cause. The tourist industry now vies with the oil industry as the biggest contributor to the balance of payments. Seventy per cent. of tourists who visit this country say that they do so to enjoy the countryside, ancient monuments, listed buildings, historic houses and churches—the mosaic of which our past consists. There are therefore sound economic reasons for encouraging the individuals and organisations responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings.
Many listed buildings are not capable of generating enough income to cover the cost of their upkeep, let alone the 17.5 per cent. VAT levied by the Treasury. Some of our larger historic buildings—those which charge admission fees and run businesses—are able to escape the full effect of the tax by employing direct labour. It is on the smaller, less viable properties that the full burden of the tax devolves. I declare an interest, both as a tenant of a listed building that is open to the public and as warden of the local church. The trustees of the estate are lucky enough to be able to employ a direct labour force and therefore pay VAT only on the materials used in the repairs.
By contrast, the recent £50,000 repair bill for the ancient village church was fully subject to VAT; half of that sum was raised by the hard-working and committed parishioners and half came from English Heritage. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, much of the burden of repairs to our local churches devolves on very small congregations. Is it right that their charitable efforts should be subject to VAT? Further, in the same debate the Minister suggested that the preferred way of assisting fund-raising is to encourage charitable giving through deeds of covenant, Gift Aid and payroll giving, but many of our less well-off parishioners may not be in a tax bracket to benefit from those concessions.
The Government have remained unmoved by the many excellent arguments put forward in favour of the abolition of VAT on repairs on the grounds that considerable funding is already provided by the Government by grant aid and that it is not government policy to vary or reduce the rate of VAT. However,
254
attitudes are changing not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe. There is an increasing demand for more assistance towards the preservation of our often threatened heritage. Other countries, such as Belgium and France, already allow greater tax concessions to that end. Will the Minister reconsider the position in relation to the European Commission's policy on the application of reduced rates of VAT in certain circumstances or will he consider reversing the position in relation to repairs and improvements? Need the tablets be set in stone?
7.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and to congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. He spoke with conviction and clarity and, like other noble Lords, I listened to him with great pleasure and admiration and, for my part, with total agreement. I know that I speak for the whole House in expressing the hope that this will be the first of many such fine contributions from him.
By chance or providence what I have to say is, in a sense, a continuation of the noble Viscount's speech which I wholeheartedly applaud. I make no apology for returning to the subject of funding for the repair of churches. Indeed, I believe that no apology is necessary in a debate which embraces the nation's architectural heritage because the parish churches of England are a unique and significant part of that heritage.
There are, I believe, just over 11,000 Grade I listed buildings in England, of which 4,000 are parish churches—that is 35 per cent. of the nation's total. In addition, the Church of England alone cares for a further 9,000 listed buildings. That is a major heritage responsibility and, by any standards, anyone who represents the parish churches of England represents a huge heritage constituency. That fact is recognised by the Department of National Heritage, and we are enormously grateful for its co-operation, and for that of English Heritage with which we work closely. At a conference staged jointly by English Heritage and the Church of England last December, that close co-operation was further enhanced and the problems faced by the churches were recognised by everyone there.
A major contribution to the conference was made, as one would expect, by Mrs. Jennie Page, chief executive of English Heritage, to whose work I should like to pay a warm tribute. She referred to the parish church as
"the most important single type of historic building in England"
and went on to say that,
"what we have in our parish churches is too precious to lose …ecclesiastical buildings (especially the parish churches of the Church of England) are such an essential centrepiece of England's built heritage, every effort should be made to assist continuing church ownership and use".
She acknowledged the huge commitment of the Church to the nation's heritage through its care for ecclesiastical buildings. Indeed, it is very large. Although we are grateful for the grants that we receive, they cover only a small part of our repair costs. In a typical year, 1992, when we received about £9 million in grants, the Church spent £112 million on repairs. English Heritage and the Department of National Heritage do what they can, but

255
it is simply not enough if we are to preserve the nation's heritage. Their contribution is undermined by the Government's policy on VAT.
I remind your Lordships of a few facts which affect the churches. Although we receive grants from the Government through English Heritage for the repair of ancient buildings, the VAT on those repairs is far in excess of the grants given. For example, in 1991 churches of all denominations received £8 million in grants from English Heritage. That same year the VAT on repair bills amounted to £35 million. In 1994 the grants from English Heritage rose to £13.5 million. The bill for VAT will be close to £50 million.
Mr. Hugh Corner, of the Department of National Heritage, said at the conference that historic buildings were part of the common heritage of which the Church of England buildings were a uniquely important part. He also said that any failure to care for those buildings would be a defeat for the Government's commitment to the protection of that heritage. I am not anxious to see the Government defeated. One may ask what the Government can do to avoid such a defeat. The last time I spoke on this subject I appealed to the Government's higher motives and to natural justice and said that it was ludicrous and unjust that those who maintained the built heritage on behalf of the nation should have to pay back to the Government more than double the grant they received. That appeal has so far failed. Perhaps this time I may appeal to a lower motive. If what we say today filters through to the green-carpeted corridors, perhaps the message can be conveyed that there are votes in it. A survey carried out last summer by Gallup showed that 89 per cent. of people believed that historic buildings and places gave an area a sense of identity. As Mrs. Page has said, public interest and concern for the built heritage has never been higher. We are talking here about a popular cause, not a marginal one. A bold decision by the Government to abolish or lower the rate of VAT, especially on parish churches, would be greeted with popular acclaim.
The East Anglian landscape is punctuated by church buildings. Sometimes several of them are visible at a single glance. The towers of Norfolk and Suffolk and the spires of Lincolnshire that point to the sky are, I believe, precious symbols both of the presence of God among us and, in their heavenward orientation, reminders in a world where consciousness is bounded by three dimensions of a perspective that we badly need to recover. If the Government would help us in this matter we could do much to recover that perspective, and they would win a large number of friends.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for an admirable Introductory speech. I also extend my congratulations to the two maiden speakers we have heard so far. I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, had to say about the use that the Heritage Fund intended to make of the lottery proceeds. It is upon that subject that I speak, although I should like to speak more to the Arts Council than the Heritage Fund.
256
I suppose that we all agree that the purpose of publicly funding the arts is to help improve their quality, their accessibility and the public understanding of them. An important element in the furtherance of accessibility is the need to keep down the cost to the public of enjoyment of the arts, which means lower seat prices, admission fees and so on. I refer particularly to seat prices and take the case of opera. I believe this to be a particularly important, illustrative point.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships ever read a magazine called Opera. I recommend it. It is excellent. The current issue contains an editorial that deals with the recent Stevenson Report on Opera and Dance that has been commissioned by the Arts Council. The report stated that the audience for opera in London is at best static, probably declining and not large enough to sustain two big theatres. It noted a peak period between 1985 and 1990 when there was certainly a sufficient audience for two big houses, but there was a decline thereafter. The magazine criticises the report for not pointing out the obvious connection between that decline and the sharp rise in seat prices. It reminds us that recently in Paris three operas were performed—"Lakmé", "Lucia" and "King Arthur"—before houses full to the rafters. The reason was that seat prices were about half those in London. Seat prices increase because the subsidy has not been enough to keep them down, after every effort has been made to lower costs.
The problem facing those who decide arts funding policy is obvious. The lower the subsidy, the higher seat prices have to be and the smaller the number of people who can afford to go and the smaller the social justification for having any subsidy at all.
I come to my main point. Long ago I gave up any hope—perhaps it would have been the triumph of hope over experience to think otherwise—of achieving a real lift in public subsidy for the arts. Therefore, I strongly welcomed the idea of the national lottery. I joined the national lottery promotion company to help it along. I did very little but was keen. When the national lottery was set up everybody agreed that the proceeds should not be allowed to replace state funding but should be additional to it. The Government have publicly accepted the so-called principle of additionality. On the face of it, this is greatly to be welcomed. However, the method adopted to ensure additionality has been to confine the use of lottery funds to capital projects.
Of course, there is a tremendous backlog of capital improvements that are badly needed. A good example is the Arts Council's recent grant from lottery money to the Unicorn Theatre in London to update its safety standards and thus keep it in business. I also believe that the Royal Opera House's scheme to update its facilities is an essential capital improvement. I hope that in due course it will attract some Arts Council lottery money. For the time being, to confine lottery money to capital projects is understandable and reasonable, but it means that any hope that lottery money can be used to help bring down seat prices and make opera and the other arts more accessible to ordinary incomes is deferred. I wonder for how long. It would not matter if the

257
distributing agencies—the Arts Council in the case just referred to—had enough money to core fund (as it is called) all their main clients, but they have not.
I feel that the principle of additionality is being protected at rather a high cost. For example, it means that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, cannot use lottery funds to plug the gap created by the £3 million cut suffered by the Arts Council a year ago. If I were in his place—which 20 years ago I was—I would sooner have the £3 million for the things that I thought needed them most, even if it meant that the Treasury found it easier to breach the principle of additionality when deciding the grant.
I hope that we shall soon be able to use the lottery to supplement arts funding on the revenue side and make good chronic underfunding where it exists. I take heart from the Secretary of State's recent announcement of the possibility of endowment funding in special cases. It would be splendid if that concept could be more widely applied. I hope to hear something from the Minister at the end of the debate on that point.
7.49 p.m.
The Earl of Hardwicke: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for being the third maiden speaker this afternoon. I can do no more than crave your Lordships' indulgence.
I welcome this debate on arts funding as it presents a very good opportunity to review the current state of the British film industry. It is particularly timely in view of the following factors. First, this is the centenary of the showing of the world's first film by the Lumiere brothers in Paris in 1885. Secondly, there is the strong British presence at the Oscars last week. Thirdly, there is yesterday's report by the National Heritage Select Committee on the future of the British film industry which highlighted a number of difficulties currently faced by the industry, and I hope that its constructive recommendations will find favour with the Government.
Of all the arts, film is of the greatest interest to the majority of young people. Eighty per cent. of all movie-goers in Britain are aged between 16 and 25. Film has a direct influence on our opinions, our education, our very outlook and values. That films can have such an impact was highlighted by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916 when he said:
"Film has come to rank as the very highest medium for the dissemination of public intelligence—since it speaks a universal language it lends itself importantly to the presentation of America's plans and purposes."
Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to reflect on a few interesting aspects of the current state of the British film industry because they highlight its unique characteristics. The film and video industry generates an annual turnover of over £1 billion; it is expected to outpace all other industrial sectors, with annual growth of 30 per cent. over the next 25 years; it also employs 220,000 people in Britain. But important as those facts are, they are essentially economic in nature. They ignore the central role played by the film industry in our nation's cultural life.
258
In order to give a balanced assessment of what needs to be done to assist the development of a British-based film industry we should recognise what the Government have done to assist the industry. That includes the creation of British screen finance; their contributions to the European co-production funds; and the establishment of the British Film Commission, designed to attract inward investment, together with contributions to the British Film Institute, the National Film and Television School and various European Union initiatives, such as Euro-image.
In preparing for this, my maiden speech, I have devoted considerable time not only to reading carefully the various policy papers and submissions made by members of the industry. I have also sought guidance and advice from a wide spectrum of its members, and in thinking about what I have been told I have come to the conclusion that there is a key question on which there has yet to develop a consensus —that is, whether the film industry in this country is deserving of special treatment. I believe that it is.
Film plays a pivotal role in our society, and the way many young people emulate their film heroes and heroines shows the ability of films to influence our behaviour and our cultural values. Therefore the expansion of the British film industry will contribute to the preservation of our national identity and cultural heritage.
Our film-makers deserve particular consideration because they have to compete with other nations whose governments give special treatment to their national film industries. When one considers the substantial assistance to the film industries in a number of European Union countries and also in countries such as Canada and Australia, it seems to me British film-makers are a very long way from competing on a level playing field.
But, above all, we have to recognise both the existence and the potential of our creative talent, our acting talent, our production talent and our literary talent, of which Britain can be justly proud. My fear is that in the absence of a more dynamic film industry this talent will continue to leave us for Hollywood.
The creative genius of our animators, for example, has been demonstrated by their winning four of the last five Oscars including one last week. Indeed, it is a measure of the creative talent and commitment, particularly of young people entering the film industry, that 90 per cent. of all graduates from the Film School at the Royal College of Art have succeeded in finding employment in the industry, despite the very real difficulties facing young film-makers.
It is for those reasons, and because the film industry is so culturally and economically important to our future, that I believe that it is deserving of special attention. One need only look at Ireland to appreciate the immediate effect legislation can have on boosting the industry. One year after the introduction of tax incentives for film production, investment grew from £3 million to £100 million.
Let me conclude with one point: the young people in this country, like most in the western world, are concerned about their prospects and our country's future as we go into the next millennium. I hope in a small way

259
to highlight those concerns and bring to the attention of this House subjects which affect the younger generation. Film is something that plays a very important part in our lives, not only by providing entertainment but also by offering many the opportunity to develop their creative skills.
On behalf of young people, and, indeed, all people, I would be delighted if we as a nation could actively promote and encourage the expansion of film-making in this country.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I am by no means the oldest Member of the this House, but I am securely in my 80s. It is for that reason that it gives me particular pleasure to congratulate, on behalf of the whole House, the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke, happily in his early 20s and our youngest Member, on his admirable maiden speech.
One of the unqualified and unquestioned advantages of the hereditary peerage is that every now and then we have a young recruit who can put a bit of lively salt into our somewhat geriatric stew. The noble Earl is obviously a shining example of that principle, and I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him in the future.
I hope that I may also be allowed to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who, in his excellent maiden speech, said some very nice things about me. I was very much moved by his remarks.
I have three points to make. I no longer have anything officially to do with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, but I follow its fortunes with close and affectionate interest. My first point is one which I can make probably better than anyone else. It is that during the first 14 years of its existence—I was chairman for 12 of them—the National Heritage Memorial Fund, with a staff of only seven, managed to achieve a very great deal. It was able to do that for two reasons. The first was that it received marvellous support from Her Majesty's Government. The second was that once the Government had provided it with adequate resources, they allowed it to get on with the job, almost entirely without interference.
Things are different now with the lottery money. Within a very short space of time the fund has had to increase its staff from seven to 27. Because of all the money that is coming in, the fund has inevitably come under much more bureaucratic control. For the fund, that experience has been somewhat traumatic. In my opinion, it has come through it extremely well.
Let me say this to Her Majesty's Government: the fund has had an excellent and imaginative chairman in the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild; a body of wise and experienced trustees, of which the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who is to speak later, is one; and a loyal and devoted staff, under the able and understanding control of its director, Miss Georgina Nayler, who has been with the fund for over 12 years. It is a thoroughly good outfit, so please, please, allow it to do its job with the
260
minimum of interference. I can assure the House that that, and that alone, is the road to success. Let the fund manage itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is to be warmly congratulated on his Motion. I share his concern for the architectural heritage. However, the question of whether the National Heritage Memorial Fund should contribute to private persons, in whose hands so much of the architectural heritage lies, is not easy. That is my second point. At present, the fund, which is still governed by the National Heritage Act 1980, is forbidden to give money to private persons. The law can be changed but no change will make the matter simple.
Perhaps I may give only one of several reasons for that. The lottery money is unusual stuff to be used in support of the arts and the heritage. In ancient days, the arts were supported by rich patrons. They built the houses and collected the pictures. Alas, there are few of them left and as a result the job has had to be taken over by the Government—who have created the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Arts Council—and by such splendid bodies as the National Trust.
Possibly for the first time in history, the heritage will be sustained by Peter's pence; it is to be sustained by the money unsuccessfully invested in the lottery game for the greater part by poor people. Those poor people will see their lost money spent without their agreement. That means that the National Heritage Memorial Fund must be not less but more careful on how it spends its money.
I see that I have reached the end of my time and I shall make only one final comment. I ask the Government, please to restore the funds of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It is the only part of the outfit that is a memorial. Do not destroy it.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, your Lordships will know that over the past 40 years I have been involved with historic buildings; first, as an owner trying to save his own home, then as the founder President of the Historic Houses Association, and latterly for eight-and-a-half years as the first chairman of English Heritage.
Tonight, however, I wish to restrict my remarks to those national resources which are at present allocated to conserve our built heritage, specifically for the private sector. I make no apology in referring to the problems raised by the National Lottery.
First, however, I should like briefly to remind the House that the post-war Labour Government set up a committee under Sir Ernest Gowers who recommended the principle of grant-aiding houses in need. Consequently, under strict Treasury rules, the first grants were offered in 1953.
Over the years, successive governments of every political party have accepted the important principle that houses left in private hands were often better and more cheaply preserved for the future than if they became a burden on the state. This policy, which was administered for more than 30 years with the assistance of the Historic Buildings Council, can be counted a great success story in the world of conservation.

261
Over the past 40 years, very few important houses have not benefited and those denied have usually been because the owner was disinclined to disclose his financial assets or refused public access. The very large majority of private owners have done the nation proud.
They have conserved their houses by sacrificing their privacy and becoming major players in attracting tourists, especially from overseas. They were specifically encouraged by government to follow this policy of accepting grants, carrying out repairs and opening up. It was certainly not done for profit.
Now, in the 1990s, I fear that this successful partnership is in danger of collapsing. Since 1953 the total value of grants in real terms fell because of more candidates such as churches, conservation areas and industrial archaeology, not forgetting the National Trust, which made increasing claims as their portfolio increased and their historic endowments proved inadequate.
I regret that during my time as chairman of English Heritage I reluctantly accepted the necessity of grants to private owners becoming a smaller proportion of the whole, although their share never dropped under 25 per cent. of total grants available and several houses, both private and National Trust, received individual grants of over £1 million during my time in office.
No grant, however big, is going to secure a building for ever. Maintaining an historic building permanently means continual inspection and repair. Ever-rising costs are going to make future maintenance increasingly difficult.
So where is the money going to come from? The public believed, as indeed did many senior members of the Government and Members of Parliament, that the National Lottery funds were going to make a great contribution, with eventually one-quarter of the proceeds devoted to all heritage projects. How mistaken they were! Due either to legislative error or misguided Treasury influence, the largest majority of buildings—those in private hands, the most deserving and most in need—have been excluded.
I say "deserving" because private owners, unlike the National Trust or local authorities, have to pay inheritance tax, income tax and all other taxes. They normally have to produce 60 per cent. of the cost of repairs, thus entailing the selling of assets or family heirlooms, or varying family trusts.
How has this inequitable situation come about? It is certainly not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, whose maiden speech I much enjoyed. When the National Heritage Memorial Fund was set up it was rightly laid down that funds should only go to charities or for the public benefit. Unfortunately, when the National Heritage Memorial Fund was given authority to administer heritage funds emanating from the National Lottery, it can only do so under its existing rules.
Thus, there is a clear conflict of criteria as to how English Heritage grants and heritage lottery fund grants are to be allocated. We further hear the rather strange principle being propounded that the private sector must
262
continue to be discriminated against because public opinion would never accept lottery money being given to private owners for repairs to their historic houses.
What nonsense! The public have accepted that many millions of pounds of their taxes have been used for such purposes for over 40 years and this has created great benefit to the community. Therefore, one would expect that the public would be even more content for lottery money to be used in such a way, as long as the grants were properly supervised.
I have no doubt that we need a revision of the National Heritage Act to give the National Heritage Memorial Fund flexibility to authorise the funding of any building that it sees fit. We have total confidence in the fund doing that. Forcing owners to form new charitable trusts is no way out and it may be legally impossible. Over the past years owners have been encouraged to set up maintenance funds, and adjustments can be made, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said. Could not these maintenance funds, if irrevocably attached to the house as an endowment, be eligible for grants out of lottery funds? In other words, lottery money would be used to help create permanent endowments.
In the meantime, perhaps my noble friend will discuss with my successor at English Heritage whether there is any possibility of increasing the proportion of grants allocated to the private sector without inequity to other types of applicants or problems with the principle of additionality.
To sum up, I believe that the part played by private owners in conserving their historic houses and buildings is one of which we can be proud. The future is less clear and there is a danger that some may give up the unequal struggle.
One is forever hearing well-deserved tributes to the vital part that private owners play in the conservation and presentation of our heritage and we will no doubt hear them again tonight. But a long-term denial of a level playing field for the lottery money is a slap in the face to those who have for many years made many sacrifices.
There cannot, of course, be a built-in right for anyone to obtain grants, which must always remain discretionary, but discrimination should stop and fairness must be the aim for the future.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, with a ration of six minutes, I shall restrict my remarks to the field of heritage. First, I should like to say something about our two main funding bodies—English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
I speak as chairman of the National Trust. We have a close and excellent relationship with both those bodies. It is a relationship that I should describe as being one of partnership. For example, as part of English Heritage's new policy, we have taken on from it 17 of its guardianship properties where that has made sound management sense.

263
With regard to repair grants, we have been severely rationed to an annual lump sum, although it is fair to say that we have had help in exceptional circumstances. I acknowledge the help which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, gave us during his term as chairman of English Heritage. English Heritage's problem has been the restriction of its own funding from government but, again, it is well to recognise the way in which Jocelyn Stevens has managed to free up some extra money for grants as a result of efficiency savings.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund, under the truly imaginative lead of my noble friend Lord Charteris and now under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Rothschild, has been one of the most resounding successes of the 1980s and 1990s. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord on his outstanding maiden speech. His knowledge and advice will be very much in demand in your Lordships' House. He made some kind remarks about the National Trust and I take this opportunity to make some kind remarks about him and his family. Indeed, I congratulate him on the renovation of Waddesdon, which was triumphantly opened, as your Lordships will know, last weekend. In case the Minister thinks that anyone can do a Rothschild, I should tell him that there are not many who have my noble friend's capability and capacity to do what has been achieved at Waddesdon.
I can think of no other organisation with its scale of responsibilities which is as economical in its overheads and lack of red tape as the NHMF has been. I echo strongly what my noble friend Lord Charteris said in that regard. It has a total staff of a mere half dozen, mostly girls. So wise has been the investment of its funds that I believe it has been able to distribute more in grants than it has received from the Government. I see that my noble friend Lord Charteris nods.
The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, referred to the huge range of projects and bodies which have been helped. With regard to the National Trust, none of the major properties that we have taken on in the past 40 years would have been possible without the NHMF's generous help. Now of course it is taking on the much larger role of distributing the lottery money. Again, I echo what my noble friend Lord Charteris said. I hope that it can remain as unbureaucratic while retaining its brilliant flair. I ask the Government not to interfere with a real success story. That will be quite a challenge for both sides, I suspect.
I turn now to the problems of the typical private owner of historic buildings. It is an area to which the Government need to pay particular attention. That is where the pressure lies. Owners have obligations which go with listing. Those obligations include criminal sanctions. The private owner has to pay VAT. Originally, that was set at 8 per cent., which was perhaps bearable; now it is set at a swingeing 17.5 per cent. The private owner is rarely in a position to cover the VAT by set-off, as can the owner of a larger house with a higher throughput of income. Nor is it likely to be sensible for a private owner to be organised with charitable status. Therefore, he will have no access to lottery money or fiscal advantages. Furthermore, the maintenance fund route has been so hedged around with trip wires as to be,
264
in most cases, impracticable. In that regard, I warmly support the wise and sensible remarks of my noble friend Lord Palmer who initiated the debate.
The only source of support for preserving what is, after all, one of the most important parts of our national heritage is English Heritage. As we have seen, its funds are severely limited. Grants were originally set at 50 per cent. and are now only 40 per cent. Those are two issues which the Government need to address.
I, and for that matter, the trust believe that our heritage is best preserved by families—in fact, by plurality of ownership. The role of the trust should be only that of a long-stop should all else fail. Therefore, a healthy private sector is enormously important to us and to the nation.
I began by saying that the trust's relationship with the government agencies is one of partnership and how valuable that is. I should like to see the Government approach their relationship with the private sector in the same vein; namely, a partnership based on good economics and a fair contribution from both sides for the benefit of our great national heritage. I suggest that all that would be a fruitful subject for the Green Paper promised by the Secretary of State in a recent speech, which I warmly welcome.
8.16 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his particularly timely introduction of this debate. I pay tribute to the eloquence and balance of his arguments and to those of the distinguished maiden speakers.
The timeliness of the debate relates to an interest that I should declare. For the past few months I have been a member of a working group pursuing the planned redevelopment of the English National Opera's home at the London Coliseum. This morning, at the same time as announcing next season's programme, ENO was able to disclose a vibrant start to this season with paid attendances up 31 per cent. over the equivalent period last year and a return to surplus in the financial year just ended.
The debate provides the opportunity to pay tribute to a Member of your Lordships' House—the noble Earl, Lord Harewood—whose retirement was also announced today after half a lifetime's remarkable contribution to ENO's development of an international reputation, first as general director and latterly as chairman.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of ENO and the provision of opera and dance in London at this point since the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and his colleagues on the Arts Council have been wrestling with the many difficult issues relating to that subject. The prospects of restoring Frank Matcham's great theatre, the London Coliseum, and potentially three other beautiful and important London theatres should be seen as a significant initiative in terms of our architectural heritage over and above the enhanced provision of opera and dance in the capital.
While I make no apologies for devoting the short time available to one specific subject, I believe that it also highlights one or two important and more general

265
principles in relation to the allocation of the proceeds of the National Lottery and to the process by which that takes place.
The financial stringency of recent years can only have exacerbated the pent-up demand of arts organisations for capital funding. Therefore, it was inevitable that once the National Lottery came into operation and the Arts Council and other distributing bodies could count on their share of the proceeds a traffic jam of monumental proportions would develop among potential applicants. The Arts Council sought advice on, among other matters, the particular problems which that presented for the provision of opera and dance in London through the commissioning of the Lyric Theatre Review and a committee chaired by Mr. Dennis Stevenson. In setting out a wide range of options, in some cases very hypothetical, and in considering some of the even broader issues behind the demand for large-scale opera and dance in London, the review was perhaps misunderstood. It certainly caused a degree of anxiety among a number of the Arts Council's clients, including ENO. However, it was an important step in trying to address the urgent needs of both ENO and the Royal Opera House for the redevelopment of their currently inefficient and potentially dangerous homes and, at the same time, provide a venue or network of venues for large and medium-sized dance companies.
The review and the responses it elicited have been of substantial value to the Arts Council in its continued consideration of what projects it might support and how those might be co-ordinated. Before that consideration is completed, there is therefore an opportunity for your Lordships' House to express its views. While the Department of National Heritage will understandably not wish to usurp the role of the Arts Council, I should be very pleased if the Minister felt able to comment on any of the issues that I or other noble Lords have raised on the subject.
The principle that lottery funds must be matched, at least in some proportion, by private sector funding, is an important test of each project's underlying support and appeal. On the other hand, the introduction of that admittedly specialised market test cannot easily be reconciled with an unduly interventionist approach by the Arts Council even where, for example, it has a continuing role in funding the company or companies using the theatres being redeveloped. It would be invidious, surely, to set timetables which favoured unnaturally one project against another in their appeal for private donations.
Therefore, although it is understandable that the preoccupation of the Arts Council has been to avoid the simultaneous closure of both the Coliseum and the Royal Opera House, a degree of overlap, if necessary, especially in the context of contemporary homes in London for both companies, may well be preferable to an unnatural and expensive delay in one project or the other.
A critical step in achieving the best possible sequence of restoration for both the Coliseum and the Royal Opera House may be the earliest possible redevelopment of Sadlers Wells Theatre—a cause which, in its own
266
right, merits the strongest possible support from lottery funding in the light of the historic role of Sadlers Wells in British opera and dance.
The imaginative decision taken by the Sadlers Wells board to seek Arts Council, lottery and other support for redevelopment commencing early in 1996 therefore deserves particularly positive consideration, both on its own merits and as a key to unlocking the potential logjam for the relocation of ENO and the ROH.
Finally, the lottery Act requires a clear linkage as regards the source of the funding generated by the public support for the National Lottery and the types of causes that benefit from such funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, made clear. None of your Lordships who attend performances of ENO can fail to be struck by the widespread and deep support for the company, with the audience drawn from all walks of life. The average lottery punter who spends around £2 a week on lottery tickets could attend 10 performances per year in cheaper seats at ENO for an equal amount of money, or attend at least four performances a year at the average price of seats. It is not a cause whose supporters and beneficiaries are distant from the providers of the funding.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing today's debate which has attracted three maiden speakers who have all made memorable contributions. I should particularly like to congratulate my chairman at the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, on his eloquent and statesman-like speech. As a trustee of NHMF, I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving under the noble Lord's chairmanship. In saying that he is a worthy successor to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, I cannot give higher praise.
The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, spoke about his plans and hopes for the lottery. I should like to touch upon one or two points that he did not have time to cover. First, there is additionality, which has already been mentioned in the debate. As noble Lords know, it means that NHMF has to ensure that lottery money is not used as a substitute for government funding but is additional money bringing additional benefits to projects. Now that we actually have real applications to look at and have had a chance to consult widely, we are getting a clearer picture of what we can and cannot fund.
One of the areas where we have to be particularly careful is in our relationship from a grant-giving point of view with English Heritage. However, it is clear that there is a wide range of projects which are not eligible or which are not a stated priority for English Heritage funds; for example, Grade II buildings, interior works to decorative schemes, fittings and machinery, works to gardens and parks and settings of historic buildings and works to monuments, cemeteries and graveyards. We believe that we can complement English Heritage funding and avoid substituting for it. It is clearly important that we should not be seen to be providing exactly the same type of support but bringing about additional benefits to a project.

267
Within our statutory framework, we believe that we shall he able to assist funding projects which are in principle eligible for English Heritage funding in the following circumstances: when the project requires such a massive scale of funds that it would swamp available English Heritage grants; when a major buildings complex is involved where English Heritage has made a grant to an early phase or phases but cannot offer sufficient resources to ensure completion within a reasonable time span; and when English Heritage has received many worthy applications under a particular grant scheme and simply cannot deal with them all —for example, conservation area partnerships or grants for historic gardens and parks and where there is no prospect in the future for English Heritage increasing the resources available to a particular scheme.
We shall of course be dealing with additionality on a case-by-case basis. We hope that it will become clear what we can and cannot do. If it turns out that we are too restricted, I hope that the Government will be happy to take another look at the matter in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, raised, as indeed did other speakers, the problem of private owners not benefiting from the lottery. In that matter, the National Heritage Act 1980 and the heritage Act 1993 are similar. In 1993, many noble Lords attempted to introduce a greater degree of flexibility with regard to private owners and NHMF, which would have been desirable. Although NHMF is restricted in the ways that it can help, there are circumstances where the fund can assist, and these have been mentioned; for example, if ownership is transferred to a charitable trust, as has been the case with Burton Constable and Thirlestane with great success. I believe that this is a serious option.
The other way that we can help is by making use of the in situ provision which enables us to acquire works which form an important part of a collection in a house with public access. The work of art can remain in situ, with ownership passing to a museum or an independent charitable trust. It is clearly helpful if the funds created are deployed for the benefit of the historic house, although that is not a hard and fast rule.
I should just like to mention one further point which is frequently raised at executive committee meetings of the Georgian Group, of which I am chairman. It is the old chestnut which has been touched on today by several speakers; namely, VAT on repairs but no VAT on alterations to listed buildings. Rather than repeat what has already been said, I thought that I would tell noble Lords about a friend of mine who was able to avoid VAT by taking the VAT man around a rundown listed cottage that he owned.
The VAT man explained to my friend that the criteria used was simply that, if a member of the public walking around a house, either inside or outside, was able to see that alterations had been made, then the cost of such alterations were free of VAT. In that particular case my friend walked around the property with the VAT man and agreed to increase the floor levels on the ground floor and the ceiling level on the upper floor. That meant that he avoided VAT. However, when it came to the walls, on which my friend had to carry out a particularly large amount of work by way of damp proofing and dry
268
lining, VAT was payable as the walls ended up looking the same after the work as before. It is quite a strange situation. It cannot be right that rules on VAT encourage owners of listed buildings to alter them unnecessarily.
Finally, I should just like to say how much I am looking forward to hearing the response to today's very interesting debate from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wish to point out that half-way through the list of speakers we are already well behind time. I make an appeal for speakers to try to keep to time.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing this debate today, particularly as the National Heritage Select Committee has just reported on the British film industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on paragraphs 185 to 187, particularly with regard to write-offs, in that the report states that the Inland Revenue should regard expenditure on the production of a film as revenue expenditure, allowing it all to be written off as incurred. At present only a third is allowed in the current year.
Irish tax incentives have already been mentioned by one maiden speaker; namely, the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke. On this side of the water, we are not looking for subsidies, rather that we should be able to compete fairly with our neighbours. The British Film Commission undertook a report to examine the growth of film production in Ireland, and it is all too easy to see why we lose out. Last year Mel Gibson's film "Braveheart" was due to be shot entirely in Scotland but relocated the majority of its production schedule to Ireland because of the more attractive tax concessions. That move cost the UK well over 30 million dollars.
The British Film Commission also brought across senior US production executives last year to see exactly what the UK has to offer in the way of locations and post-production facilities. As we know, our largest studio, Pinewood, alone has over 30 stages, so we do need to attract a great deal of production. I and other colleagues entertained them to lunch in this House and the message was quite clear. If the price was right, they would rather locate here, provided we could offer the same financial incentives that could be found across the Irish Sea.
Films made here promote the beauty of our countryside, towns and villages and encourage tourism which, as we already know, is one of our highest invisible earnings, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend. It also, of course, encourages more jobs. Last week, I, along with other members of the Media Group, saw a beautifully filmed picture called "Circle of Friends". The cinematography was exceptional and as a result County Kilkenny will have many more visitors this summer and Irish culture is there on film for audiences worldwide to see. I am simply re-emphasising the advantages that we, too, could enjoy.
We have already had a debate about Channel 4 and its funding formula. The majority of speakers supported a change. Channel 4 has invested over £100 million in

269
film since 1982. It has made 300 films, mostly for modest amounts. It invested £1.1 million in "The Madness of King George" and £800,000 in "Four Weddings and a Funeral". Those are sizeable amounts from a channel with only 13p in the pound for investment. I believe that a change in the funding formula would double its input. As it is, Channel 4 is investing £12 million in film this year alone. Thus TV has really kept film going. The Government intervene heavily in television but leave film largely to market forces. There are times that the US has intervened on behalf of its own film industry, particularly when that industry has needed a boost, for instance in the 1970s.
In order to spread the financial risk, we need to invest and produce in volume. One-off films are not attractive to investors; certainly the City is wary of them. But to produce in volume we need the right tax incentives. I believe that the City is at least showing some interest. As the noble Earl said in his maiden speech, Ireland has increased her involvement from £1 million in 1992 to £100 million in 1994. The committee believes that we, too, should consider introducing a scheme similar to the Irish Section 35 incentives. It is good to see how many of the recommendations made to the Select Committee by the British Film Commission and others have been accepted. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note.
There are film commissions in many major cities facilitating film-making, but we badly need the proposed London film commission to co-ordinate film production throughout our capital. Again, the report strongly recommends this.
I feel that I must say a word or two about the crisis facing the live arts, particularly in the regions. For example, the Salisbury Playhouse is closing down for a year. The Redgrave Theatre in Farnham is also closing, with no re-opening planned. Even the Molecule Children's Theatre, which explains science to children, will close at the end of this year. The list is endless.
Regional theatre has always been our most important training ground and part of our culture. We cannot afford to lose it. Even orchestras are at risk. Could we not find a way of using lottery receipts to prevent even more closures? Finally, I stress the importance of the industry, both now and in the future, by quoting the French actor, Gerard Depardieu, who said:
"This immense market in film, television and software will continue to grow. Of that there can be no doubt. Its significance in our lives will grow too. It's not just a great industry; it is at the heart of our culture and values. The images of film and television are a mirror in which we see ourselves and a window through which we see the lives of others".
8.35 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I particularly welcome this debate. I welcome it because it has expanded the term "arts" to incorporate the architectural heritage. Too often when we deal with the arts we deal just with the performing arts. I suspect that possibly the case for the performing arts is made so well because the people involved are so articulate.
One objective of the arts as a whole is to enlighten. There are many others of course, not least to encourage those with artistic talent to develop that talent, and another could well be to endorse the national identity, as has been done to such great effect in France these past few years. But I wish to talk about the objective of enlightenment in the context of funding of the arts.
I know that funding of the arts is an emotive issue—indeed, I know it to my cost! Some people would say that I am particularly foolhardy coming back to this subject considering how my contribution to the arts funding debate in January 1994 ultimately resulted in my being unceremoniously ousted from my job. But at least I do not have to worry on that score any longer.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I made then about general funding of the arts at columns 995 to 998 of Hansard, which are available in the Library. Suffice it to say that, as stated in numerous press articles since, I gave "almost universal offence to the arts fraternity" on that occasion by suggesting that arts funding should be monitored and that the people receiving arts funding should be accountable. Those words appeared as recently as last weekend. What I also said of course in that debate was—and this is never referred to—that the arts are one of the greatest assets of this country and have an enviable international reputation. We have to make sure that we preserve and increase that reputation.
The arts will always need funding, sadly, but we must consider whether the funding is best spent, or is it a case of he who shouts loudest gets most? Rather like the statement, "No taxation without representation", I submit that, as every taxpayer funds the arts, the greatest number possible of those taxpayers should benefit from such funding. It is most difficult to ascertain the actual numbers attending performances by the performing arts sector. Museum and art gallery visitors are tracked but not the total number of people who benefit from classical music, drama, contemporary dance and ballet. Total numbers of those who visit our ecclesiastical heritage are, however, available, and most impressive they are.
The right reverend Prelate has given us a special description of the problems facing the churches in England. What the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich did not say was that some 27 million people per annum visit our cathedrals and churches. A huge proportion of those people will he greatly enlightened by the process. Our cathedrals and churches are a unique British art form. They were designed, built and embellished by wonderfully creative artists, architects, tapestry weavers, stained glass artists, stone masons and

271
gilders. People come from all over the world to visit our British cathedrals and churches and to listen to and marvel at our unique choral tradition.
So much of our nation's cultural life is not necessarily home grown. Our orchestras play music by other nations' composers, as well, of course, as music by our own composers. Quite a lot of the performances offered by the subsidised art sector are not home grown. In the case of our cathedrals and churches they are a totally home-grown part of the our cultural heritage and deserve to be supported, certainly as much as the performing arts. That, of course, is not possible. Resources are just not available. What is really needed is a firm commitment to this part of our heritage, and the allocation of a major part of lottery funds would help.
The sums for the maintenance of the fabric are, I fear, very substantial. It is estimated that St. Paul's Cathedral alone will need some £50 million over the next 25 years just to secure the fabric. The 39 City of London churches currently spend £1 million per annum to do just that, and it is not enough. Those are the harsh facts of life of our unique ecclesiastical heritage.
In general terms, our Christian heritage is just as important, if not more so, than our performing arts heritage. We badly need to reinstate positive values— biblical values—in our nation.
Too many people believe that contemporary culture is exemplified by the TV programmes on offer. Just looking at a normal evening's offering on our screens shows how removed we are now from biblical values— serial killings, serial marriages, marital infidelity, break-up of families and so on. Visiting churches can and does inspire many to rethink values, and one can hardly fail to be affected by the fact that in visiting our great cathedrals and churches one is surrounded by the results of talents used for the glory of God, talents which thankfully are still available, not only in London; churches encourage a great deal of local employment in rural areas. I appeal to the Government to do all they can to ensure that the huge financial burdens of maintaining the fabric of our Christian heritage are lessened by additional funding from the public purse, be it the lottery or taxpayer or council taxpayer funds.
As I said last year, public funding of the arts should be monitored so that there is accountability. The fact that we have now found a new source of funds does not relieve us of the necessity to ensure that those funds are well managed and well spent. We must ensure that our cultural heritage does not become blithely dependent on subsidy. A culture dependent on subsidy could so easily become a dependency culture.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, all of us interested in funding for the arts are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing the topic as the subject for this debate. The issues raised are particularly relevant at the moment, for only last week we had the announcement of the first Arts Council lottery grants, which clearly affected both the general funding of the arts and the architectural heritage with which the arts are
272
inextricably intertwined. How happy the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, must be at the new potency gained by that much-maligned body.
However, two other events last week cause me to draw your Lordships' attention to the particular issue of disability and the arts. These are the completion of the passage of the helpfully amended Disability Discrimination Bill through another place and NCVO's worrying announcement that there has been a drop in voluntary donations to good causes of 15 per cent. since the advent of the National Lottery. On the first matter, I am confident that your Lordships will have further ideas for amending the Disability Discrimination Bill in order both to widen its scope and to ensure its effectiveness. On the second, I believe that it is up to the Arts Council Lottery Board to ensure that innovative projects aimed at improving access to the arts for disabled people do not fall by the wayside because of any voluntary deficit. I realise that this is a partisan plea, but I have never hidden my partisanship when it comes to matters concerning disability.
I want to turn briefly to the question of our theatres, which are surely at the heart of our architectural heritage in Britain, perhaps along with our churches. Theatre is the one art in which Britain has consistently excelled over centuries. An active theatre is a symbol of a healthy community. The reopening of a sleeping theatre has frequently served to restore confidence and investment in a neglected area, encouraging inner city regeneration and becoming a symbol of recovery. The presence of an audience encourages evening shopping, restaurant and cab trade and makes the town feel safer and better cared for.
We do well to look after our theatre wealth. Many theatres need major refurbishment and modernisation, and it would be a mistake to think that only the National Lottery should be considered to provide the needed funds. Investment in theatres at every level brings excellent returns.
In carrying out major works it is now understood that the needs of disabled people are taken into account, and this should be a priority in any such project. Where listed historic buildings are concerned it can be difficult to make the full range of provisions we would insist on as of right in new buildings, but architectural ingenuity can often solve seemingly intractable problems both for disabled members of the audience and for disabled performers and back-stage staff. Too often when arts are discussed in the context of disability, thought is paid only to the needs of disabled customers. As long as back-stage access is not addressed, arts will never flourish as a potential career for disabled performers or technicians.
Any of your Lordships doubtful about the possibility of reconciling severe disability with dramatic excellence should have joined the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in the Churchill Theatre in Bromley last October to see the Magpie Dance Group of people with severe learning disabilities—which will subsequently be appearing at the Royal Albert Hall in September—and Candoco. On that memorable evening a young man with no legs danced—from his wheelchair—alongside his able-bodied partner, and took the theatre by storm.

273
Let me end on a further positive note. A parent I spoke to last week listed the impressive number of concerts her profoundly and multiply disabled daughter had recently attended. She enjoys bhangra, Mozart, reggae, Peter Glass, Madonna—the list is endless. She goes with her carers at least once a fortnight to the Barbican, the Hackney Empire, the Coliseum and the South Bank. Like some other people with profound learning disability, she can be noisy and will sometimes scream and shout at moments when the performers are not doing so. Her mother told me that the Barbican in particular has gone to great trouble to accommodate her needs. She is taken off to the bar for a drink if she is getting too noisy. Her current tipple is, I believe, gin and tonic through a straw. The staffs wonderful response to this multiply disabled woman whose passion in life is music is driven by their sensitivity and flexibility. To them she is not a problem customer, she is a satisfied customer.
Perhaps that little story about a multiply disabled young woman, who attends concerts of her own choice, who is a home owner in her own right and by her own choice, also provides a comment on the recent discussion on the feasibility of choice for even the most severely disabled man or woman—where they might live and how they might pass their days and nights. The choice of theatre-going and concert-going must no longer be stymied by lack of facilities. My case rests.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: My Lords, I should like to comment briefly on the restrictions that limit grants of lottery funds towards revenue costs in the arts and heritage.
I welcome the fact that the original proposition that lottery funds should be for capital projects only has been somewhat modified and that now grants are allowed for revenue expenditure that arise from lottery-funded capital projects. The latter has been described by a Minister in another place as the revenue tail to a capital project.
I propose a policy more imaginative and proactive than revenue tails. I believe that revenue grants to arts and heritage should be permitted on a significantly wider basis, but without eroding the principle of additionality. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, I feel that the abandonment of additionality would provide far too good an excuse for a reduction in grants to the arts and heritage. However, I believe that additionality can be redefined and reinterpreted so that the principle may be followed, but not as it is at present.
We all know that there are likely to be a huge number of important and attractive capital projects seeking lottery funds. We have heard about those this evening. But the lottery is a very long-term source of finance. If the rules remain as they are, in time we shall be at risk of over funding new buildings while denying extra funds to allow better use, greater access and, most important, better maintenance of existing arts and heritage buildings.
274
Let me give two examples, regarding the first of which I must declare an interest as I have the honour of being the chairman of England's first ever public art gallery, which, as many noble Lords will know, is the Dulwich Picture Gallery.
This marvellous gallery with its fine collection of 17th and 18th century paintings has been grossly underfunded for decades. Until now we have received no public funding but for a contribution to our educational work from the enlightened Southwark Council. Now, under a new constitution, the trustees are determined to ensure that the gallery is endowed so that never again will its future be under threat.
It seems to me that such a cause—a gallery of huge historic significance, a Soane building of the greatest architectural importance and a picture collection that the nation should cherish—is an ideal candidate for lottery money for an endowment. We do not want to build an extension; we would not be allowed to do so anyway. What we need to do is to conserve and maintain the gallery, improve its facilities and make it more accessible to all while ensuring the highest curatorial standards.
The admirable National Heritage Memorial Fund has recognised that and is making a major contribution to our endowment appeal. But not a penny of that comes, or can come, from lottery funds. That fact obviously severely limits the size and number of grants that the NHMF can make for causes of that sort. I cannot think that that makes sense. The rules need changing so that cases of this nature are eligible for lottery funds.
My second example concerns funds for the performing arts. While recognising the need for many capital projects, large and small throughout the country, do not let us forget the good that lottery funds could do for the performing arts in expanding on existing funding from the Arts Council.
Why should lottery funds not be used to increase public accessibility, to reduce prices for students and young people in particular? It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, raised. The importance of reducing entry prices is great. Why should we not also use lottery funds to finance contemporary works of opera and drama and to help art education? Those are all good causes which anyone who has been concerned with the financial problems of the Lyric Theatre will know can rarely be adequately funded, if funded at all.
Lottery money should be made available for such purposes, not suddenly but gradually. My proposition is that, starting next year, up to 10 per cent. of lottery funds allocated to the Arts Council and to the NHMF should be allowed to be used for revenue costs. That proportion should be reviewed annually with perhaps the maximum permitted being gradually increased so that eventually possibly as much as half the total funds could be used for revenue purposes, always depending, of course, on the judgment of the Arts Council and the NHMF.
Finally, perhaps I may say a brief word on listing. I applaud the Secretary of State's decision to allow public consultation on the listing of buildings. Greater openness and consultation were desperately needed. Generally the Secretary of State should only list

275
buildings which enhance the built environment rather than disfigure it, as many do which are currently out for public consultation. English Heritage should perhaps also maintain a list of important public buildings whose demolition could only benefit the environment. Perhaps lottery funds might even be used to encourage that. Top of that list, of course, should be the Department of the Environment building itself.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for initiating this debate.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention briefly to an unresolved aspect of funding for the visual arts; namely, the nation's ability to purchase outstanding works of art as and when they become available.
In the current market, important pieces often cost over £10 million. Holbein's "Lady with a Squirrel", for example, was acquired by the National Gallery from 1992 to 1994 at a gross valuation of some £15 million, in a complicated arrangement involving several bodies. Although this was a happy outcome, it was by no means assured because of the precarious nature of the funding system, which has allowed us to lose such works as Edward James' unrivalled Surrealist collection and the Mantegna "Adoration". This year, Houghton's rare painting by de Troy, at only £3.5 million, is also likely to be lost. The National Gallery would have been its most suitable purchaser, but one consequence of spending so much of its resources on the Holbein was not being able to put in a bid for the de Troy.
Museums and galleries can turn to bodies such as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which until recently had an annual budget of approximately £12 million, now cut to £8.6 million. There are many calls on this money from aircraft museums to stretches of wild country. Not surprisingly, only part of their budget can go towards individual works of art. The National Gallery was fortunate to receive £3.5 million, spread over three years, towards the purchase of "The Lady with a Squirrel".
But there may come an occasion when more than the entire budget will be required for one great work of art. At present there is no mechanism for funding such a purchase. In order to raise the £7.6 million to keep Canova's "Three Graces" in this country, the Victoria and Albert Museum with the National Gallery of Scotland spent much of both their purchase budgets for several years to come, and still had to get a grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the National Arts Collection Fund, and public and generous private benefactions. That situation will occur again and again unless a proper system is devised now. Our major museums have purchasing budgets that do not allow them to compete on the open market with the vast purchasing power of far wealthier international museums.
Fortunately, in the past few years no two great works of art have come up for sale at any one time. But, were two collectors to die concurrently, it would be quite likely. Today Sotheby's have announced the sale of Luton Hoo's masterpiece, "St. Michael and the Dragon"
276
by Bartolomé Bermejo. It is the greatest 15th century Spanish painting outside Spain; its value quite imponderable, and we do not want to lose it. What would have happened if it had come onto the market last year? Offered for sale at the same time as the Canova, there would have been no way of raising the necessary funds for both.
I hope that I am right in assuming that the National Lottery will alleviate this problem. As of yet there has been no confirmation that funds from the lottery will be made available to the national galleries on a scale that will allow them to keep our finest works of art in this country. Although the lottery money is still to be allocated, what a mockery it would be if at the same time as building new museums with money from the Millennium Fund we allowed exactly the kind of art they were designed to house to leave the country. When works of national importance come up for sale, the Government must find some means of offering indemnity against later payment from the lottery.
Such a mechanism could be put into action when an emergency occurred—vital when it takes only three months for a work of art to pass through the process of auction. This, plus the six-month stop on exports, should provide enough time to get the money from the lottery. Moreover, there would be no need to establish a separate purchasing fund whereby money is put aside each year whether or not there are calls on it.
As the National Heritage Memorial Fund has so many diverse responsibilities it would be helpful to us all to have a reassurance from the Government that very substantial funds will be made available to the national galleries in emergencies. I do hope that the Minister can give us that assurance today.
8.58 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. However, once again I shall change direction and follow the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, on the subject of the theatre, which is also an important part of our national heritage. I must declare an interest as I am a trustee of the Theatre of Comedy—a wholly honorary position to which I succeeded on the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Tonight we have had three maiden speakers. I suppose that maiden speeches are rather like first nights—bundles of nerves. But I feel that they will all get good notices; and in the case of my noble friend Lord Hardwicke, who is so young, he should have a very long run.
It is interesting to note that the commercial theatre and the subsidised theatre are now much more interdependent than they ever have been before. Looking around the West End and the commercial touring circuit one sees the benefits of this mutual liaison. What is not generally known is that the subsidised theatre is producing much of its new work because commercial management is assisting with plays, star casts and money. As a result, grant money from the Government to the subsidised sector is a benefit to the whole theatre industry.

277
Unfortunately, the provincial theatre is in a much more precarious state. Attention was drawn particularly to that point by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. The recession and the drastic reduction in grants have taken their toll. That is very sad, as the provincial repertory theatre is where the seedcorn for future talent lies. Tonight we have heard much about the film industry but most of our great actors started their careers in repertory. If we allow the provincial repertory theatre to wither, we shall not be in the same position in the next generation. We must realise that the theatre is a very important attraction in our tourist industry. We must therefore consider the future and the opportunities for those talented youngsters who emerge from drama schools.
Much of this debate has been about historic buildings. It may come as a surprise to your Lordships to know that there are 27 grade II and two grade I listed theatre buildings in the West End alone. The Shaftesbury Theatre, which is the home of the Theatre of Comedy, is one of them. But none of those theatres can at present apply for heritage lottery funds for expenditure on non-profit restoration work for the public benefit. I hope that consideration can be given to correcting that anomaly.
I very much hope that the Minister will look into this matter. I did not give notice of those questions to my noble friend and I realise that he has a vast array of subjects to cover. Perhaps he will write to me subsequently about these matters.
9.1 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving me the opportunity tonight to speak on the heritage. It is my first attempt to speak as spokesman for the heritage from these Benches. In other circumstances, I might have chosen to speak on the plight of the film industry, but I have bored your Lordships on that subject previously. It is much more appropriate that that subject should be handled, in what I thought was an outstanding maiden speech, by the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke. I congratulate him. It was very appropriate that he should speak about the film industry because something over 70 per cent. of film audiences comprise people under the age of 24. I thank him very much for his contribution in that area.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord who introduced the debate that I was somewhat disappointed when he drew our attention to the fact that his forebear was granted his title for services to music rather than as a result of biscuits. If those services to music were as outstanding as the biscuits, which I enjoyed particularly when I was at school to supplement a rather meagre diet, then he was indeed deserving. But factories and biscuits lead on to the subject on which I wish to address your Lordships this evening; namely, the importance of our industrial heritage and the buildings and machinery that have been handed down to us, particularly from the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
278
Obviously, in recent years there has been a great change in public attitude toward our entire built heritage. That has been very beneficial in the fight to save the tangible remains of our exceptional island history. Before that all started—55 years ago, in fact— the National Trust began its invaluable work in conservation and preservation. It was mainly in the area of country houses, but even before the country house scheme came into place, there were a number of sites of industrial and historical interest under its umbrella.
I am aware that the National Trust draws upon itself criticism from time to time for all kinds of reasons and from all quarters. What great institution does not? This House should know something about that. The trust is known more for its work in preserving the coastline and great houses. What is less known is the continuing and useful work it has done, within very great financial constraints, to save valuable parts of our industrial archaeology. We need to pay tribute to that. It is wonderful that so many churches, great houses and gardens have been saved for us and our descendants to enjoy. Surely, few would deny our descendants the privilege of enjoying or even living in such beautiful buildings or worshipping in them. They are buildings which have come to us from a century notable for relative peace and a great growth in prosperity—not to mention the great talents of builders and architects during the same period.
Perhaps our industrial heritage is not so immediately attractive to the public at large. The cotton mills, water mills, paper mills, iron foundries, canal architecture and great beam engine pumping stations are enormously valuable reminders of that golden age. The industrial revolution which took place in this country and the momentum which created it are enshrined in those sites. They led to the undeniable greatness of this country in the period from the industrial revolution up to the First World War.
A great deal has remained of that heritage but sadly a great deal of it has disappeared, even though much of that building, like your Lordships' House, was of solid construction. There are still many cotton mills in Lancashire which have been almost totally ignored but, because of their solid construction, they are still there to be preserved. The National Trust has been working carefully and imaginatively for years within severe financial restraints but it cannot do everything and I do not suggest that it should. The greatest contribution in the whole area has been from groups of enthusiasts and independent bodies of various kinds. I believe that they should continue to show the way in this area, using the expertise of institutions such as the National Trust which has experience, particularly in estate management and so forth.
I, for one, hope that some of the lottery money will filter through to that important area. Those complexes and areas have received a great deal of public attention. The great water mill and 18th century complex at Styal in Cheshire has been going for a long time. In fact, it is one of the sites that came under the umbrella of the National Trust in 1940. A number of lessons have been

279
learned from that site; for example, how money runs away when one undertakes conservation of that kind. Nevertheless it is a prime example of what can be done.
Other schemes are now attracting a great deal of attention—not here but abroad—and particularly among the Japanese, which is something I hope the Minister will note. We should exploit—if I may use such an awful word—the interest of the Japanese in our history, and not only our industrial history. I am going to a Civil War re-enactment in June which is entirely for Japanese who are coming over to this country at great expense and showing an interest which one rarely finds among one's own countrymen.
We have so much of the great past to show our countrymen and visitors to our country and of course our descendants. They are very important and rarely mentioned, I notice, even in the Arts Council's briefing that I received today. It is our duty to preserve things for our descendants, I wished to speak when we discussed the bypass around Newbury recently, but I kept my head well below the parapet. Noble Lords were criticising the Government with enormous energy for delaying the scheme. Admittedly, I do not have to sweat and swelter in the traffic jams around Newbury. Nevertheless, if the bypass is built it goes across a prominent Civil War battlefield. People may think that cars are more important than battlefields. But will our descendants agree with that?
I conclude by saying that I am sure that the Government will give a great deal of support to many things that have been mentioned in this fascinating debate. I hope that they will think of our industrial heritage and that the noble Viscount will find time to carry that forward to discussions with his right honourable friend. I sum up by reiterating the words of the noble Lord who opened the debate. I hope that the Government will be able to do just a little bit more.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for so fluently initiating this important debate, which, on the evidence, might have deserved a full five hours. It has been graced by three distinguished maiden speeches. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke, upon excellent contributions. I very much agreed with the latter on the importance of the film industry. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, gave me particular pleasure since we were contemporaries at Oxford, taking the same class degree in the same subject in the same year. I felt that the quality and elegance of his speech clearly demonstrated why, and how far, he has moved ahead of me in the subsequent nearly 40 years.
On the general issue of funding the arts, I wholeheartedly endorse the point of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that government support for the arts is and always has been inadequate. It is derisory compared with our continental European neighbours. We noted that last year the Government cut the Arts Council grant by £3.2 million, the first time in its history that it had been cut. This year some was restored, but still it was £2.75 million short in real terms.
280
We also note that the arts spend includes tens of millions of pounds down the new British Library drain. Most damaging of all is the squeeze on local authority expenditure, where local authorities spend more on the arts than the Arts Council. The consequences of that can be seen all over Britain. Major regional theatres, as has been referred to, have a collective deficit of over £7 million, with several closing or threatening to close. Some orchestras are in serious financial difficulties and the discretionary grants for arts training have collapsed.
The basic cause of those problems is the refusal of government—not just this Government but British society as a whole—to recognise the crucial importance of the arts or to develop policies to invest in them. The case for investing more in the arts can be made on cultural grounds alone. A well-cultured society is a good in itself. But even for more philistine people who share the widespread Anglo-Saxon anti-intellectual, anti-arts tradition, a compelling case for greater arts investment can be made on economic grounds alone.
The arts constitute a crucial sector in our service economy. Together with related and dependent cultural industries such as publishing, recording, filming and broadcasting, they employ over 500,000 people in Britain and are our fourth largest earner of foreign exchange after banking, travel and shipping. That is all on a total public subsidy of around £500 million, which should be seen as an investment. It is not much more than the Government have spent or will spend on privatisation consultants, which could hardly be defended as a similar investment.
If we take London alone, where my connection is through membership of the London Arts Board, we learn that there are up to 12,000 organisations in London involved in the arts, culture and entertainment. They employ over 200,000 people —6 per cent. of the total of the capital's employment—and are a bigger employer than the construction industry. Arts turnover is up to £12 billion—6 per cent. of metropolitan GDP—and city audiences for the arts total around 100 million. Overseas earnings are £4 billion and contribute to an arts balance of trade surplus of £1.2 billion. Government support for the arts should not be viewed as negative public subsidy expenditure but positively, as productive investment with high cultural and economic returns.
The British often view the arts as some frivolous gilt on the gingerbread. In fact, they are a critical part of our economy. That is why we believe that investment in the arts must be sustained and improved. Noble Lords may say—and it is true—that the lottery has improved those prospects. We support that and we certainly hope that it results in some exciting arts projects in the years ahead, especially in the architectural field. I am attracted by the initial plans for Richard Rodgers' new South Bank. But it should not and does not mean that the Government can reduce their responsibilities. Once again I should like the Minister, for the record, to give the House an assurance on the question of additionality—that the lottery funds are additional to maintain public funding in the sector. I should also like him to assure us—I look forward to hearing what he says—on the revenue costs of new lottery arts buildings, where the lottery provides the capital. Have the Government any further ideas on

281
the revenue side? I look forward in particular to how he responds to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, as we certainly do not want white elephants that no one can afford to run. Is there any hope, under the existing contracts, of diverting any of Camelot's huge profits to the good causes? Why should Camelot's gross take be bigger than that of the arts sector?
Specifically, on discretionary grants, I wish to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said. The future of our performing arts depends wholly on our young getting training—training in music, ballet and drama. The discretionary grants for those courses have been savagely cut because of the Government's squeeze on local authority expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to his family's connections with music, the most profound of all artistic expression. Britain has recently enjoyed a golden age in music, with London hosting fine operas—I agree with what my noble friend Lord Chandos said in his advocacy of the case of the English National Opera—and also offering one great world-class orchestra—the London Symphony Orchestra, with which I should declare I have been connected for 16 years—and four other very fine orchestras. Will the supply of our young musicians be squeezed through the lack of discretionary grants? The London Symphony Orchestra has thrived on a combination of subsidy and a marvellous working relationship with the City Corporation. Its success on the world stage shows what subsidy and quality standards can achieve. That should be our aim in many other artistic areas.
On the other main issue of the built heritage, this side of the House is sympathetic to the points made with such conviction and experience by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply, who himself has considerable experience of the joys of life in great houses. I also take this opportunity to add that on the question of listed building status we do not oppose the Secretary of State's recent commitment to more consultation. However, we have two serious reservations: that any demolition proposals must be frozen during the consultation period and that the procedures for emergency spot-listing of buildings under threat must be made to work more efficiently.
On the lottery's potential contribution to private heritage houses, we have expressed before our concern that private owners should not be seen to increase their housing equity capital at public expense. But Labour wants to maximise the aid to the heritage. We therefore would suggest that the regulations should be amended to allow lottery proceeds to assist private historic houses provided there is significant and not token public access and provided owners who subsequently sell repay the grants which have been received for their property. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
As regards VAT, there seems to be a curious anomaly whereby repairs attract 15 per cent. VAT while alterations are zero rated. Owners of private historic buildings and parish churches state that the 15 per cent. repair tax is the biggest single obstacle to maintaining buildings. Has the Minister any proposals to remedy
282
that? For instance, what would be the revenue implications of having a single 8 per cent. rate for repair and alterations?
Finally, as regards the British Museum, I wish to reinforce the statement of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi that the British Museum is the jewel in our heritage crown. I hope that the Minister can assure us that in the immediate future the museum will be provided with the additional resources for its wonderful plans. Time slips by, the aesthetic delights of boxing still await some of us and I wish the Minister to be given full opportunity to answer this excellent debate.
9.20 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating this debate. He plays a valuable role in helping to preserve the national heritage on both sides of the Border—as an owner of a splendid house and through his work for the Historic Houses Association.
The arts and our built heritage are of the greatest importance to this country. I welcome this opportunity to explain to your Lordships the government's policies for the funding of the arts and the heritage.
If I may begin with the national lottery, introduced only four months ago, it has already proved to be a tremendous success and has raised over £300 million for good causes in only 20 weeks. Last month saw the first announcements of successful applications. The money raised is now beginning to do the good for which it is intended—to have a positive impact on the quality of life of everyone in this country. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is additional to government spending.
Many of your Lordships have raised the question of eligibility for lottery funding for the built heritage and, in particular, for private owners. As your Lordships are aware, lottery funds are to be distributed by five different bodies. Repairs to historic buildings are eligible to be considered by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. We have had the pleasure of hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who is the chairman, and I must take this opportunity to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It is particularly fitting that he should have been able to speak this evening in this debate.
It is for the noble Lord and his fellow trustees to interpret the extent of their powers and to set their priorities within the statutory framework and the Secretary of State's policy directions. Under the terms of the National Heritage Act 1980, private individuals and institutions or bodies established or conducted for profit are not eligible recipients. These powers apply equally to the distribution of lottery funds as to funding from the National Heritage Memorial Fund's grant-in-aid. In preparing the legislation for the lottery, the Government decided that it was not appropriate to seek to overturn that position. However, it is possible for private owners to arrange their affairs, should they wish to do so, in such a way as to become eligible for lottery funding. Privately-owned historic buildings may

283
be eligible for lottery funding if ownership is transferred to a charitable trust. As my noble friend Lord Crathorne said, there have been successful examples of that.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund may also consider applications for in situ purchases if it is convinced of the public benefit and if the proceeds of the sale are to be applied to the preservation of the building. I know that its trustees are keen to be flexible in their approach and to help private owners within the statutory framework.
I realise that these arrangements do not go as far as some of your Lordships would wish in help to private owners. However, we keep the arrangements for the lottery under review. But I must point out that we have no plans at the moment to amend existing legislation.
The range of our built heritage is extensive. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, today we recognise that many different aspects of our past are important. We no longer think only of cathedrals and stately homes as our heritage but also of some of the great textile mills as well as our industrial machinery and other heritage. But, having said that, our wealth of country houses must be one of our greatest treasures. The landscapes in which so many of them stand are one of our greatest inventions. As places of interest for visitors they are unsurpassed, not least because of their splendid collections—and that includes the individual owners who are also an integral part of the attraction.
We are all aware of the vital role that the National Trust plays in preserving and opening up so many houses to the public. It celebrates its centenary this year, and we all congratulate its present chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Indeed, I was brought up in a National Trust house. But, equally important, are the private owners who also open their doors.
The Government put great emphasis on ensuring that the public have access to our heritage. Many owners see themselves as trustees for the future and are proud to maintain and show their houses to visitors. The Government have long acknowledged their special position, and a range of measures is available to provide funding to help to protect this part of our heritage.
My department's principal expert adviser on the built heritage is English Heritage. It was established in 1984 to protect and encourage people to understand and enjoy England's architectural heritage and to have day-to-day responsibility for the execution of the Government's policy. I am extremely grateful for the welcome that was given by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury to our announcement about consultation on listing.
The principal responsibility for maintaining historic buildings rests with their owners, but support for private owners is available in the form of grants. Between 1984 and 1994 the Government's contribution to English Heritage increased substantially, from £49 million to over £104 million. English Heritage has also itself worked hard to increase its contribution towards the protection of England's heritage. This year it expects to raise over £17.9 million from income earned from its properties and membership. My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, its first chairman, was responsible for setting English Heritage on its prosperous course.
284
English Heritage runs a number of grant schemes, including for outstanding buildings listed Grade I and II*. To ensure that resources are targeted to where they are most needed, English Heritage introduced a full and substantive needs assessment procedure in 1989.
I recognise that refocusing English Heritage grants on buildings at most immediate risk has meant that there has been a reduction in the amount of grant-in-aid going to private houses. But English Heritage's policy of targeting money where it is most needed must be right. However, I also recognise the need not to penalise owners of historic houses. English Heritage has been re-examining the needs of private historic house owners in the light of representations made in this House and elsewhere. I am currently considering its proposals.
I have also initiated discussions between English Heritage and the Historic Houses Association on the way in which owners' resources are assessed when calculating need. Jocelyn Stevens, the chairman of English Heritage will keep me informed of the progress of those discussions.
In addition to the assistance provided through the Government's expert advisers on the heritage, my department also provides help through the National Heritage Memorial Fund, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, until 1992. Since its creation in 1980 the fund has made substantial resources available for the acquisition, maintenance and preservation of some of England's finest architectural and historic treasures.
I have spoken about different sources of grants for the protection of the built heritage. But there are other important sources of funding. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned maintenance funds. This is a technical subject but also an important one, so I shall try to explain why they work as they do. The owner of an outstanding property is able to set aside income-earning assets in a discretionary trust for at least six years. The income is dedicated to maintaining the house, which remains in his ownership. The noble Lord stated that the settlers of maintenance funds have given away their own money, land or chattels and that this provides a public benefit. I do not deny that there is a public benefit. Indeed it would be wrong to grant the tax reliefs if there were not a public benefit.
I am aware of the burden on private owners because of their commitment to retaining their heritage. I admire and respect this commitment. The costs of repair can often be very high. The noble Lord referred to a debate in this House in 1992 when I promised to consider the points made in regard to maintenance funds. There have been discussions since then with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and representatives of the Historic Houses Association, and others. We believe that the present package of tax reliefs provided for maintenance funds strikes the right balance. There are now some 100 approved funds rather than 60. However, the Government will always be willing to look at any proposals to improve the tax regime, and particularly the way in which maintenance funds operate, to the benefit of the built heritage.

285
As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said, the protection of our ecclesiastical heritage is a responsibility which the Government take very seriously. Substantial funding is provided to assist with the repair and maintenance of historic church buildings. For churches in active use, funding is channelled through English Heritage, and is for the most part directed towards buildings that are of outstanding architectural or historic interest: those listed grade I or II. English Heritage grant-in-aid, which includes a contribution to VAT, has saved many churches that would otherwise have become redundant or fallen into disrepair.
English Heritage last year made grants totalling more than £13 million for the repair of churches and some £4 million for cathedrals. This sum was part of the cathedral repair grant scheme launched by the Government in 1991 and intended to assist repairs of cathedrals. A further £4 million is available for 1995–96. No less than 53 of England's 61 cathedrals should by then have benefited from the grant scheme.
I listened with great care to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I recognise the concern expressed by him about VAT. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Gage on his maiden speech. He was also concerned about VAT, but about repairs more generally.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish explained during a debate recently that the Government remained opposed to a variety of reduced rates of VAT on anything other than domestic fuel and power. The European Commission has just published a report on the approximation of VAT rates having regard to the functioning of the internal market. The report also sought to establish whether distortions of competition between member states had arisen as a result of the operation of reduced rates in the single market. The review concluded that in the present circumstances there did not appear to be any justification for introducing major modifications in respect of the level and structure of the rate system or the scope of the reduced rate list. Under the relevant EC directive no new zero rates can be introduced. The Government's long-standing policy has been to favour a simple rate structure with a single standard rate and a zero rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said that the Government encouraged partnerships between the public and private sector. He is right. The past 20 years have seen a quite remarkable increase in business sponsorship of the arts. In 1976 business sponsorship stood at a modest £0.5 million. By 1994, business support was £70 million. The business sponsorship incentive scheme, which has been rechristened the pairing scheme, was established in 1984. The scheme has so far attracted over £85 million in new money for the arts. Since the principle of sponsorship incentive has been so successful in both sport and the arts, I have recently extended this principle to the built heritage by launching a pilot scheme. Run by the Association for British Sponsorship of the Arts, it is based in the north of England. We are providing £150,000 for matching awards under the scheme. It will bring together, in a new partnership, businesses and those undertaking projects
286
which widen access to, and assist in the repair of, the built heritage. We will be closely monitoring the success of this scheme.
Funding for the arts in this country has long been a complex animal. In terms of direct support for the arts, the Government's chief contribution is through the Arts Council. Our commitment has been amply demonstrated over many years, with substantial real terms increases in the Arts Council's grant. Since 1979 there has been an increase in real terms of over 40 per cent. This year the Arts Council of England will receive £191 million, £5 million more than in 1994–95 —evidence of the high regard in which we in the Department of National Heritage hold the arts.
The relationship between government and the Arts Council has always been based on the arm's length principle under which it is for the council to allocate the funds it receives to individual arts organisations. That is a great responsibility for the council and one which it continues to discharge admirably. Since becoming chairman, my noble friend Lord Gowrie has introduced a number of initiatives to ensure that the public and Parliament understand the processes behind the allocation of grants and lottery funding, which will result in a dramatic improvement in arts facilities the length and breadth of this country and will be of lasting benefit.
It is especially welcome that the first awards by the Arts Council should have been for such a wide range of projects, from national companies to small community projects. The lottery will provide the first opportunity for many arts organisations, particularly amateur ones, to invest in not only buildings, whether new or old, but in equipment, musical instruments, vehicles, renovations, improved access and much more.
I must point out to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that those grants have been made under the existing rules. There already is flexibility. We keep all policy directions under Section 26 of the National Lottery Act under review and will monitor the success of the lottery.
We must not forget local authorities, because after central government support, the largest source of public funds for the arts is local authority funding. The total amount spent on arts provision by English local authorities is similar to that spent by the Government each year—about £180 million. I am pleased to see that, despite difficult times, in general their support for the arts is being maintained and in many authorities has increased in recent years.
Perhaps I may now turn to film, and in doing so I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hardwicke on his maiden speech. His speech too was apt because the Select Committee has just published its report on film. The Government will want to study carefully what the report has to say before we reach a decision on what shape the Government's approach should take in the future. But we are currently looking at how support measures now deliver the objective of encouraging the making of British films and whether they are effective in enabling those films to be seen by British audiences. The current position is encouraging: there has been a marked increase in production levels in the past three

287
years. In 1992, 32 British-produced films were made. In 1994, the number rose to 50. There is a growing audience for films in cinemas in this country. We are seeking to make this country as attractive a place as possible for film production. We set up the British Film Commission and we see its role as being of key importance in the development of the thriving production base.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to the British Library's move to St. Pancras, which will enable the British Museum to utilise a further 40 per cent. of the Bloomsbury site. I can assure the noble Lord that any case made to the Government for extra funding will be considered in the normal way as part of the public expenditure survey process.
I am pleased to report that the terrible technical problems which have beset the new library building at St. Pancras seem—having said this before, I stress the word "seem"—at last to be under control. The construction is now on schedule for completion during the third quarter of 1996, with handover to the British Library planned for the last quarter of 1996.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to the difficulties faced by students at the Royal College of Music in obtaining discretionary awards. Discretionary awards are a matter for local authorities and it is for them to decide which students to support, and at what rates, in the light of local needs and priorities. It is true that in recent years authorities have been giving greater priority to further rather than higher education in distributing the funds available. This has not, however, prevented a rapid increase in the numbers of students undertaking postgraduate study in recent years. I can tell the noble Lord that as regards students unsuccessful in obtaining a discretionary award, the Department of Employment's career development loans scheme is a widely available alternative.
No one can doubt the vitally important part that the arts play in all our lives. They have the ability to educate, stimulate, calm, excite, amuse or annoy—and sometimes they can do most of those at the same time. More and more people are using their leisure time to join in the arts and increasing numbers of people are attending operas, concerts, theatre, the ballet and so forth. Almost all our overseas visitors make at least one visit to a theatre, museum or gallery or to an historic property during their stay. Indeed, those form a major reason for their visiting this country in the first place.
Tourism's relationship with the arts and our heritage is a two-way street. For example, historic properties attracted £222 million from visitor revenues in 1992, and our national museums and galleries, some £44 million in 1993–94. We estimate that in 1993 West End theatres gained some £69 million from overseas visitors alone. I have not forgotten the contribution of my noble friend Lord Montgomery. Perhaps I may write to him on some of the technical points he raised tonight.
Noble Lords have raised a wide range of issues and all have had a fairly short time to speak. I too have had to canter rather rapidly round the course. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate the fact that the Government take the question of funding for the arts and the heritage very seriously. A thriving arts sector
288
and our unique heritage are vital assets and make an important contribution to the economic health of the country. The Government recognise that contribution and will continue to provide the substantial resources required to ensure that they are available for enjoyment not only by the present generation but also by future generations.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, it certainly has been a wide-ranging and fascinating debate and has lived up to all the expectations that many of us had tonight. We have been treated to three excellent maiden speeches. I am sure that we all enjoyed the opening performance from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench representing the heritage sector. I was delighted too to hear the most encouraging comments from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. They gave me great cheer tonight.
Naturally, I was disappointed that the noble Viscount was unable to give way on the treatment of income tax and capital gains tax on maintenance funds. I am afraid I must assure him that we shall continue to keep up the pressure. Indeed, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will not return to Norwich and forget about VAT. The Government must expect more pressure, in particular on those two issues.
Almost all noble Lords mentioned the National Lottery, and have said what a shame it is that it cannot help the private sector. I believe that the Government have a moral duty to look at that again. I hope that tonight at least some seeds have been sown for the future. Let us hope for a more positive attitude towards the arts and the architectural heritage. I thank all noble Lords most sincerely for their contributions and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First, I should outline the purpose of the Bill, which is to prohibit professional boxing. It has nothing to do with boys' clubs or stopping amateur bouts. It is concerned simply with professional boxing and perhaps the debate could limit itself to the impact of professional boxing on our national life.
I speak with the full support of the British Medical Association. I suggest to your Lordships that the opinion of that authoritative body should be given some weight and consideration when making a judgment on the Bill.
The Bill has a long history. It was introduced by Lady Summerskill way back in 1962. I introduced the Bill in 1981 and again in 1991. I introduced it in 1991 because at that time most of us felt sensitive about that issue due

289
to the very serious injuries that were caused to Mike Watson, who is now in a wheelchair and who will never really recover from the injuries caused to him on the night of his last fight.
Since then, of course, Bradley Stone, a young boxer who hoped, by going into the ring in London, to be able to pay off his mortgage and get married, has died in the ring in London.
And then some of us no doubt saw the last exhibition of national note—the fight between Nigel Benn and Gerald McLellan. It was the experience of watching that fight which induced me again to introduce this Bill. I remember quite clearly watching the fight because Nigel Benn emerged into the ring with a great deal of excitement and hype and across his dressing gown were the words "The Black Destroyer". Therefore, there was no doubt as to what was his purpose in the ring. By the same token, his opponent, Gerald McLellan, who as a hobby raises bull terriers in the United States, had said:
"I get a buzz from knocking people unconscious".
That spectacle takes place in a ring. There is great excitement.
I received a letter this morning from a 16 year-old girl who is writing an essay on this subject at her school. I do not know who she is but she lives somewhere in Maidenhead. She quotes also Gerald McLellan:
"'When I am in the ring with another fighter', he said recently, 'I look across the ring and see this guy I have so much hate for. I have so much desire to knock this guy unconscious'".
Is that the kind of spectacle which we, in a civilised society, with some standards of human decency, should encourage or even permit? I am not a natural "banner". I am a bit of a libertarian. But there are certain activities which we introduce in our society which are stamped as being civilised. Boxing is not one of them.
Cases of damage to boxers are well documented in the literature of the British Medical Association. It is not only that people are killed in the ring, it is also the delayed effect on hundreds of boxers who subsequently suffer from dementia—the punch-drunk syndrome. The example of that which is known to most noble Lords is, of course, the sad and pathetic case of Muhammad Ali. He was a brilliant athlete in his day, but here he is today going about without much knowledge of what he is saying or doing. Muhammad Ali is one case which is well known. However, there are many cases of young boxers who are similarly afflicted. We must not only count the people who have been killed in the ring; we must also count those who have suffered long-term damage.
Very few boxers make money out of the business, although the initial incentive is that they hope to do so. That is particularly true now of young blacks, whereas it used to be more true of young working class boys.
In previous debates it has been pointed out to me that other sports are dangerous and people ask why we do not ban them. Of course other sports are dangerous, but boxing is the only sport in which people are committed to doing damage to other people. That is the purpose: knocking them unconscious. That is the buzz.
290
Of course, people are damaged by playing rugby football or other sports. But that is not the purpose of the sport; it is incidental to it. Other people have told me that boxing teaches discipline. But do we need that kind of thing to teach discipline? Is the only way that we can teach discipline to introduce youngsters into the ring to try to knock each other unconscious? People also say that it is a good thing that the boys' clubs practise boxing and that they do not do very much harm, indeed, they do some social good. I would concede that point. But the Bill is not about boys' clubs. I am not sure that it is the only way in which one keeps boys off the streets of the East End of London or Glasgow. There are other sports and other activities which could be encouraged and which are much more socially desirable than boxing.
If one considers, for example, the Nigel Benn versus Gerald McLellan fight, it will be realised that all such contests are created in an atmosphere of excitement and hype. What we are doing is glamorising violence in a world where violence is one of the greatest dangers to our society and to decency in that society. Let us forget about boxing being a noble art. The man who wins is the man who knocks the other fellow unconscious. That is the purpose of the sport.
Certain people have pointed out to me that if we ban boxing we will drive it underground. However, that has not happened in Scandinavia, where the sport has been banned. No one can believe that boxing would survive as an underground sport. We banned cockfighting in this country. Why did we do so? Why did we ban bare knuckle fighting? We did so because we felt that such things were offensive in our society.
The British people have shown a great sensitivity as regards the welfare of animals. We have seen that in recent cases involving the export of animals abroad. We have in the past banned cockfighting. I cannot understand the people who become all alarmed and excited about damage to animals and who are not equally and deeply concerned about damage to other human beings in a public spectacle. I would suggest to those of us who really want to see a better and more decent society that we should seriously consider why this so-called sport should not be banned. I leave it at that at this stage.
During the previous debate on this subject there was a most moving contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who looked at this matter—as inevitably he would—as a Christian. I try to do the same myself. I consider that our lives are a treasure given to us by God and we have no right to destroy this intricate mechanism or do damage to our bodies if we live in trust. I suggest to those noble Lords who profess the Christian faith that this is a most unchristian activity of setting one human being against another intent on doing him physical damage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
9.56 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is unable to be with us this evening but I draw comfort from his interest in the subject. Probably most noble Lords know that he spoke in the previous debate on this matter on 4th December 1991 when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, introduced exactly the same Bill as is before your Lordships. On that occasion the Bill was rejected. It is only just over four years since your Lordships have had the chance to address the subject. We must ask what has changed to make it essential that we have to invest parliamentary time on the same subject again, and in such a short timescale.
I would remind your Lordships that last evening the Commons were presented with a similar Motion on a 10-minute Bill and that was defeated on a ratio of 2:1, or 120 votes to 60. That does not mean to say that we cannot have our own opinion.
My experience of boxing goes back to my school days. I have no hesitation in admitting that in those days I was feared when I went into the ring. However, I drew strength from being taught properly and from winning a couple of bouts at the end of the day. It was part of the character forming training in a school that prided itself on the number of old boys who ended up as members of the country's national rugby side, the All Blacks.
Today the sport suffers from the voice of the "banners" but it serves a function. It helps young men to learn discipline, responsibility and competitive skills, particularly, I understand, within the National Association of Boys Clubs. Even though the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, would rather we did not discuss this, and even though the proposal is to ban professional boxing, boxing as a sport has to be considered.
I believe that if the promotion of this sport were to be made illegal, as defined in this Bill, there would be a most dangerous result. The management of the sport would fall into the hands of the unqualified. It would be driven underground, and therefore be deprived of the valuable regulation that is required to avoid many of the obvious pitfalls inherent in what is a potentially dangerous pastime, as in the case of other confrontational sports such as kick-boxing. I understand that kick-boxing was banned in Ontario. It has now moved to Quebec, where it continues. Even sports such as karate and other closely allied Japanese personal confrontational sports are all, in essence, included in this Bill.
In considering the merits or otherwise of this sport of boxing we are not dealing with a recent phenomenon but a sport—some would say even an art form—that can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, even to 688 BC.
Since the 18th century boxing has been made very much more acceptable in the eyes of many by the use of padded gloves, the invention of which is generally credited to Jack Broughton, who was for many years champion boxer of England. There is even a thought
292
abroad today that gloves are not the answer and that bare knuckle fighting has the benefit of the protection of pain. That is a thought we shall dwell on another time.
The most popular 18th century teacher of the art was John Jackson, sometimes known as Gentleman John Jackson. Among his pupils was Lord Byron, who when chided for keeping company with a pugilist insisted that Jackson's manners were:
"infinitely superior to those of the fellows of the college whom I meet at high table".
It was around 1866 when John Chambers and the 8th Marquess of Queensbury drew up a code to cover all boxing contests in the United Kingdom. Those rules remain substantially the governing rules of boxing today.
If we were debating this evening the possibility of new codes of practice to tighten up the existing regulations concerning improved referee responsibility or tighter medical controls on the sport, I for one would be prepared to give the proposals a sympathetic hearing. So, I believe, would the British Boxing Board of Control, whose work has been unstinting not only in protecting the sport but also in going beyond even overseas control bodies in ensuring that the boxer is fit to undertake the task he faces and that there are no problems before he goes into the ring and as soon as the fight is over. Such protection is available right through the fight, and is an example to every institutional body of this type.
Sadly, that is not the case. The Bill we are debating tonight, as drafted, proposes an outright ban on boxing for profit. As I have said, that would have the effect of driving underground into an unregulated regime an activity which rightly requires a certain level of regulation. But it also requires a high level of exposure.
I have been advised that there has already been one case of a senior boxer, who fears the advent of this very Bill or similar legislation, who has been involved in such an unlicensed fight. If that continues, then we face real problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke of Norway, Sweden and Iceland, where professional boxing has been banned. I do not know whether he is aware that the distance from Sweden to Denmark is a little over half-an-hour by ferry. All the boxer has to do is to go by boat to Denmark where he can be licensed; and with perhaps a little more money in his pocket he can come to this country. Therefore the question of this issue going underground has nothing to do with the situation in that country. In fact, our friends from Scandinavia may possibly be rather more law-abiding than we are, and for a very good reason. Their ethnic and cultural structure is more consistent than ours. Instead of going underground, those who wish to pursue a professional boxing career can simply get on a ferry.
I well remember when I lived in Sweden that Ingemar Johanssen was the country's hero at the time he fought for the world heavyweight championship. We are considering the future of an ancient sport which has shown itself ready and willing to adapt to sensible regulation over the years. Adaptation and not banning is the answer. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").—(The Viscount of Oxfuird.)
10.7 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in speaking to this Bill there are two matters that I have to make clear. First, I do not speak on behalf of my party. As I believe we are about to find out, it is a subject which will split all parties in your Lordships' House. I have an interest too, although non-pecuniary, as I am vice-president of the Lonsdale Club.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, stated that he was interested in professional boxing. Amateur boxing would not be able to survive for the simple reason that the Bill, as drafted, refers to no boxing matches for profit. Amateur boxing clubs survive on funds generated from their displays and tournaments. The noble Lord shakes his head, but let me assure him that that is correct.
The Bill totally fails to take into account the fact that many other full contact, striking martial arts take place in this country. If this measure has to be all encompassing, it should take those into account. I refer to kick-boxing or Thai boxing. The Bill would have to define—it does not do so—exactly what one means by boxing. As we all know, the way one gets round something that has an illegal name is to give it another name. The Thai equivalent in English—kick-boxing—would quite easily get around this Bill. There is also full contact tae kwon do and karate. Those sports are infinitely more dangerous because one is allowed to kick at the head.
One has to take into account that martial arts are the greatest growth area in sport in Britain. That is a fact. There is a great diversity of activity. When people go into a martial arts contest, they seek to achieve physical dominance. Most of those sports are regulated by a points system. The stoppage can be regarded as a way of terminating the contest when someone is unfit to continue.
The noble Lord made a good and well-crafted speech on the moral ground that one is seeking to destroy someone. Possibly the stoppage may be regarded as a safety valve. It depends how one looks at such matters.
No matter what is said on the issue, boxing is a martial art, if one defines such sports as karate as being a martial art. Such sports do not make contact all the time but limit contact until the higher levels of the sport. Moreover, how long will it be before we stop any game in which you drive at somebody or run at them, as happens in Rugby Union or Rugby League, to try to knock them out of the way? That is allowed in both those rugby football codes. I know because I have played those games. On occasions, you run at someone to knock him out of the way and another person will run at you to try to knock you flat. That is the sport.
On the grounds on which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has brought forward this Bill, those two sports of Rugby Union and Rugby League would have to be
294
stopped. So would American gridiron football as well. In those sports, players run at each other to knock them out of the way and achieve physical dominance. There is a line of logic that derives from the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord can see that. I cannot put it more clearly.
It may surprise noble Lords to know that the sport which carries the highest death toll in this country is hill-walking. Moreover, motor racing—and motorcycling, as my noble friend says in an aside—also carries risks. Many sports are inherently dangerous. I suggest that this Bill is fundamentally flawed in both its drafting and approach. We can discuss the moral arguments later. However, I suggest that the Bill itself does not address the issues raised in the noble Lord's speech. The Bill is too narrowly drawn. It is a blunt instrument and badly aimed. It aims at professional boxing but it will eliminate the way in which amateur boxing is funded.
I hope that, when noble Lords consider how they will vote on this amendment, they will take into account all the secondary issues. They should not simply consider the very good speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. As it is currently constructed, the Bill will stop any sport which is deemed to be boxing—or any martial art—at an amateur level because it will cut off its funding. We must consider this matter very carefully.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Taylor reminded us, we have debated this topic on a number of occasions. The last time I went into some detail of the history of boxing in the United Kingdom. I do not intend to do that again tonight. It is rather late and I do not feel that we should profit much from it. In any case, the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, has done it for me.
However, I want to make clear at the outset that I am an administrative steward of the British Boxing Board of Control, a member of the area council of the Wales Boxing Board of Control and a patron of the Welsh Ex-Boxers' Association. I also have a number of other involvements in boxing. None of them is financial. Indeed, if there is a financial input, it comes from my pocket.
I have been fascinated by boxing ever since I was a very young boy. My uncle had a gymnasium in Cardiff in the area where I was born, which was a very much deprived area. I learnt a number of lessons as a result of being taught by my uncle how to defend myself. I learnt that it was wrong to bully. I learnt that it was wrong to suffer bullies. I also learnt humility.
I remember that, after I had been going to the gymnasium for a couple of years, I was bullied by someone in my school. He was the bane of my life until I could stand it no longer and we fought. I beat him; and I beat him because of the disciplined training I had received from the gymnasium I attended.
Let me bring that experience up to date. A couple of years ago a world champion was due to defend his title in the north of England. On arrival here it was discovered that he was medically unfit. The television

295
had been booked for the show and all the seats had been sold. I was asked whether I thought that a young Cardiff boxer named Steve Robinson would be a fit opponent to fight for the title.
At that time Steve Robinson had a mixed record. My answer was that I did not believe it would be a mismatch. I did not think that Robinson would win, but I felt that he would be a worthy opponent. In the event Robinson won the World Boxing Organisation featherweight title. Steve Robinson is a black boy from a council estate in Ely, a very deprived estate which had terrible publicity a few years ago. At the time he fought for the title he was earning £80 a week stacking shelves in a supermarket. He has gone on to defend the title five times, has earned hundreds of thousands of pounds and is now settled for life.
I cannot describe Steve Robinson adequately. He is one of the most humble young men I have ever met. A great deal of affection has grown for him in Cardiff. He is a role model for the many hundreds of young people on the Ely estate. But the irony is that about the time he won that title, two young thugs—contemporaries of Steve Robinson from the estate—were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for beating to death an innocent elderly man. I am not suggesting that Steve Robinson might have turned out to be a thug if he had not been a boxer with the discipline that had been instilled into him by virtue of that. But I suggest that if those young thugs had had the discipline that Robinson received in the gymnasium, one elderly innocent man might still be alive today.
That is one of the lessons one is taught. I am afraid that I was never very good at boxing. In fact I share a distinction with the late, great, Rocky Marciano, former heavyweight champion of the world. He boxed 49 times and won all 49 contests; that is 100 per cent. I boxed four times and lost on each occasion. That is 100 per cent. also, whichever way one looks at it.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe says that Sweden abolished professional boxing and yet it has not gone underground. Of course not; it has gone across the border. Young men of ability in boxing who wish to make a career in the professional game have simply gone across the border to Denmark and taken out a licence. Ingemar Johannsen can be seen at the ringside at British shows commentating for Scandinavian television. So even if the Bill were successful, it would not stop young British boys turning professional and earning money boxing. They would simply pop over to France, Belgium, Germany or wherever, take out a licence, and the fights in which they were engaged in other countries would be beamed by satellite television to this country. That is the reality of life.
I am not suggesting that simply because we have modern innovations there is no merit in what my noble friend is trying to do. But the burden of the case is this. There are many thousands of young men in this country who go to boxing gymnasiums and learn the disciplines and skills of boxing. And if anybody believes that there is no skill in boxing then they should try it. I do not know of one champion at any level who was a mere slugger. One must learn the science of boxing to become a champion. There is great skill involved in it and we
296
would be doing a disservice to the youth of this country, a disservice to sport, if a Bill of this nature were ever to pass either this House or another place.
10.19 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is what we Scots call "a bonny fighter". I am not sure whether that is apposite to the Bill but we have been here before, as has been pointed out, and I dare say we will be here again. The noble Lord's views on boxing are consistent and very well known to your Lordships. I used to agree with him, but I have changed my mind, as he knows and as I have told him. So let me say, first, where I agree with him.
I agree that professional boxing is a barbarous sport. I do not really agree with my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, because there is no real protection against the brain damage caused by professional boxing. There cannot be. It is the closest thing we have to the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome. It is a mixture of skill and savagery. That is why it is popular; and, so long as human beings remain what they are, it is likely to remain popular. That said, no one today becomes a professional boxer without being aware of the risks of long-term brain damage. It is voluntary, unlike the gladatorial games, and often very rewarding financially. It may be, and often is, that when the boxer has amassed his fortune his damaged brain does not allow him to enjoy it very much or possibly keep it for very long. If he is not aware of these risks at the start, he will probably be too stupid to be a good boxer and his brain, such as it is, will remain unimpaired.
I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, because he wants the sport to he banned. We are at the stage today when far too many people want to ban activities of which they disapprove. I hasten to acquit the noble Lord of being one of those as his views have been consistent over very many years. But here we are. We have smoking, drinking, fox hunting, boxing—I could go on. There is a long list of activities which are now legal but which various pressure groups wish to make illegal. That cannot be a healthy state of affairs in a free country.
I have recently received letters which the British Medical Association has been good enough to write to me. I dare say that I am not alone among your Lordships in that. The latest was, predictably, on boxing. As I recall, the letter started with the proposition that the case against amateur boxing is not proven. It ended with the statement that the British Medical Association seeks a ban on all boxing. Why all boxing? I suppose that it would like us to end up with notices depicting a pair of boxing gloves with a red line through them in all boys' clubs and gymnasiums, in the same way as the ubiquitous no smoking notices.
I am aware that doctors have to be there to pick up the pieces when we fall ill owing to our own foolishness, but I would say to the BMA that it knows better than most of us that life is a very uncertain thing. There is a certain randomness in the way in which the British Medical Association chooses those activities of which it disapproves. I shall not say much about this, but we all know that sodomy leads to AIDS. However,

297
there is no campaign against it by the British Medical Association. There also seems to be a tendency to disregard anything which may be found in favour of any activity which it happens to dislike. No facts which tend to show that smoking may in certain cases be beneficial are allowed to disrupt the seamless web of its disapproval. The fact that boxers, as we have heard, may possess a certain nobility of character and courage beyond the ordinary and that those qualities are desirable, especially in young men, is brushed aside. I sometimes think that some of these researchers start at their conclusion and then work backwards.
Free men have a right to a free choice. Smoking, boxing, fox hunting and drinking alcohol all carry risks. But people have a right to take those risks. Whether we approve or disapprove of those activities is up to us, but I do not believe that they should be banned by law.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if this Bill gets its Second Reading, as I hope it will, we shall certainly be in for an interesting Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Addington will see to that.
I was discussing professional boxing the other day over the lunch table with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I was saying to him that I could not understand why anyone wanted to spend £100 or more on a ringside seat when if one liked that sort of thing one could see it for nothing on the box. The noble Lord said to me, "You are forgetting something. With a ringside seat you have the added thrill that you may be bespattered with blood". I must say that that is one of the things that would not appeal to me.
The fans will tell you that they do not go to watch anybody get hurt—oh no! They go to watch the skill. Why is it that most of the big fights are between big men? Do not the little men exercise just as much skill as the big men?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, more
Lord Airedale: My Lords, or more so indeed, but they are not so strong or likely to knock each other unconscious and so the crowds tend to keep away. I believe that that says something about the crowds who turn up for big fights between big men. Whether professional boxing can really be called a sport at all I rather doubt. It is certainly part of the entertainment industry, but whether it is in truth a sport I would doubt.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, said, the doctors are going to win this argument in the end. They have won it already over smoking. There is a little way to go, but smoking is becoming increasingly unacceptable in society and the doctors will go on pressing home the point that if your object is to knock people unconscious you are going to damage the brain and that is going to inflict permanent injury. The doctors will win this argument in the end. I wish that they could win it much sooner than looks likely.
10.27 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised if I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Airedale. I would like to declare that I have an interest as I am president, and my noble friend Lord Addington is vice-president, of the Lonsdale International sporting club. In my case too it is purely an honorary position. The club's aims are to promote all sports, which includes boxing, at amateur and professional level and to raise money for such organisations as the National Association of Boys' Clubs which encourage boys to have a worthwhile purpose and a role in life.
I am not going to dwell long on opposing this Bill. Most of the arguments against it have already been raised. If passed, I believe, as my noble friend Lord Addington has emphasised, that this Bill will affect amateur boxing. It will prevent money being raised at these events for charitable purposes. I agree that boxing is a rough sport. Unfortunately, boxers have been seriously hurt and, tragically, some have died. That is a well-known risk which these people take and they are fully aware of the consequences.
It is my belief that boxing must be regulated from within. I must give praise to the British Boxing Board of Control for its continuous monitoring of regulations and safeguards. As regards injuries, a body of neurological surgeons has set up a working party to examine the board's requirements relating to head injuries et cetera. Britain has a high reputation for looking into the safeguards of the sport, and I believe that that should be noted.
A great many members of the public watch these events whether on television or at the actual event itself. If there was an overwhelming feeling against the sport and if people really opposed boxing, whether amateur or professional, they would stay away and boxing bouts would lose money. That is the answer: if people do not like boxing, they do not have to watch it or be involved in any way.
Professional boxing is big business and more money is involved in it than in any other sport of which I can think. It is not surprising if a young man with ability decides to pursue boxing as a career. I am satisfied that, especially in Britain, the controls and regulations are continually being monitored and conducted responsibly.
Mention has been made of boxing going underground. In some respects it is already an underground sport in that unlicensed boxers already take part in bouts that are watched by a great many people. If boxing is banned, that will happen to an even greater extent and will be an even greater danger to those involved. I shall not class boxing with such things as cock-fighting (which takes place in my part of the world, the west country) or with badger-baiting. However, although both of those barbaric sports have been banned, it is a well-known fact that they continue.
As I have said, other sports involve a higher degree of injury and death but I hear of no moves to ban them. In many cases I would not want to do so. For a number of years I was the manager of a power boat team involved in inshore power boat racing, such as on the

299
Bristol docks. It was a highly dangerous sport. Over a period of two years about 12 or 13 years ago, eight drivers were killed, but nobody made any moves to ban that sport. Although a great many more drivers are killed or injured than boxers, there has been no outcry about that. It is obvious that I oppose the Bill.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I must declare an interest as an appeal steward at the British Boxing Board of Control, unhappily with the same rather negative financial consequences as those suffered by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, offers the House yet another return contest for this Bill—a similar Bill was defeated in 1962, in 1981 and most recently on 4th December 1991. On each occasion, it was soundly defeated on points. While admiring the noble Lord's persistence, I do not admire his Bill now any more than on the last occasion. As before, the Bill seeks to create a new criminal offence—that of organising boxing for profit. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that before creating any new criminal offence it is necessary to think carefully about the need to do so and the consequences of so doing.
This Bill is concerned only with professional boxing, although It is not clear to me why the professional sport is singled out. Presumably there is something in the professional element of that sport which the noble Lord finds particularly distasteful—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, surely the noble Lord sees that there is a major difference between allowing people to fight each other for the sport of it and allowing society to pay them money—often a lot of money—to risk their lives and those of their fellow contestants. Does he not recognise that there is a strong moral difference between the two?
Lord Meston: My Lords, I do not see that there is a major difference. There is a difference between the two sports, such as the difference in the length of the rounds. There are certain other differences. There is, of course, a difference in that there is a commercial element in professional boxing which does not exist in amateur boxing; but, as was pointed out in the 1991 debate by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and has been pointed out this evening by, among others, my noble friend Lord Grey, the Bill's impact on the amateur sport has apparently not been properly considered. As I said, that point was raised in 1991 and there has been no attempt to deal with it in the drafting of the Bill before us tonight during the intervening three-and-a-half years or so.
The arguments for and against boxing in general, and professional boxing in particular, have not much altered, and they are unlikely to improve with age or repetition. I prefer the arguments that allow professional boxing to continue. For example, there is the argument based on the fundamental right of people to choose to enter a boxing ring knowing the risks and possible rewards. There are also the economic and social arguments based on the undoubted fact that over the years boxing has provided a living and opportunities for those from the
300
most disadvantaged sectors of society and is a disciplined, skilful sport that requires fitness, agility and determination.
There are also comparative arguments. Other sports are responsible for more fatalities. During the previous debate in 1991 the then Government Minister gave figures for air sports, motor sports, mountaineering, ball games and horse riding. One can only presume that there are also relatively high levels of serious injury in such other sports. Moreover, some of those other sports endanger third-parties in a way that boxing does not. Motor sports endanger spectators, and mountaineering, potholing, and sports of that nature, endanger rescuers. Other comparisons can he made with the so-called martial arts which, with all due deference to my noble friend Lord Addington, I believe will be untouched by this Bill. Finally, there is the very strong argument that to criminalise boxing will drive it underground. Against that, it has been said tonight that apparently there is no illegal boxing in countries that have banned it. But those countries tend to be ones where there is little inherent boxing tradition. In this country, there is a long-standing, deep-rooted tradition which will defy criminalisation. We have to consider whether we want a legal sport carefully and responsibly run, as it is now, or an illegal sport without rules and safeguards that is conducted in remote and unsuitable venues.
We have within the British Boxing Board one of the best regulating bodies in the world. It always puts the interests and safety of boxers ahead of anything else. It is always alert to the latest neurological research. Without such an organisation the clock will go hack. There will be no rules concerning the length and number of rounds, the size of gloves and weights of fighters. There will be no proper matchmaking, medical checks or medical scrutiny. There will be none of the contractual protection that is now provided to boxers by the board. There will be none of the high standard of alert refereeing that is required of licensed referees. Of course, in a small number of cases things go wrong. The British Boxing Board constantly seeks to ensure that there are the best possible emergency procedures on hand at all major tournaments, and that the supervision provided by its officials is of the highest vigilance. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, asked what had changed. What has changed is that, if anything, the procedures are even better now than in 1991.
I briefly mention the role of the appeal stewards, because that is the area with which I am most concerned. I have been involved in appeals by boxers who have had their licences revoked because it has been considered that they have lost too many fights. Likewise, I was recently involved in an appeal in which a referee of great experience and long standing was considered to have acted a little too slowly in stopping a fight. His licence was revoked. Whether or not to allow him to continue to referee was a difficult decision. It was decided, with great regret, that he should not be allowed to do so. That indicates the degree of vigilance and care provided by a properly organised sport that one will not have for an illegal sport.

301
I am not concerned—none of us should be—to give an unduly romantic view of boxing. It is a hard sport, but it is still a sport that puts a premium on skilful scoring, rather than on brute force. It is still a sport which channels aggression, rather than creates it. It is still a sport which creates respect and self-respect. It is still a sport which is conducted largely in front of essentially well-behaved crowds.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that the object of boxing is to knock out one's opponent. Perhaps I may remind him that some of the best boxers, at all weights, have been boxers who have not always won all their fights by knock-outs. Some of the greatest boxers seldom scored a knock-out, and, with respect to my noble friend Lord Airedale, I would say that boxers at the lighter weights attract crowds which are there to admire their skill rather than their aggression.
I do not often agree with the Government's approach to things, but on this occasion I suggest that there is a great deal to be said for self-regulation rather than anything more drastic.
10.40 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I do not believe that he can seriously put forward that the injuries or fatalies suffered from boxing, as compared to other sports or pastimes mentioned by noble Lords, can justify the banning of boxing, whether it be boxing for financial reward or not. He takes a moral stand, and I respect that, but I do not share his views.
I am but a relatively obscure hereditary Peer with some fairly plebeian tastes. I like gambling, boxing and stand-up comics. I suppose that there is a connection among all three. I became keen on boxing as a young boy when I would get away from school on one pretext or another and go to watch the fairground booth boxers who no longer exist these days. That was stand-up comedy, if you like.
Since the noble Lord brought up the subject, the late Lady Summerskill, who was such a doughty campaigner against boxing, wrote a book called The Ignoble Art. Even at this late hour, perhaps I may get away from the main theme of the debate for a moment. The term "ignoble art" was not an idle term. It related to the 18th century when boxing, as we understand it, originated. It is a fairly modern sport. It was then something of a noble art. Unlike France and other other countries where, if disputes arose between the nobility and lesser mortals, there was likely to be a serious conflict involving weapons, we are told of many instances, particularly in the excellent work by Lord Knebworth—a standard work on boxing—of members of the English nobility (I am not sure about the Scottish nobility) who would settle such affairs with their fists.
There is the well-known case in the 18th century of the Duke of Grafton, who took a coach for hire and had a dispute about the fare—much as one would do outside London Airport today. Both he and the coachman took to their fists with a will. It is recorded that the Duke of Grafton won fairly and squarely. That tells us a good
302
deal about the origins of boxing. It probably tells us even more about the unique character of the peerage compared with the nobility in other countries. It goes some way towards explaining how it has survived in the curious way that it has, even in your Lordships' House.
Boxing for money developed at the end of the 18th century. I had an ancestor—my great, great, great grandfather—who died in a duel, I am sorry to say. I wish that he had stuck to boxing. He would gamble with his contemporaries on fights between professional pugilists who used to meet by accident, or on purpose, on various heaths where the fights took place.
The injuries which occurred in those days rarely resulted in brain damage. The reason is simple. The human fist is not made for striking the human head, which is a delicate organism. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks, who spoke so eloquently and with such knowledge, may agree that the cause of brain damage is the revolving of the head as a result of being struck by a large glove. I suggest that if one wishes to reduce such accidents one must return to using a smaller glove, but that may not be possible. There is no question of returning to bare-knuckle fighting.
I know that the sport is looking at all those issues and at all others related to injury. I watch boxing closely and I know that the medical attention that is available at professional fights has improved greatly, even during the past three years. I suggest that the unfortunate boxer recently injured in a middleweight fight may not have survived five years ago because the attention that he would have received would not have been so prompt.
Surely we do not want to drive the sport underground. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, cannot seriously believe that it will not go underground. After all, fights involving small men can attract up to 11 million television viewers. I do not believe that, in the light of such interest, professional boxing would just disappear if it were banned. With such interest it is bound to go underground or abroad where it will be beamed to television sets in this country—
Lord Renton: My Lords, has the noble Viscount considered the fact that if it were to go underground there would be no hope of the large rewards being made to professional boxers?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the rewards available to boxers would not be so large. Indeed, one of the aspects of professional boxing which I do not like is the enormous amount of money in the game. One must watch that most carefully. Perhaps the Minister in summing up will comment on that aspect. Where there are large pools of money and gamblers—and I know something about them—there is likely to be some skulduggery sooner or later. However, the authorities which control boxing watch that closely too.
I have nothing further to say on the subject. I enjoy boxing as do millions of other people. I do not take a moral stand about it and I do not feel inferior tonight because I do not have a moral reaction to it. I conclude by saying that if your Lordships want to hear about real violence they should ask a policeman how much violence he sees on Friday and Saturday nights as a

303
result of the misuse of alcohol. How much enthusiasm do we have in this House for the control of the misuse of alcohol? How many impassioned speeches, such as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, do we hear on that subject? There are other areas that we can usefully look at to deal with violence.
10.49 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is a certain nostalgia about this debate. I came back into the Chamber especially to listen to it. To my personal knowledge, we have had such debates for more than 45 years. It is interesting—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the noble Lord seeking to speak in the gap?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, have I done something wrong?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there is a list of speakers. Is the noble Lord seeking to speak in the gap?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is there a gap?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, the noble Lord has missed it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while the list of speakers is something I support, and it makes this House particularly good, it is not absolutely sacrosanct. What is sacrosanct is that when a debate is taking place which is of some importance to the nation, every Member who is legitimately entitled to be here shall be free to express his point of view. That is what I am doing.
I merely wish to say that this is not a new subject. But what is new is that all noble Lords who have spoken are male. I used to enjoy these debates—and the arguments used were very similar—when Lady Summerskill on the one side and Mrs. Braddock on the other really showed us what knuckle-fighting was all about. I am delighted that my noble friend is to put the distaff side of the argument when she winds up the debate.
Baroness Trumpington: Am I Mrs. Braddock?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lord, my noble friend asks whether she is Mrs. Braddock. She was a noble person who made a great contribution to Parliament over the past fifty years. My noble friend is also a noble person who has made a great contribution to our parliamentary procedures.
I felt that Mrs. Braddock always won the argument. I believe that her argument is as strong today as it was then; namely, that an organised sport is to be preferred to a disorganised sport. If this Bill is allowed to proceed as currently drafted, it is quite obvious, as it was 50 years ago, that the sport will not cease. We shall merely replace an organised sport with a disorganised sport. That would not be good from any point of view.
10.51 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised for us the appalling spectre of
304
female violence in institutions. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned policemen on a Friday night and other forms of violence. I do not know whether he has ever witnessed women's hockey. I have played virtually every sport that it is legal to play but I have never had the courage even to watch that.
I should stress that when I speak on boxing I am speaking personally, since your Lordships will be surprised to learn that the Labour Party has no official policy on the subject. I have discussed the matter formally with Labour's national heritage team. I know that what I say is in accordance with the views of my honourable friend in another place, the Shadow spokesman in the Commons, Tom Pendry. Both Tom Pendry and I boxed when younger. I believe that he did so for longer and certainly more successfully than I did. Some noble Lords may feel that my boxing experience is itself sufficient evidence of the brain damage risk involved.
There has long been anxiety about the medical aspects of boxing, which so genuinely concern my noble friend. When I was a founding member of the original Sports Council in the late 1960s chaired by my noble friend Lord Howell, we had long discussions on the subject led by Sir Roger Bannister, himself a distinguished neurologist. Like the country as a whole, we shared the anxiety but were divided as to what to do about it. I believe that there was a firm majority against banning the sport and I think that that would still he the view across society.
I have noticed that such concern becomes more active whenever there is a highly-publicised injury or fatality. As we have heard, Bills to ban boxing came before the House unsuccessfully in 1962, 1981 and 1991. Public concern was recently revived, as my noble friend pointed out, by the disabling injuries suffered by Gerald McLellan earlier this year against Nigel Benn. Before that, we remember Michael Watson against Chris Eubank. In the previous 15 years, Britain has seen the deaths of Johnny Owen, Steve Watts and Bradley Stone—a total, I believe, of 14 deaths in the 50 years since the war. I saw all of those recent fights on television and can vouch for how disturbing the experience can be.
The public is understandably concerned. However, there is an enormous difference between expressing concern and wishing sport to be safer—which I do—and actually taking the vast step to ban boxing. I do not believe that the facts justify that step. Thousands of sportsmen participate in boxing each year, the vast majority of whom never get near a professional championship or even a professional ring, never earn much money, and, indeed, never suffer serious related injuries. Especially in socially-deprived areas, boxing has always provided for many young boys a focus, a purpose, and a sense of achievement and self-respect. It often provides the first discipline in their lives which they willingly accept. Anyone who has seen the boys' boxing clubs in the deprived areas of our cities, as I have done, will know the truth and value of that.
Admittedly, boxing is, as has been said, a hard and demanding physical sport. It involves some physical risk. As was pointed out at the beginning of the debate,

305
it is also unusual in that one of its objectives is to try to knock unconscious the opponent. That fact has always troubled me. However, it is not the only objective and most fights do not end that way. Certainly more would end that way if boxing were officially banned and driven underground, where fights would often be timeless until a knock-out took place, and without proper refereeing and medical supervision.
I should point out to my noble friend that boxing is not like cock fighting. Cocks do not choose to do it: boxers do. No one compels boxers to fight or spectators to watch boxing. If people are deeply offended by it on television, I recommend that they exercise their fundamental right to switch it off.
On the question of injuries and fatalities we must also, as others have done, set boxing in the context of other sports. Boxing injuries are usually highly publicised because they are witnessed on television by millions of viewers. But other less publicised sports are actually more dangerous. For example, fatalities and injuries in motor sports and water sports far exceed those in boxing.
I have heard it said that there are even more such injuries in fishing. That may arise from fishermen being pushed into the water by those animal rights terrorists.
More climbers were killed in the Scottish Cairngorms in 1994 than the total number of professional and amateur boxers killed since the war. So, as has been asked: do we ban climbing? Rugby football has a worrying injuries and fatalities record, especially in schools, which led to the recent public expressions of concern by the Stoke Mandeville Hospital for special injuries. I believe that more schoolboys are seriously injured playing rugby than is the case with boxing. But do we ban rugby in schools? As a former rugby player, often injured, I would certainly oppose that.
On a more general level, I should like to add that I find somewhat distasteful the growing fashion in some political quarters which I shall not specify to ban anything which upsets anyone, whether it is country sports—fishing, hunting, shooting, coursing—or cigarette smoking, though I personally practise none of them. I have a fear that sex will be somewhere next on the list.
This is a slippery slope which we know we must resist. This puritanical, politically correct—not that I would accuse my noble friend of anything as foolish as that because we know his concern is personal and genuine—way of thinking, imposing personal attitudes on the way others choose to lead their lives and take risks (what I call a kind of McCarthyism of the Left), is not attractive. Perhaps we should think about banning all bans.
Having got that off my hairy chest, I want to see the boxing authorities do everything possible to protect the health of boxers. The British Boxing Board of Control, which contains three distinguished parliamentarians, including my noble friend Lord Brooks. has introduced many regulations and procedures to reduce the risk of serious injury in professional boxing, for example, the annual medical examinations, including brain scans;
306
medical examinations before and after a fight; and fully equipped ambulances, which almost certainly, as has been said, saved Gerald McLellan's life.
Perhaps more can be done. Perhaps referees can be instructed to stop fights sooner. Perhaps fights should he stopped after two knock downs, not three, of eight seconds a round. I am not convinced that headgear will help. It prevents cuts but impedes vision and does not necessarily reduce concussion. I note that soccer players head the football as often as boxers get punched. Are we to ban heading at football?
Insurance compensation for damaged boxers is another area where I believe improvements could be made. At present I believe—certainly this was the case when evidence was given to the Select Committee—that the maximum insurance compensation for a fatality is around £40,000 and for a disabling injury there is no insurance compensation, just a small benevolent fund. That is totally inadequate in my view. An industry which receives £12 million a year from television could devote more to compensation for the men who put themselves at risk to generate it. I believe the British Boxing Board of Control should take urgent steps at least to quadruple insurance compensation. It says it receives none of the promotion millions, and that is true, but it could stipulate that compensation payments be made as a condition for giving assent to a boxing tournament.
I reiterate that I share the concern of my noble friend, but I believe that banning is unjustified. It would be illogical given the greater danger in other sports. It would be dictatorial given the fact that no one forces men to box. Like mountain climbers, they have a right to take risks. Seventeen million viewers recently watched a boxing match on television. Are they all wrong? Is the puritan minority right? Should we ban their right to enjoy this pleasure? I think not.
11.3 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can do no better at this time of night than to emulate my noble friend Lord Oxfuird when I quote what Byron said of his mother-in-law; namely, that she had lost the art of conversation but not, alas, the power of speech.
First of all, I should like your Lordships to know that the Government cannot support this Bill. I should also like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to be aware that of course we share the views of those who are concerned about the safety of boxers though we do not believe that the sport should be banned.
Some of your Lordships have recalled a most stimulating debate on boxing on 4th December 1991, when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, last called for a ban on professional boxing. The Government's view on boxing remains as it was then. We believe strongly that in a free society—which this country thankfully enjoys—individuals should have the freedom to participate in the sport of their choice so long as it is within the law and they are fully aware of the risks involved. It is paramount that the element of risk attached to boxing is controllable and that the proper medical safeguards are in place.

307
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I should like to say that I am well aware of the BMA's report published in 1993. I should like to highlight the fact that the British Boxing Board of Control's medical safeguards are among the most rigorous in the world and are constantly under review. Following meetings at the end of 1991 between the then Minister for Sport, the BBBC and a number of medical specialists, the BBBC not only strengthened its medical safeguards but converted them into firm regulations.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the professional sport is, of course, driven in part by financial considerations, but the British Boxing Board of Control is there to ensure that money is not of primary importance but that safety is paramount. The Government are confident that the BBBC's medical safeguards do all that is possible to ensure the boxers' safety.
The BBBC continues to review its research on methods of continual assessment of brain functions to detect possible chronic deterioration that may occur during a boxer's career. It has now extended the scheme, which was originally piloted in Wales and which aims to minimise acute brain injury by the compulsory attendance of an anaesthetist with the necessary equipment at the ringside. Indeed, John Sutcliffe, the neurosurgeon who operated after the Benn/McLellan fight, said that he believed that the introduction of those improvements helped to save the boxer's life.
The Government believe that there is absolutely no case for singling out boxing for a ban. To ban boxing would drive the sport underground and remove from boxers the very important safeguards which now protect them. Furthermore, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that, as my noble friend Lord Oxfuird and the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, said, even if boxing were banned in this country boxers could still compete anywhere overseas—which is what Swedish boxers did when boxing was banned in Sweden. It is important to note that medical safeguards in other countries may not be as stringent as in this country.
Let me deal first with the question of fatalities. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, will be interested in my update of the figures given in the last debate. Figures provided by coroners to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that from 1986 to 1992 there were fortunately only three deaths in England and Wales from boxing. In the same period there were 77 deaths in motor sports; 69 in air sports; 54 in mountaineering; 40 in ball games; 28 in horse riding. Alas, I am unable to inform the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, as to how nearly he dices with death when he rides his motorbike, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, appreciates that both ends of horses spell danger.
The Government have no hesitation in accepting that, sadly, there are instances where long-term medical problems can be attributable to boxing. However, boxing is not unique in that respect. The simple fact is that there is a risk attached to any physically challenging activity, and to remove the risk would for the most part remove the challenge itself.
308
No one can be complacent about the issue of boxing safety. The Government believe strongly that the utmost attention must be paid to safety, not only in boxing but in all sports where risk is a factor.
I was very interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about insurance. How about an injured boxers' fund as with jockeys? Perhaps we could explore that possibility a little further. That is a personal note which I should probably not have included in this speech.
It is recognised that, like any physical contact sport, boxing has an element of risk. What is paramount is that the element of risk is controllable and containable. Medical safeguards are already in place to protect the health and safety of boxers before, during and after contests and to monitor boxers for long-term medical problems. There are a great many medical examinations which I could list for your Lordships, but, again, I am well aware of the time of night. I believe that noble Lords are aware of the extremely severe medical precautions which are taken not only at the ringside but before and after a boxer enters the ring.
Some claim that boxing is repugnant and morally wrong in that the sport deliberately encourages individuals to inflict injury to each other. This is a matter of judgment. However, let me make a couple of points very clear. Boxers in this country compete within the strictest medical safeguards and regulations imposed by reputable governing bodies. They do so under their own free will and within a sporting code that emphasises skill rather than aggression. Furthermore, boxers pose no threat to the general public.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that while the Government are not complacent about safety issues in boxing, we believe that it would he a gross infringement of civil liberties to deprive individuals from participating in a properly constituted sport of their choice. I hope that I have also persuaded your Lordships that there is clear evidence that the boxing authorities in this country are determined to continue to make the sport as safe as possible.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. Many of the issues were also discussed in an earlier debate to which there has been reference. Indeed, some of the speeches—including my own, I suspect—had distinct similarity to those in an earlier debate.
Let me say this to your Lordships: we shall be back. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, this is a continuing debate. With the assistance and encouragement of the British Medical Association, and all our medical advisers, we shall continue to campaign against this sport.
It is said that the Bill is an infringement of personal liberty. I was interested in the speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about the Duke of Grafton and others. An article in The Times recently by an eminent QC under the heading, "What's so special about boxing?", takes us back to 1981. The article states:

309
"Lord Lane, then the Lord Chief Justice, stated on behalf of the Court of Appeal that it was a criminal assault for a man to punch another during a fist fight in the street, even though each of them consented to the fight as a means of settling a dispute".
In this country it is illegal for any man to go out and have a fight in the street with another man. But it is not illegal if it occurs in a boxing ring; the man can punch the other fellow as hard as he likes. There is something wrong with that situation. If it is an infringement of the rights of people—they should not punch each other on the street corner—can we defend such a restriction as a prohibition on the rights of the individual? We must consider the argument very seriously. I include the argument that one would drive boxing underground. What way is that to make legislation—that if we pass such a law one would drive the issue underground? That is protecting the criminal. It is not respect for the law and the judgment of the country.
Let us not exaggerate the argument about driving the issue underground. Professional boxing thrives on the glamour, excitement, television coverage and the large amounts of money spent. I include the £50 million or £60 million that will be spent on the promotion of this criminal, Mike Tyson, who is about to descend on us in this country. Is that the mark of a civilised society? I ask noble Lords to ask themselves this question. Supposing Mike Tyson arrives here and knocks a man unconscious, or even kills a man, in the ring, which he is quite capable of doing, would noble Lords feel pleased and proud at that? I do not think so.
Let me say a final word. It is not a defence to say that something might be driven underground. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a very interesting contribution. He said that the Bill was badly drafted and could be changed. That is what we are talking about; we are not talking about motor racing, mountaineering or any other sport. We are talking about a simple Bill to which we want to give a Second Reading. That would enable the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to define more clearly the purposes of the Bill, if he feels that its drafting is inadequate and wrong. That is all that we are asking: that this Bill be given a Second Reading so that we can examine the full implications of it.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I do not think that there is any doubt of the professionalism that has been demonstrated this evening, with the skill, understanding, knowledge and experience associated with this subject. I have no other course than to press my amendment.
11.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 7.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Courtown, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Donoughue, L.

Annaly, L.

Falkland, V.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grey, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Meston, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Chesham, L.

Oxfuird, V. [Teller]

Clanwilliam, E.

Rodney, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Stockton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gage, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Renton, L. [Teller]

Brightman, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock.