Lords Sitting of 19 July 1995

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

Olympic Games: UK Representation
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider it desirable for the United Kingdom to be strongly represented at the Olympic Games, and if so what measures they are taking to achieve this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): Yes, my Lords. The Government actively encourage governing bodies of sport and the British Olympic Association to send the best possible team to the Olympic Games. The Sports Council is to allocate £1.25 million to support our top athletes' preparation for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Atlanta next year. Longer term measures to boost sporting excellence in this country and strengthen representation at future Olympic Games was set out in the Government's sports policy statement published last week.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is it not unfortunate that in the build-up to the 1998 Winter Olympic Games the Sports Council is reducing its support for the main events of the Winter Olympic Games by over 60 per cent., particularly at a time when we have world championship medallists, we have children among the top three at international level and the highest-ranking skiers we have ever had?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the matter of disbursement for competitive sport at this level is a matter for the Sports Council. The Sports Council has assessed these matters. As my noble friend pointed out, that has led to a reduction in the money it provides. Of course, money from the Sports Council is not the only money that can be made available for competitive sport at this level. The council is currently exploring with the British Ski Federation and commercial interests the possibility of sponsorship in this area.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Government's new sports policy and the creation of a new British Academy of Sport. In the statement announcing that policy the Government said that they would ask the Sports Council to invite bids for the £100 million of lottery money to fund the new academy. Is the Minister aware that Section 26 of the National Lottery Etc. Act speaks of the need to ensure that they do not solicit particular applications? Can he explain that breach of the Act, that hijacking of the lottery? Do the Government now view lottery money as a political
282
pool to finance pre-election initiatives? Is he aware that the lottery Act states that the proceeds of the lottery are to be for five specific good causes? Is he aware that the present Government do not come within that particular definition?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not dissent from the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, of good causes in regard to the lottery. It goes without saying that the Government are a good cause, but not one covered by that particular piece of legislation. The noble Lord runs ahead of himself in this regard. The Government are fully aware of the legislation to which he referred.
To quote from the recently published document, Sport—Raising the Game,
"The Government therefore wants to see established a British Academy of Sport. While it is not for the Government to set up and run such an Academy, this Policy Statement lays down the challenge to the sports world and points the way forward".
That entirely answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may refer further to his document which states that the Government have asked the Great Britain Sports Council and its successor bodies to invite bids by 31st March 1996 from the sports world to establish the British Academy of Sport. I believe that that is a more direct involvement than perhaps he stated.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may elaborate my reply. The sports policy states:
"To take this initiative forward, the Government has asked the GB Sports Council and its successor bodies to:—(i) bring forward proposals by the end of September 1995 setting out what the structure and content of the British Academy of Sport might be; (ii) to consult widely, inviting views by the end of the year on the ideas that emerge and on how the academy might be set up; and (iii) following consultation to invite bids, by 31 March 1996, from the sports world to establish the British Academy of Sport".
That is the challenge which the Government have put to the Sports Council. Let us see what response to that challenge there might be.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the 16 year-old winner of last year's overall British ski championship, Miss Sophie Ormond, is unable to ski for Britain due to lack of funding. In two years' time she will apply, and probably obtain, a French passport and ski for France. That will be directly as a result of French recognition and the support that she will receive during those formative years. Is that not bad for this country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Oxfuird for drawing the attention of the House to the case of Miss Sophie Ormond. It is precisely in order to deal with that kind of case that the Sports Council has called a meeting to endeavour to raise additional money for skiing.
In this country we are sometimes the beneficiary of such changes. For example, recently in the Tour de France Max Sciandri, a British cyclist but previously an Italian cyclist, won a stage. Another example is Greg Rusedski, the tennis player.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the government sport's policy emphasises team games? While many of us are enthusiastic about team games—the Prime Minister had a wonderful photo opportunity on that aspect last week—the Olympic Games consist largely of individual efforts. In schools and in many athletic clubs the emphasis is now more on the individual. There should be more of a balance. Does the Minister agree that there is too much emphasis now on team games? The Question refers to the Olympic Games. Therefore, there ought to be a change of emphasis to include events in the Olympic Games.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not accept the strictures of the noble Lord. Sport is a curious mixture in many instances between individualism and team playing. Depending on which sport one refers to, that balance may adjust. However, it is made quite clear in the statement that the Government are concerned both in regard to team games and individual sports.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I must declare an interest, having raced on behalf of Parliament against the Swiss Parliament for 40 years. However, I now have to confess that I have hung up my boots—or those that I hire. Is my noble friend aware that between 1.5 million and 2 million Brits go skiing every year? Is he aware, too, that watching television also promotes that sport? We originated downhill racing—as with so many other sports—for the world to follow. Bearing in mind that this country started the sport of skiing, it seems to me amazing to cut back two-thirds of the sum available in 1994 from the Winter Olympic Games. Cannot something be done to promote that effort and to support the school children who now enjoy it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who is a well known skier. It is important to be clear on one distinction. It is not the business of the Sports Council to subsidise people's winter sports holidays. The Question refers to competitive skiing at the highest level. It was because the Sports Council felt that we were not going to be successful in that regard that the sum of money was reduced in the manner in which the noble Lord describes. That does not mean to say that it is the end of the matter. Under this Government, more money is going into sport than has ever been the case. Things like sponsorship, to which I have previously referred, may well provide a substantial increase over and above government funds.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise the tremendous work undertaken by the Animal Health Trust into heat stress in equestrian sports, in preparation for the next Olympic Games? Will the Government support our equestrian teams which are going to Atlanta in the future and give them all the support and help they need?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, the Sports Council is allocating £1.25 million to support our top athletes' preparation.

ACP Countries: UK Aid
2.49 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries will have to protect themselves from the consequences of changes caused by the reductions in United Kingdom contributions to the European Development Fund (EDF).
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the ACP will have no need to take such measures. The total size of EDF VIII is broadly the same in real terms as the last.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the Minister of course for that reply. Is she concerned that EDF VII failed to meet its spending objectives? Is it not a fact that UK bilateral aid to the sub-Sahara is set to fall by 16 per cent. in real terms over the next three years? As important, what is the current UK and European Union vision towards a successor agreement to Lomé IV?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right that in terms of amounts spent to 30th June 1995, EDF VII had reached about a third of its total size. There are a couple more years to go on it, of course. The noble Viscount is right that there will be a reduction in overall bilateral aid, but it would have been much greater if we had not restricted the amount going through the European Union so as to safeguard bilateral aid so far as possible.
I have a totally open mind as regards what will go on after the year 2000, which will be European Development Fund IX, if it takes place. Our main concern is to ensure that European Union aid resources are directed efficiently where they are most needed and where they can be most effective. It is for that reason that we now have agreed measures to improve the effectiveness and we intend to go on pushing at the European Union to improve the effectiveness still further.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are all agreed that we want effectiveness in our aid programme? However, there is widespread concern about the mean response of the United Kingdom Government to the EDF because the EDF is targeted on some of those in greatest need in the world. Does the Minister agree that between 1990–91 and 1993–94, while the aid programme to sub-Saharan Africa, which has great need, fell by 20 per cent., that to the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe rose by 34 per cent. in our bilateral programme? Is not the problem that the Minister has all the time to spread the butter thinly? While in the past year she has halted the fall as a proportion of GNP in the aid programme, it is destined to fall to 0.27 per cent. of GNP in the next few years, as distinct from 0.31 per cent. at present, on the figures given to the Select Committee in the other place.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no doubt in your Lordships' House and in another place that we wish to see all aid resources—which are, after

285
all, taxpayers' money—spent as effectively as possible. That means that the mechanisms must be in place to ensure that they are properly targeted and properly delivered. That is why we have looked extremely carefully at the under-spend on EDF V, EDF VI and EDF VII—none of which has spent up to the commitment made.
If we were to make a commitment as large as that for which we were first asked and then not spend it, we would be denying the bilateral aid programme the very resources that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, wants to be spent—as I do—in sub-Saharan Africa and targeted on the poorest. We cannot do both. Therefore, I shall go for effectiveness in spending, good targeting and ensuring that the poorest get the resources. We have done that by now making the European Development Fund also target the poorest, which it failed to do prior to the agreement in 1992 under the British presidency.
Lord Judd: My Lords, if the Minister is so determined to help the poorest, will she clarify why aid to sub-Saharan Africa in the bilateral programme has fallen by 20 per cent. in the past three years, while it has risen by 34 per cent. to the former Soviet Union and east Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are dealing with not just two but three separate areas. Before 1989 there was no chance of giving help to the former Soviet Union and central and eastern European countries. The European Union then decided that it wished to give help. We also decided, through our very effective know-how funds, to give help to the areas. We further decided that we must give help to those Mediterranean countries that badly need development assistance.
We must balance what we are doing. The difficulty is that the noble Lord looks at only part of the situation. The African, Caribbean and Pacific countries not only benefit from the European Development Fund, but they also benefit from food aid, aid to the NGOs and the democracy programmes which come out of EC budget spending. Furthermore, there will be up to 1.7 billion ecu of EIB loans to the ACP countries during the lifetime of European Development Fund VIII. The total European Community financial flows will be worth some 18 billion ecu over five years. The European Union will remain far and away the largest donor to Africa. It is only by restricting our funding to other less needy countries that we will able to continue the work we are doing in sub-Saharan Africa.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what specific help we give to South Africa? The most hopeful signs of development and democracy in Africa have been there. Any help we can give—for example, on housing and education—must surely be immensely profitable for this country.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, over three years we shall give about £100 million of direct aid to South Africa, both bilaterally and through the European Union. We were helping South Africa for 10 years or more prior to the election of the Government of National Unity in 1994. Throughout all that time, we
286
have concentrated particularly on education, training the teachers of teachers so that one can spread education—a basic need—as far and wide as possible. We have given help through non-governmental organisations for a long time and now we are working with the new Government of South Africa on the reconstruction and development programme, giving training in institution building, government training, training in democracy and training in management. In addition, the Foreign Office provides from its budgets further training for the police force and the unification of the armed forces of South Africa.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how much, in pounds, shillings and pence, we are contributing—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No, in pounds.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how much are we contributing in pounds to aid through the European aid budget fund? What proportion of our total aid fund does that represent? Does she also agree with Action Aid which has recently complained that the European Community is distributing money away from Africa and towards the eastern states of Europe? If I may say so, the latter are much better off than people in Africa. Does the Minister also agree with the many charities which say that often the EC distributes aid on the basis of a knee-jerk reaction to press reports?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I counted four questions there. We were spending about 25 per cent. of our total budget through the EC. It is now around 30 per cent. and it will increase to over 40 per cent. That is why I have sought to restrict our funding and ensure that all the money we give is properly targeted and properly spent. As regards the noble Lord's other questions, I shall reply to him separately.

Religious Education in Schools
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the provision of religious education and worship in primary and secondary schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Office for Standards in Education, which is responsible for reporting on religious education and collective worship in schools, has found standards in these areas to be uneven. The Government would like all schools to aspire to the high standards achieved by the best and we have put in place a range of measures to encourage them to do so.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouraging reply. Does he also agree that it is encouraging that so many schools have responded positively to the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988? That is to the extent that in 1994 Ofsted inspectors could not find a single primary school failing

287
to comply with the law with regard to worship. However, will he also agree that there is still cause for concern? For example, a recent Gallup poll found that 49 per cent. of 16 to 24 year-olds had no idea what Good Friday commemorates, and 79 per cent. did not know what happened on Palm Sunday. Does my noble friend agree that without some knowledge of our basic Judaeo-Christian heritage, not only will our young people not understand our spiritual heritage but also they will not understand our cultural heritage of art, literature, music and architecture, or indeed the history of our political and social institutions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to express that particular message. It is important to remember that the purpose behind religious education is not to spread the faith, desirable though that might be in other circumstances. It is to educate, as is right, our children in what my noble friend describes broadly as our Judaeo-Christian tradition, of which we in Western Europe have been a part for many, many centuries. Like my noble friend, perhaps I may give one example: it is pretty difficult to understand Renaissance art without a suitable grounding in the Bible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when are the Government going to include the fact that some 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the people in this country do not hold any religious beliefs of any kind? Surely the proper teaching of religious education would include at least the basis of humanism, agnosticism, atheism and related views. If the Minister is about to tell me yet again that these views are not religions, will he say in which curriculum they should be included?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe I made clear, we are a broadly Christian country and our traditions are broadly Christian. For that reason we feel it is important that children are educated in that tradition.
As regards humanism, I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that it is not a religion and should not be taught as if it were. I can, however, say that a syllabus might, in the context of religious education, were it to be necessary, deal with non-theistic ways of life such as humanism.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the law as it stands on schools worship is extremely flexible, and that, in spite of the fact that it is often said that we are a multi-faith society, the fact is that less than 4 per cent. of the population adhere to non-Christian faiths?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can neither confirm nor deny the figure that my noble friend gave. I can, however, confirm, as I said earlier, that we are a broadly Christian country and our traditions are broadly in the Judaeo-Christian mould. For that reason we believe it important that the children in our schools are taught about that Christian background.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the SCAA's current syllabus for GCSE excludes thematic multi-faith teaching and encourages teaching that respects the coherence and integrity of each faith?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I am satisfied that that is the case. Obviously, this is a matter that staff can keep under permanent review. If the noble Lord wished to write to them and make any suggestions, I am sure that they would be grateful to receive his responses.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, I feel that a question from these Benches might be appropriate. Will the Minister accept that on these Benches we are very grateful for the way in which a move was achieved through the Education Reform Act for the improvement of religious education in schools and the encouragement of worship? Will he also agree with me that the best way in which this can be achieved and furthered is not so much by heavy-handedness in applying the regulations, but by using carrots rather than sticks; and that one of the best carrots would be the provision of more, and better trained, religious education teachers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that I express the feeling of the House in saying that it is quite appropriate that we should have an intervention from the Benches of the right reverend Prelate. As regards the question as to whether there should be more RE teachers, statistics show that at the moment there is no shortage of such teachers. The problem is that only about half the teachers who have an RE specialism are teaching the subject. We believe that steps to raise the status of the subject are therefore very important. I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Teacher Training Agency has taken this on board. It envisages that secondary target intakes for RE students will increase by nearly 10 per cent. between 1995–96 and 1996–97, and by a further 15 per cent. in 1997–98.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, may I return for a moment to the figures quoted by the noble Baroness who asked the initial Question? Forty-nine per cent. of the age range 16 to 24 do not know what Good Friday commemorates; 71 per cent. in my estimation do not know what happened on Palm Sunday; and 48 per cent. do not know what Lent is. Does that not indicate the total failure of this Government's policy for religious education over the past 15 years? Does the Minister believe that the pathetic proposal of a new half-course at GCSE level will do anything to redeem the disaster?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the noble Lord takes a rather heavy hand to these matters. Obviously, I accept that those figures are somewhat depressing. As regards the new exam that the noble Lord mentioned, it has been something of a success and has encouraged a great many of the 14 to 16 year-olds in Key Stage 4 to take up RE because they see the chance of getting a qualification at the end, and children of that age are very minded along the line of getting qualifications. It has been a success. We shall continue to pursue the various initiatives that we have introduced. I hope that even the noble Lord will moderate his tone in future when he recognises just how successful we are being.
Lord Elton: My Lords, cannot the very substantial drain of RE teachers to which my noble friend the Minister referred be countered urgently? Is not one way

289
to declare religious education a shortage subject? Have any conversations taken place between the Government and the Teacher Training Agency in this respect?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear to the right reverend Prelate, and make clear again to my noble friend, the Teacher Training Agency is very well aware of the particular problem. As I said earlier, there is overall no shortage of trained RE teachers: I believe that the recent survey showed that there were only 16 vacancies in the entire country. The real problem is that over half the teachers with an RE specialism are not teaching the subject. We shall certainly continue to press the TTA to do what it can in this field. I thought that the targets I mentioned to the right reverend Prelate were really quite challenging: increases of 10 per cent. and a further 15 per cent. in 1997–98. They should go a considerable way towards meeting this problem.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, when discussing religion the most important thing is not the remembering of certain events but the basic message behind them. Will he assure the House that when teaching religion it should be borne in mind what happens when doctrine is too strongly adhered to—as instanced in Ulster and Bosnia? Does the Minister accept that we should not simply rely on learning facts, since facts taken out of context are totally useless?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord quite understood the message that I was trying to get over. I was seeking to make the important point that religious education is not a matter of "spreading the faith" as he seemed to imply, but rather to educate our children in the broadly Judaeo-Christian tradition in which they live.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 70 per cent. of the population are anxious that teaching on religious subjects should take place in schools? Is he also aware that there is no room for complacency, since 80 per cent. of schools with sixth forms teach absolutely no religion whatsoever? Does he agree that it really is time that something was done about this decay in our moral background?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will recognise that neither I, nor the department, is complacent. I hope that I have spelt out in some detail some of the various initiatives that the department is pursuing, although I can certainly write to my noble friend in greater detail. There is no room for complacency. Some of the figures quoted in relation to ignorance about religion and our background are very depressing indeed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree that young people in this country are growing up in a broadly Christian tradition, but will the Minister agree that any revision of the religious education curriculum or the way in which religious education is taught ought to have regard to the growing scourge of xenophobia and racism; one example being anti-Semitism? Does he accept the importance of teaching all young people in this country to respect the values of those who hold other faiths, in whatever part of the United Kingdom they may live?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to stress that we need a knowledge of other faiths. My point is that we are a largely Christian country. It is the Christian faith that, in the main, we feel should be taught in schools and should predominate in the acts of collective worship in which, under the 1944 Act, all schools are required to take part each day.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albansrose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Short Title of the Measure indicates that it contains a miscellaneous collection of provisions relating to the Church of England. Their effect is described in the comments and explanations of the Legislative Committee of the General Synod which are annexed to the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
It is a convention that miscellaneous provisions Measures contain only non-controversial material. That is borne out by the voting in the General Synod last November. There were 229 votes in favour and one vote against. There is always one vote against. It may help the House if I briefly draw attention to two provisions of the Measure which were the subject of scrutiny by the Ecclesiastical Committee.
First, Clause 2 permits Christ Church, Oxford, which is the Cathedral of the Diocese of Oxford, through its constitution and statutes, to appoint two lay canons. Subsection (3) of the clause permits in future the Regius Professorship of Ecclesiastical History to be held either by a residentiary canon or by a lay canon, appointed pursuant to subsection (1) of the clause.
In 1840, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act annexed the Regius Professorship of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford to a canonry in the Cathedral. Therefore, the holder of the professorship must be a clerk in Holy Orders of the Church of England. For some time, the university has expressed concern about the narrowness of the field of candidates who are eligible to take up that chair of ecclesiastical history. There is no suggestion that the professor should not any longer be a clergyman. Indeed, that will be encouraged because the relationship between college and cathedral is strong and the person appointed will be expected to play a day-to-day role in cathedral life.
But both the university and the diocese recognise that academic talent for that post could be found among the laity or outside the Church of England—perhaps an ordained person of another Church or perhaps a lay person. The Ecumenical Relations Measure 1988 now makes it possible for such a person to take a major part in the daily life of the cathedral.
Clause 2 is included in the Measure at the request of the university, the diocese of Oxford and the cathedral authorities. The Crown appoints the Regius Professor. It

291
has been consulted about the clause and is content with it. I thought that noble Lords would be interested in that provision.
The second provision to which I wish to refer is Clause 6. That amends the Church Commissioners Measure 1947 concerning the composition of the Church Commissioners' Assets Committee to allow the appointment of not less than one and not more than three additional members chosen from the commissioners and elected by and from the General Synod.
When the Measure was considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, it became clear that the provision was regarded as premature by a majority of the committee, in view of the recent report on the Church Commissioners and Church Pensions of the Social Security Select Committee of another place and the impending report of the Archbishops' Commission on the Organisation of the Church of England, which is known as the Turnbull Commission. In view of the misgivings expressed in the committee, the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York have indicated that they do not intend to exercise their power under Clause 15 of the Measure to bring Clause 6 into effect pending consideration of those reports.
The Ecclesiastical Committee has reported that the Measure is expedient. In view of the overwhelming support expressed in the General Synod, I trust that it will find acceptance in your Lordships' eyes as well.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may say on a personal note that this week is my final week in your Lordships' House, as I retire next month. Let me simply say to your Lordships, as I want an excuse to do so, how grateful I have been for the kindness and courtesy shown to me by so many Members of the House and also by the staff of the House. I wish the House Godspeed in its continuing deliberations. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of St. Albans.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his introduction of this wide-ranging Measure. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we wish him a very happy retirement. He is not, I understand, going to Oxford but to Cambridge. I am quite sure that he will be very happy there.
I want to give a particular welcome to Clause 2, which the right reverend Prelate introduced at some length. He explained the background to it and I need not go over that again. But I feel that it introduces a very welcome degree of flexibility into the range of candidates eligible for appointment as Regius Professor. It will help to ensure that the appointment will be of the highest academic quality. It will allow the appointment of a distinguished Church historian from another denomination, if necessary, and—dare I say?—it might even allow the appointment of a woman. In the long run it can only strengthen the Faculty of Theology in Oxford. I particularly welcome it.
292
As the right reverend Prelate said, the other Measures are also to be welcomed. None of them is controversial, with the exception of Clause 6 and the difficulty that arose over that was met by the most reverend Primates. We support the Measure.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee, I welcome the Measure. The Measure is extremely thorough and Clauses 2 and 6 were well dealt with. It shows how efficient and thorough is the General Synod. There are over a dozen clauses in the Measure and nothing has been left out.
I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in wishing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans a good and happy retirement. I remember his maiden speech. It was very interesting and amusing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, from these Benches may I briefly congratulate the right reverend Prelate on the way in which he introduced the Motion. I should also like to join in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Teviot, and demonstrate that on this side of the House we also are entirely in agreement with the Motion.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, I thank your Lordships very much for those kind words and for noble Lords' appreciation of the whole work of the Ecclesiastical Committee. It is very rare that the General Synod receives accolades and therefore the words that came from behind me warmed my heart. I shall go into retirement feeling a new person. I only regret that when other people at my age are becoming Members of your Lordships' House, I am leaving it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will need little reminding of the importance of this Bill. Its aim is to provide statutory backing for the payment of compensation to the blameless victims of violent crime. The Bill will provide the framework for an enhanced tariff scheme. That new scheme will concentrate on a simple tariff approach for the majority of victims, while ensuring that generous compensation is paid to those most seriously affected by their injuries. In this way we believe the enhanced tariff scheme provides the right balance between meeting the needs of victims while protecting the interests of taxpayers.
We have, of course, had a non-statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme since 1964. It provides compensation from public funds to the blameless victims of crimes of violence and to those injured in attempting to catch criminals or prevent crime. When the scheme was introduced the government of the day made it clear that they did not accept that the state was liable for injuries caused to people by the criminal acts

293
of others. But they did believe that the public felt a sense of responsibility for, and sympathy with, the blameless victim. They felt, therefore, that it was right for that feeling to be given practical expression by the provision of a monetary payment on behalf of the community. We remain of that opinion.
Since 1964 the scheme has been run by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In the first full year of the scheme's operation—1965–66—the board received 2,452 applications and made 1,164 awards, totalling just £403,000. That would be around £4 million at today's prices. In the most recent year for which audited figures are available—1993–94—the board received 73,473 applications. It made 65,293 awards and paid out no less than £165 million. Our criminal injuries compensation scheme is the most generous in the world. We pay out more than the whole of the European continent taken together and we pay out more than the whole of the United States taken together.
Under the current scheme awards are assessed on the basis of common law damages: that means what an applicant might expect to be awarded in a successful action for damages in the civil courts. Calculation of awards on that basis requires finely judged assessments of the degree of suffering and financial loss. That tends to make speedy decision taking more difficult. It also makes it harder to predict and control the costs of the scheme. We all know that under the energetic and able leadership of my noble friend Lord Carlisle, the board has been determined to improve the workings of the scheme. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend and his colleagues on the board for all they have done. It has been much appreciated. But, despite those sterling efforts, the backlog of unresolved cases has risen inexorably. It now stands at nearly 110,000. At the same time, the costs of the scheme have continued to increase at a rate that is no longer sustainable for a scheme funded by the taxpayer.
It was against that background that we decided to introduce a new tariff-based scheme in April 1994. That tariff scheme moved away from the one based on individual assessment. It provided for payments to be made on the basis of a scale of awards which grouped together injuries of comparable severity and allocated a financial value to them, based on awards made previously by the board.
The new scheme ran from 1st April 1994 to 5th April 1995, when the Judicial Committee of this House ruled that the method of the tariff scheme's introduction had been unlawful. The scheme was immediately withdrawn and the former scheme reinstated. But I must emphasise here that the legal judgment related solely to the method of the tariff scheme's introduction; it was not concerned with the merits of the scheme itself.
We remain firmly of the view that a tariff-based approach is the right way forward. A tariff scheme is easier for victims to understand. It is easier to operate; and that means that applications can be dealt with more quickly. It also enables costs to be controlled and predicted more easily.
But in revisiting the tariff approach we have, of course, taken careful note of the criticisms made of the earlier scheme, both in this House and elsewhere, and
294
in particular the concern that too simple a tariff approach could have a detrimental effect on those most seriously affected by their injury. We think our new, enhanced tariff scheme meets the major points of concern that were expressed. It will ensure that in the more serious cases payment is made for loss of earnings and earning capacity and for the costs of special care. And, in cases where the victim has, tragically, lost his life, not only will family members receive a fixed tariff payment, but, where they were financially dependent on the victim, they will also receive payment for that loss of dependency and support.
The Bill provides the framework for the new scheme and sets its broad parameters. It makes it clear that it is a tariff-based scheme, but that the tariff would be augmented in appropriate cases by payment for loss of earnings, special care and dependency. It makes it clear that the more important features of the scheme—namely, the tariff itself and other provisions bearing on quantum—will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They will require the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament before they can be included in the scheme.
The Bill will also repeal the provisions in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act which would have made the common law damages scheme statutory. It is intended that the Bill should come into force on Royal Assent and that, following parliamentary approval of the details to which I referred, the new scheme should start on 1st April 1996.
Following detailed consideration of the Bill in another place, I suspect that the details of the new scheme are already well known to many noble Lords present today. However, other noble Lords may find it helpful if I briefly rehearse the main features.
There will be a basic tariff of awards. Each injury description is allocated to one of 25 tariff levels which will attract a fixed payment ranging from £1,000 to £250,000. All successful applicants will receive an award from the tariff. But in addition, those who are incapacitated as a result of their injury for more than 28 weeks will be entitled to separate, additional payment for loss of earnings or earning capacity. There clearly needs to be a qualifying period to trigger that extra payment and to differentiate between those who have been most seriously affected by their injury and those whose injuries are less severe. We believe that 28 weeks is the most appropriate trigger, since that is the period for which statutory sick pay is payable by employers. Of course, those who do not qualify for statutory sick pay during that time should qualify for incapacity benefit, or other state benefit as appropriate.
In cases of incapacity for more than 28 weeks there will also be payment for special expenses. That will be payable from the date of the injury and it will cover the costs of special care and future care. In general, if something qualifies for special expenses under the present 1990 scheme, it will qualify for special expenses under the enhanced tariff scheme. Thus the sort of things it will cover include the costs of home mobility equipment, fees for care at home or in a nursing home,

295
and the cost of private medical treatment if, in all the circumstances, both the treatment and the cost are reasonable.
In fatal cases there will be a fixed fatal award of £5,000 per qualifying claimant, unless there is only one qualifying claimant in which case the award will be £10,000. But in addition, where the claimant was financially dependent on the victim, payment will be made for the loss of that dependency—in other words, for the loss of the breadwinner's wage. And a child will be eligible for payment for loss of parental support. Reasonable funeral expenses will continue to be paid in all appropriate cases. The upper limit for awards under the enhanced tariff scheme will be £250,000, double that payable under the old tariff scheme.
Finally, I should mention a most important feature of the new arrangements. That will be the ability to make payments by what are known as "structured settlements". For higher value awards it will enable the claimant to opt for payment by the purchase of annuities which will provide a stream of index-linked payments for life, or other specified period. Those payments will be tax-free. It will considerably enhance the net value of the award to the victim. And I can tell your Lordships that we shall use the Bill to ensure that the benefits of structured settlements can be extended to claimants under the current scheme whose claims have not yet been settled. That will, in fact, necessitate our making a small change to the current scheme plus an amendment to this Bill, which we shall bring forward in Committee.
The tariff itself is based on that used in the earlier tariff scheme which had to be withdrawn. It was derived from nearly 20,000 awards made by the board which enabled us to group the injuries into bands of comparable severity and to set an appropriate level of payment. We have made some adjustments to the tariff in the light of experience of operating the tariff scheme in 1994–95, including the addition of new or amended injury descriptions. The new tariff lists over 300 injury descriptions and is, we believe, now pretty comprehensive.
The new scheme will be administered by a body similar to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administered the earlier tariff scheme. The Bill will enable the administration of the scheme to be market tested at a future date, although we have no plans for that at the present time.
The Bill provides for a two-stage appeals process similar to that under the earlier tariff scheme. The first stage will be an internal review of the case by a more senior member of the authority. The second stage will be a right of appeal to an independent appeals panel. This will comprise members of the present board, and people with experience in medicine, business, commerce, or with a trade union background or other broader relevant experience. The workings of the appeals panel will come under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.
Apart from dealing with appeals from individual claimants, we regard the panel as an important source of expertise and advice. We have therefore made it clear in the Bill that the panel has an advice-giving role. That
296
means that the Secretary of State may consult the panel whenever he feels it would be helpful, while the panel may in turn give advice to the Secretary of State on such matters and whenever it considers it appropriate to do so.
The rules of eligibility and the procedures for making applications and appeals will remain very much as they were under the 1994 tariff scheme. And that scheme, of course, closely followed the rules of the common law damages scheme. However, the time limit for making applications will be extended from the earlier tariff scheme's one year, to two years. And, as before, the authority will be able to waive that time limit in exceptional circumstances.
I mentioned earlier that the costs of the common law damages scheme were increasing at a rate that was no longer sustainable. In fact, as the Financial Memorandum to the Bill makes clear, we estimate that without reform the annual liability to compensation by the year 2000–2001 would be in the order of £460 million. Under the enhanced tariff scheme, the liability will, of course, continue to grow year by year, but at least at a less rapid rate. By 2000–2001 we think that the annual liability will be in the order of £260 million, and that the total payable under the tariff scheme to then will be about £1.1 billion. That is still an enormous amount of taxpayers' money by any standards and, indeed, we will retain our place in the league tables. It is not surprising, therefore, that our scheme is, and will remain, the most generous scheme anywhere in the world.
We believe that the enhanced tariff scheme provides the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of taxpayers. It has the benefits of a tariff-based approach which will enable most claimants to get their money quickly and without undue fuss. But it also ensures that the most seriously injured are generously catered for, by paying loss of earnings and the costs of any special care, and by making provision for structured settlements. I hope the House will recognise that we have listened very carefully to the criticisms of the earlier tariff scheme, that we have made a number of very significant improvements, and that the new tariff scheme is much the better for it. No doubt others might wish to go further—we shall hear much of that during the course of the afternoon—but any prudent government must have regard to resource constraints and I believe that, within those constraints, the new tariff scheme is a good and generous one. It is good for victims, and it is good for the taxpayer. This Bill provides the necessary framework for the scheme, and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Question is that this Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord on the Woolsack. Before the noble Baroness sits down, has she no words of contrition on behalf of the Home Secretary for having acted illegally; more seriously, for having done so in the knowledge that there was a 50:50 chance at least that he was acting illegally; and most seriously, that he was in any case acting unconstitutionally by producing his own scheme in place of the scheme that Parliament had enacted and that was still on the statute book awaiting his bringing it into force?
3.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord will recognise that he has just made a substantive contribution to the debate rather than an intervention on procedure after the Question has been put. Perhaps I may, with due respect, suggest to him that if he wants to do that the House would be tolerant if he decided to speak in the gap. I do not think it is appropriate to have interventions at this stage of the debate.
It would be beyond the possibilities of human self-restraint if I were not to make some reference to the sorry history which has brought this Bill before the House. I shall, I hope noble Lords will recognise, seek to spend the bulk of my time speaking constructively about the details of the Bill before us, anticipating the way in which we shall be dealing with it when it comes to Committee and later stages. But before doing so I cannot resist saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has a serious point to make about the history of the Bill. After all, since the 1960s we have had a Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which has relied on the Royal Prerogative rather than a statute. It was recognised that that was something of an anomaly. The 1988 Act introduced a statutory basis for the scheme, but did so without setting a commencement date.
Of course it is within the proper scope of government to seek to change the basis of criminal injuries compensation. But if they had, as they did in 1988, decided to make statutory the common law basis which had been working already for 26 years and if they had expected that to be statutory, then surely they ought to have recognised from the very outset that to seek to make a change by Royal Prerogative was an improper procedure. That was recognised in debates in your Lordships' House on th 1993 White Paper; it was recognised in the debates initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on the Criminal Justice Bill; and it cannot be said that there has not been plenty of warning from your Lordships' House and from around the country about the impropriety of what the Home Secretary sought to do by introducing a completely different scheme through the use of the Royal Prerogative. That chicken very firmly came home to roost when the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House decided that the Government had sought to make a major change to the whole basis of a scheme which they had put before Parliament but never enacted. I do not think there can be easy forgiveness for the
298
disruption, the additional cost and the confusion and injustice which have arisen as a result of this whole sorry procedure.
It is not even as though there was any adequate justification for the arguments about increases in cost. Of course there have been increases in cost. The Financial Memorandum to the Bill rather disingenuously describes them as increases in cost in any year as being based on the number of cases settled, the proportion attracting monetary award and the average value of the awards. Well, of course, in mathematical terms, that is the case. That is the proximate cause, if one likes, of an increase in cost in any given year.
What is the cause of the increase in cost over a period of years? Clearly, it is the increase in violent crime. It is exactly the result of policies of this Government over years and the refutation of the claims that were made by successive Home Secretaries to Conservative Party conferences that it is the party of law and order. We must bear in mind that in 1979 the chance of any one of us being a victim of violent crime was 1:213. In the current year the chance is 1:64. Although there has been a decrease in some crimes, the increase in violent crime is currently running at approximately 7 per cent. per annum. So there is indeed a very serious cause for the increase in expenditure on criminal injuries compensation, but it is not one that the Government have ever admitted or accepted as being their responsibility after 16 years in office.
I turn to the two alternatives which the House has to consider in making a judgment about the best approach to the compensation of victims of violent crime. It has to be said straightaway that there is no simple answer to this. The common law scheme, which existed until it was replaced by the illegal tariff scheme, had a number of very clear advantages. It removed the difficulty of the injustice between the suffering of someone who is the victim of crime and someone who is the victim of an accident, which can be compensated by an insurance policy or payment from the person who caused the accident. To the victim there is no difference and to that extent the attempt in the common law scheme, which worked for so many years, to equate the pain and suffering of a victim of crime with that of the victim of a non-crime was admirable.
However, as the Minister rightly said, the tariff scheme has a number of advantages. I shall not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, by reading his very powerful speech in the debate on the White Paper against the total tariff scheme. Perhaps he is proposing to repeat it this afternoon. It was the most devastating attack on a change of government policy that I have ever heard. Nevertheless, despite what he said then and what he might say now, a tariff scheme does have advantages. It is easier to understand and it can be implemented more quickly. It does not require an army of lawyers and legal assistants to make the calculations. It makes it easier to control costs.
We now have neither the common law scheme nor the total tariff scheme which was in force in 1994–95. We now have a hybrid scheme, which I believe has been called the "tariff-plus" scheme. It is incumbent on us to

299
concentrate on the tariff-plus scheme which is before us, rather than to think about the theoretical alternatives. I do not believe that it is possible to go back to the common law scheme as it was. I certainly do not believe that it is possible or desirable to go back a shorter time to the total tariff scheme which was introduced illegally.
I cannot resist recording what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in this House on 16th June last year about the hybrid scheme. He said:
"a hybrid scheme would retain the worst elements of common law damages—that is, loss of earnings—and would make for great complexities and delay."—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1847.]
There has been some change, it might be said, politely, in government thinking since that time. I often wonder whether changes in the personnel of government are made at frequent intervals in order to avoid the embarrassment of Ministers having to eat their own words rather than those of their colleagues, which is what the Minister has done today.
Let us look constructively, if we can, at the defects of the scheme which is before us. It has to be said that there are too many of them. Of course, it is acknowledged that there is an increase in flexibility. The scheme itself is more complex in the number of recorded items which are priced. That has gone up to 310 from the earlier smaller number. But even so, flexibility has by no means been achieved by the addition of the loss of earnings provision. For example, what about the difference between the loss of hearing or sight of a child compared with that of an elderly person? That is a totally different situation in terms of life chances and of the cost of living a decent life.
What about the difference between a facial scar on a young woman or a young man actor, let us say (in order to avoid issues of gender), compared with someone who is past it like me? I say this with feeling as a person who is gauche as well as gauchiste, as the French say. What about the difference between the loss of the use of the left hand as opposed to the right? It makes a huge difference in what one can do, but that is not recognised in the scheme. What about the lack of recognition for multiple injuries? I know that that would make the scheme more complicated, but multiple injuries have an effect on each other, which makes a difference to the total suffering of the victim. All these things are omitted from the scheme, but they are perfectly possible because industrial disablement benefit allows them to be considered.
I turn to the loss of earnings capacity. I was slightly unnerved by the Home Secretary on 29th June in the debate at Third Reading in another place. He thought that these additional provisions in the Bill would only occur in the more serious cases. I very much welcome the Minister's view on what the special conditions might be for loss of earnings. But does loss of earnings include loss of future earning capacity, as it should? Does the provision for special expenses cover future special expenses? What about the provision of no compensation for the first 28 weeks? The argument here is that that is the period of statutory sick pay and the period for the lower payments which are made in the absence of statutory sick pay. There are 12 million people who are
300
excluded from statutory sick pay. Many of them are most vulnerable to violent crime. I take the obvious. examples of a self-employed taxi driver or a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. Can we be sure that these people will be adequately compensated for loss of earnings, which are not reflected by other elements of the government benefit system?
I am amazed to find that the 28-week rule also applies for dependency payments. These should not be called "compensation" in quite the same way.
I do not find anywhere here recognition of the conditions of exceptional risk which apply to fire fighters—and I give one example only. I remind the Minister that it was the Fire Brigades Union which brought the Government to their knees in the legal proceedings, which were determined by the House of Lords. I am worried by the provisions for capping the maximum awards. I recognise the value of the settlement procedures and their tax advantages, but we need further debate on maximum awards before we let this provision go through.
I am worried by the provision for the time-limiting of claims. The Minister said that the Government are proposing an increase from one to two years, but the common law scheme allowed three years for claims to be made and, even so, in the last year nearly 4,000 claims were out of time, of which nearly 3,000 were allowed. I wonder whether even three years is enough, let alone the two years which are provided.
I am also worried about the lack of provision for uprating for inflation. After all, the scheme was introduced in 1994, based on 1992 figures, and is proposed to run until 1999 without major revision. We shall have to look into that issue as well. I am also concerned about the independence of advisers and the appeal provisions.
Although in essence we accept that we must have a tariff-plus scheme, a hybrid scheme, we shall have substantial Committee, Report and Third Reading debates in this House. I hope and believe that they will be constructive because they will be concerned with the detail of the scheme and with making sure that we have the best possible scheme that we can afford, which is generous and which recognises the real differences between one victim and another. We owe no less to the victims of violent crime. The House will find us, as always, constructive and forward-looking in the way in which we approach the Bill.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, despite the untypically ungenerous and perhaps even pompous opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I greatly welcome the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who got to the heart of the matter and explained to the House as succinctly as ever why we are discussing this Bill today. Although, as I shall make clear in a moment, I do not want to pursue that matter at length, it should be widely understood and not forgotten that we have this Bill because of the arrogant assumption of the Home Secretary that he could introduce a tariff system without reference to Parliament. All credit to all those who, in

301
their different ways, played their part in exposing that error and in creating the circumstances which obliged the Government to introduce the Bill.
I do not intend to pursue that matter further because the Bill is now before us. Furthermore, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was not at the Home Office at that time. In any case, given her record, she would nobly defend the Home Secretary with her usual loyalty and panache. My regret is not that the noble Baroness does not find it in her—or has not so far found it in her—to express regret or to make an apology, but that I find it sad and unsatisfactory that in another place the Home Secretary did not in any way express contrition for a decision for which he was wholly responsible.
As for the substance of the Bill, I now await with some trepidation the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I come new to these matters and, reading the Bill and considering the questions that were raised in another place, I, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have concluded that, on balance, I can accept the tariff system. I have to say—it is right that it should be said—that whatever the shortcomings of the system that is now proposed, which we shall he discussing more fully later, the scheme that is set out in the Bill is better than the arbitrary scheme that was imposed by the Minister in April 1994. Let credit be given where it is due.
Some awkward matters of judgment are involved about the quantum of compensation as well as about its distribution. It is one thing to endorse the principle of compensation—it was recognised by Parliament 30 years ago—but I concede that it is another thing to devise the right system for today. Having said that, it is important to challenge what the Minister has just said and what the Home Secretary said in another place about the costs of the present scheme and of any future provision. The Minister twice repeated the fact that the scheme which we have had and the scheme which we are to have will be the most generous in the world. The noble Baroness went so far as referring to a league table. However, I do not think that the issues of a league table and whether the scheme is the most generous in the world are relevant to the question of priorities which is for Parliament to decide. What we must decide, both in this House and in another place, is whether the scheme is adequate, given the need, and how much we are prepared to spend on this aspect of compensating the victims of criminal actions.
The Home Secretary was frank in another place when he said that the factor of costs had led him to proceed in the way that he, quite wrongly, chose. I hope that we shall examine that point more fully later. As it is not entirely clear to me, I ask the Minister how much less the present scheme is likely to cost in due course than the old scheme would have cost had it continued. Having looked in detail at what the criminal injuries compensation scheme is meant to do and at the need for compensation, I have found it extremely difficult to come up with a figure showing that the cost of the new scheme will be substantially lower than the cost had the old scheme continued.
We can compare the cost of £175 million for the first year of the operation of the new scheme with the figure of £260 million which I understand is the sum envisaged
302
in five years' time. We can compare those figures and others. If we do so, I do not think that we shall conclude that, as the Home Secretary said in another place, the cost of £260 million is enormous. It may sound enormous in absolute terms, but it is not enormous comparatively if we consider expenditure in any government department, expenditure on social policy as a whole or the overall figure for public expenditure as set out in the annual document.
Perhaps I may make one or two comparisons. Even if the proposed scheme costs £260 million, it will cost us much less in a year than our intervention in Bosnia, for example. I see the Minister looking despairingly at her colleagues as if that is not a relevant comparison. If she does not think that that is relevant, what about our annual expenditure on prisons? Is she suggesting that that is not a relevant comparison? Annual expenditure on prisons is £1.5 billion in England and Wales in the current year. We are proposing to spend one-tenth of that figure on the proposed scheme at its peak. So, we are spending on the victims of criminal injuries one-tenth of what we spend on keeping people in prison. That is a relevant comparison when we consider whether these figures are simply enormous or are figures which we should accept as desirable on social grounds.
The only question is how much we should be spending to compensate the victims of criminal injury if, as the Government have proposed, victims should be at the centre of penal policy now and in the future. I repeat that I do not think that the figure is enormous. It is relatively modest when compared with expenditure in other areas.
If the scheme that is now proposed begins to overrun its estimated costs, will there be any attempt to revise the benefits? Will the Minister make clear to the House what role Parliament will have in approving any future tariff if Ministers seek to do what I hope that they will not do and what I hope that the noble Baroness will say that they will not do, which is to reduce the quantum or the benefits that are payable?
Having said that about the cost and, with some qualifications, having in general welcomed the principle of the Bill, I must say that most of the points that I wish to pursue are better pursued in Committee. For the most part, I associate myself with the detailed anxieties rightly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Perhaps I may refer to four points which cover part of the ground that he dealt with.
First, reference was made to the new scheme being quicker than the common law scheme. Will the Minister tell the House what proportion of those who lodge their claims are expected to receive their compensation within the first year of lodging them? How will that compare with the time that elapsed under the common law scheme? As those in her department must have made judgments about how much quicker the new scheme will be, what evidence does she have?
Secondly, the Minister referred to parliamentary scrutiny but I was not clear as to which aspect of the Bill she was referring. Was she referring to the qualification rules or was there some other indifferent

303
matter in respect of which she says parliamentary scrutiny will be allowed, although through the inadequate means of statutory instruments?
The Minister referred to my third anxiety, although I may have misunderstood her. She may have suggested that an amendment made in Committee would be appropriate. Will she give examples of the changes in the common law scheme which she anticipates being made in the next year before the scheme covered by the Bill is implemented? In another place the Home Secretary referred to the changes as minor and administrative, but if the Minister could give one or two examples the House would be enabled to make up its own mind.
Fourthly, I wish to associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the time limit. I strongly favour a three-year time limit. The Ministers have chosen a two-year limit and there must be some purpose behind that. They must have taken a view about how many claims will be disallowed because they are out of time, albeit subject to an appeal.
I accept on balance the idea of a tariff. However, as we all know, a tariff is inflexible, it leads to anomalies and it results in unfairness. Every victim is different and every injury is distinctive. In my view, it would have been far better if in addition to the tariff we had had clear bands within which discretionary decisions could be made. I hope that as a result of discussion in this place there will be more flexibility in the scheme and more frequent updating than is at present anticipated. If the independent panel to which the Minister referred is only advisory I would much prefer an independent panel which could itself determine the tariff.
Despite the history of the matter and the shortcomings of the Bill we welcome it as far as it goes. However, I hope that the Minister will be far more receptive to amendments tabled in this House to this Bill than she was in the sorry case of the Criminal Appeal Bill, which we finished last night.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, at the beginning of his speech the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded us that during the past 15 months this is the third occasion on which the House has had the opportunity of debating the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Speaking today, I must begin by declaring my interest, as I did previously, as chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, I am bound to comment that the purpose of this Bill is to legislate me out of that position.
The first debate was in March last year. During the debate on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to take account of the Government's White Paper, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right to say that I expressed the unanimous view of the membership of the board; that that which was then being proposed by the Home Office was not only flawed but was manifestly unfair and would be shown to be unfair in practice. On that occasion, I expressed the hope that
304
the Home Office would look again at its proposals in order to see whether it could achieve its aims while avoiding the unfairness of its proposals.
The second debate was in June last year when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, proposed the implementation of the provisions in the 1988 Act. I said that I was not in favour of making the current system statutory but that I was supporting the noble and learned Lord's proposal on the basis that it would give yet another opportunity for the Home Office to reconsider the proposals that it was putting forward. Sadly, as was said by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord McIntosh, on both occasions the Home Office chose to ignore the opportunity to look again at what was being proposed. As we all know, that department went ahead and firmly hit the buffers when it came up against a Judicial Committee of this House on 5th April this year.
This time the Home Office has had to think again, and it has thought again. I say at once to my noble friend the Minister that the Bill before us is far better than the original tariff scheme proposals. I wholeheartedly welcome each of the major changes that are being made. The board accepts—and I have always accepted—that a scheme introduced in 1964, with the volume of work that the Minister mentioned, is not necessarily the appropriate framework for today's conditions. Last year the board received 73,000 applications, resolved more than 65,000 cases and spent more than £165 million. I agree also that, as regards the vast pressure on the board, much has changed since 1988 and the proposals then put before the other place.
That vast increase in expenditure was not, and has not been, caused by an escalating increase in individual awards. If one takes account of inflation the figures have remained constant over the years. As has been said, it has been caused by the enormous increase in the volume of violent crime. It has been caused also as a result of the commendable publicity given by the Government and other forces to the existence of the scheme. Undoubtedly that has had a major effect on the number of applications which come before the board.
Of course, I understand the Government's concern about the mounting cost to the scheme that those circumstances have occasioned. I believe that change is justified in order to contain expenditure and to ensure that cases can be dealt with as efficiently and quickly as possible. That is particularly so when one notes that of the claims that were dealt with last year more than 85 per cent. were awards of less than £5,000.
I do not resile in anyway from what I said in March about the fundamental flaws within a tariff scheme. I shall not repeat those now. A tariff scheme is not as good as the common law damages scheme. Because of the nature of a tariff scheme it cannot take account of the differing effects of similar injuries on different people. However, I believe that what was so unfair about the proposals that the Government were then putting forward was that by discounting entirely for loss of earnings, and for loss-of-earnings capacity and future care, they were making the vast majority of the savings at the cost of those who had been worst injured. While I believe that the flaws in a tariff scheme still exist and that such a scheme is not as effective as a common law

305
scheme, I accept that a tariff scheme can reasonably be used to meet the vast majority of cases which come before the board.
The Government have made major changes. It is right that we should acknowledge and welcome those changes. They relate to provisions to deal with fatal cases, proposals in relation to loss of earnings and future care, and they increase the maximum ceiling from £0.25 million to £0.5 million. In making each of those changes the Home Secretary has gone a long way towards meeting the major objections to the scheme that he proposed. I believe also that he has gone a long way towards meeting the terms of the European convention, to which he is a party. Knowing the problem that he must have had in wringing concessions of that nature from the Treasury, I feel it necessary to congratulate him on the changes that he has achieved. In Committee I shall argue for a certain flexibility within the tariff, but I do not propose to oppose the principle of the tariff.
The situation will be better in relation to fatal cases because it is intended to pay dependants and the basic flat amount is rather higher than the present bereavement award for England. As regards future loss of wages and earning capacity, while I understand the arguments of those who say that the calculations should start from day one, I am bound to say that I accept that it really is impracticable to continue to assess in each case, however short the absence from work, the amount of lost wages and then deduct from that the amount of benefits which the individual has received. The reality is that a tremendous amount of time is taken up with that work, quite often with very little end result. Therefore, whether or not six months is the right starting point, I have absolutely no doubt that the Government are justified in saying that there must be a period for which loss of earnings should be taken into account.
I welcome the increase from £0.25 million to £0.5 million. I welcome the introduction of structured settlements. I have always believed that there is a justification for a case for ceilings of some kind. In fact, your Lordships may be interested to know that last year, out of the 63,000 cases, there were eight in which the award was over £0.5 million. I am sure that in those eight tragic cases, the state would have provided even if the compensation had been limited under the scheme.
I believe that the tariff is as good as can be devised and that, on the whole, the figures are generous. Indeed, I am bound to say to the Minister that I question whether savings will be made by this great change in the system. On the last debate I questioned the figure of £500 million as the cost of the current scheme in the year 2000–2001. I suggested that that was based on spurious assumptions. I was told, in those wonderful Civil Service words, that that figure had been arrived at only after careful scrutiny. It is. rather ironic to find that, six months later, that figure has been changed from £500 million to £460 million. I suggest that that is still an over-generous estimate of what the costs would have been. If one sets against that the additional costs incurred by the changes which the Home Secretary is now making, there will be little difference in practice.
306
I turn now to the question of the two great virtues which have been claimed for the scheme. The first is speed. I recognise the desirability that victims of crime should be paid as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the Minister for the very kind and generous words that she said about myself and the board. I tell the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Rodger, that last year 70 per cent. of the cases which came in were resolved within 12 months compared with only 25.5 per cent. in the year 1990–91. Now that about 50 per cent. of all decisions are delegated to members of the staff, that figure will be higher still.
Therefore, while I accept that there will be some saving of time and a speeding-up of the process, I do not believe that it will be all that great because the majority of the time is still taken up in obtaining the police and medical reports on which the assessment is made. It will still be necessary to obtain those reports and, in certain cases, it is necessary to await the results of trials.
As regards simplicity, I make only one comment. The original tariff which was produced a year ago decided that there were 187 different identifiable injuries. Nine months later the new tariff has decided that there are 310 different identifiable injuries. That increase has occurred in nine months, and it will steadily continue. If one looks at individual cases and sees the size of the files compared with what they were before, I shudder to think of the number of trees being cut down in Africa to meet the additional demand for paper which the scheme appears to create.
I welcome the changes that have been made. I accept that this is the most generous scheme in the world. I still believe that the tariff could be workable but it will be shown to need flexibility. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rodger, said about looking again at whether some of the figures should he in bands rather than individual figures. I believe that to he true in particular for sexual cases and cases of shock.
The Government must look again at some aspects of the tariff scheme because I believe that they will find that experience has shown not that the figures are too low but that they are considerably higher than those which the courts are awarding. If the scheme is to be subject to the affirmative resolution, I hope that that matter and also the matter of multiple injuries will be looked at again.
As I understand it, the scheme has not yet been published and is to be subject to the affirmative resolution. I hope, understand and believe that in the new concordat that exists the board will be invited to comment on the details of the scheme. If this scheme is to work, it is essential that there must be power within the scheme to refer complicated cases to a hearing for assessment. Awards for future loss of earnings capacity cannot be decided on the basis of papers before you while sitting in an office. It depends on the evidence that you hear and the people that you see. The scheme will fail in that regard if the Government do not allow a degree of flexibility which will provide for those who are running the scheme to refer matters of that kind immediately to a hearing of the new hearings panel.

307
I have spoken for longer than I should have done. Again, I thank the Minister for her kind words about the work of the present board. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to put forward proposals that will make the scheme even better than the considerable improvement that it is on the original scheme proposed.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to hear that my contribution to this debate will be mercifully short. I have only a few comments to make.
In a debate in the other place, when supporting this Bill, the Minister made but one reference to his having been found to have acted unlawfully in regard to the first tariff proposal. He said, as the Minister said today, that the House of Lords did not say anything about the merits of his scheme. Of course they said nothing about its merits because that was not the question before the House. What was before the House of Lords and the other courts was whether the Minister had acted unlawfully and had exceeded his powers.
Judicial review is not a process of appeal in which one considers the merits of the decision; judicial review is devoted to seeing whether the defendant to those proceedings has acted unlawfully, exceeding or abusing its powers. That is all that was before the court and that is all that the court decided. The implied suggestion of, "Oh, well, there was nothing which I was criticised for by the courts", is a misleading approach. The criticism on the merits occurred in this House. That was the place for the criticism and it occurred again and again. Indeed, it occurred just before the scheme was brought into effect, which I believe was on Good Friday of the previous year.
The House then unanimously condemned the Minister for the gross unfairness of the scheme, the abuse of Parliament in bringing it in in the way that he proposed and, of course, as regards the failure of any form of consultation. I only make those opening observations so that your Lordships will not think that the reference to the Judicial Committee having not commented on the merits showed that, sub silentio, it was approving of the situation.
I turn now to the Bill itself. I have a few reservations to make with regard to one or two of the clauses. I suppose that it is on the basis of being once bitten and, therefore, twice shy that I refer to Clause 11. Subsection (2) of the clause provides that,
"arrangements for compensation for criminal injuries in operation immediately before the passing of this Act ('the current arrangements')"—
that is, the common law arrangements—
"shall continue in force until the date on which the Scheme comes into force ('the commencement date')".
Then, subsection (3) says:.
"At any time before the commencement date, the Secretary of State may make such alterations to the current arrangements as he considers appropriate".
I find that a disturbing provision because it seems to provide no time-scale for laying before Parliament the draft tariff or for the introduction of the new scheme.
308
Therefore, the effect of the clause could be to undermine the decision of the Judicial Committee requiring parliamentary approval for changes in the scheme by permitting delays by the Home Secretary, during which period he would remain free to introduce whatever change he wished. On past experience, I think that this cautionary note is wholly justified.
Parliamentary control is dealt with under Clause 10. Subsection (1) provides that the Secretary of State,
"shall lay before Parliament a draft of—

(a) the Tariff… and any alteration which he proposes to make to the Tariff".

But, in regard to the scheme, subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State,
"shall lay before Parliament a draft of any provision which he proposes to include in the Scheme as to"—
and then some six matters are set out. It is no doubt my ignorance and my naivety, but I do not understand why the scheme should not be in the legislation. Then parliamentary control can be properly exercised. I find it an unusual and unsatisfactory arrangement—to use an unattractive term—that the essential guts of the whole new procedure should be outside the Act itself. Thus, parliamentary control, which, again, on past experience, seems to be so necessary, is weakened.
I believe that there was some talk about the parliamentary ombudsman having an opportunity to exercise some control over the scheme. I do not know whether the Minister can help in that regard. But, as I understand it, there has been little willingness so far to discuss the details of the scheme. It seems that it will not be prepared until the date when it may be too late to take any steps in regard to it.
As regards the tariff itself, its inflexibility has already been emphasised. I do not see why it is necessary to have one specified figure for each species of injury which it is thought appropriate to classify, because it has no reference to the impact on the individual of the injury. The suggestion has been made—and I support it—that bands or brackets should be provided in regard to those injuries. The Government have no doubt seen the admirable work of the Judicial Studies Board which has provided bands for injuries and, within those bans, some flexibility obviously exists. I do not know whether the answer is that if you do that then you must have a somewhat higher grade of civil servant administering the scheme because the thought process will be in greater demand rather than with a specific figure which you apply, the only argument being whether it relates appropriately to the injury.
I should like to know a great deal more about the appeal process. It appears that the legal element—and by that I mean the experienced practitioner in this field of activity who has hitherto been responsible for justly fixing the right figures—is only to appear in the appellate process and not below. Therefore, I should like to know in what circumstances an appeal is permissible. I have heard it said that it will involve some form of deterrent mechanism to dissuade what is referred to as frivolous or vexatious appeals, but I do not know how it will operate.

309
All that arises out of the fact that the scheme is unparticularised in sufficient detail. That is why I urge, and will urge, that a great deal more appears in the legislation and that far less is left to be worked out subsequently with the affirmative procedure which, although obviously it has some force, has its deficiencies, as we all know from past experience.
I have an engagement this evening which I must keep because it is a long-standing one and difficult to avoid. However, I shall certainly stay in the House until 6 o'clock. But, if we have not completed by then, I hope that your Lordships will accept my apologies for my absence. I only say in further mitigation that I have done my best to limit the time that I have taken of your Lordships.
4.28 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord will have to leave by 6 o'clock, but he will at any rate hear my speech and, no doubt, one or two others. I should like to express my support for many of the criticisms put so effectively, for example, by my noble leader Lord McIntosh. However, I shall leave the details for the next stage of the Bill. I shall speak in very general terms and even more briefly than other speakers.
I do not believe that any of us under-estimate the seriousness and the difficulty of the subject that we are discussing this afternoon. In 1964 I chaired a committee set up by Justice to examine the problem of criminal injuries compensation. I introduced the first debate into this House on the subject. The Government produced their scheme post hoc or propter hoc soon afterwards in 1964. Although it is difficult to obtain the relevant statistics, since then crime in general has more than trebled. In 1979 I introduced the first Private Member's Bill into this House.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh has reminded the House that today one is more than three times as likely to suffer from violent crime than was the case in 1979. That is the background to the matter that we are discussing. One has to ask how much has been done in the meanwhile. I would not say that nothing has been done apart from the development of the 1964 scheme. In 1964 and 1979 a number of voluntary schemes were in existence. The National Injuries Victim Support Scheme, which has done such wonderful work, came into being in 1980. A great deal of voluntary help has been forthcoming since then, and the Government have also given considerable help, although not enough.
Where do we find ourselves today? I suppose that if I had been a victim and attended the Conservative Party Conference in 1993 I would have come away elated. I would have thought that at last something would be done for victims. Both the Prime Minister and Home Secretary said that they would give criminals a far worse time and victims a much better one. I do not believe that anyone will dispute that that was the general impression, and certainly that was the impression given to the cheering crowds at the conference.
What has happened since? The Home Secretary, always supported by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister—therefore, we do not want to blame him or
310
pick him out as a wicked individual—has made an attempt to produce a scheme. However, far from helping victims, the scheme has damaged them so severely that it has been treated with contempt and dismissed as being totally unlawful by the Law Lords, who are not always regarded as the most progressive members of society. That was the first effort of the Home Secretary.
He now comes forward with the present scheme in the form of the Bill that we are discussing. What will be the effect of it? I understand that, according to the Government's figures, in the year 2000 £460 million will be spent on victims, but that under this beneficent Government that amount can be cut down, by some miracle of administrative legerdemain, to £260 million. That cannot be done just by clever technology. It means that someone will suffer. From long experience, I cannot think of any assault on any particular social service on that scale. I would regard it as about the most shameful attack ever made on a social service. Whatever be the messing about with this or that detail, the apparent intention is to cut by nearly half the amount that goes to victims. That is a hard-pressed section of society that the Government have pledged to assist and have picked out as their favourites. I do not argue about it but just recite the facts.
I do not wish to be too depressing or to end upon a gloomy note. If I remember rightly, the French Prime Minister in the crisis of 1940 said that only a miracle could save France and that a miracle would save France. It took four years and a great deal of bloodshed before that miracle was eventually performed. I hope that a miracle in this field can be performed rather more easily before the present Home Secretary has to take flight. I hope that that will come about rather sooner than it did in France. There is a ray of hope on the horizon in the form of the new Home Office Minister responsible for prisons, and perhaps victims, whom I warmly welcome. This lady is no stranger to dramatic conversion. I hope that, always assisted by the much admired noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, she will guide the wandering soul of the Home Secretary in the direction of Damascus.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, some of your Lordships may recollect that when we discussed the proposals of the Home Secretary last year in March and June I was one of those who spoke very strongly against what he intended to do. In contrast, today I support what is now proposed. There are two main reasons for this. First, I am delighted that at long last this scheme to compensate the victims of criminals will be put on a statutory basis. It has been going for 30 years, and in all that time it has proceeded on the basis of the Royal Prerogative. I do not believe that a scheme which disposes of so much public money should be operated under the Royal Prerogative for such a long time. It may be all right to do that to start with, on an experimental basis, but if the scheme is operated under the Royal Prerogative Parliament has virtually no control and the Minister in charge, in this case the Home Secretary, can—or, at any rate, could until seven years ago—alter it whenever he

311
likes without consulting anybody. I do not believe that that is a proper way for a scheme such as this to be operated.
About nine years ago the then Home Secretary said in the other place that the Government intended to put the scheme on a statutory basis as soon as possible, and in 1988 Parliament did so. However, I believe that that Act contained a fatal flaw, in that it was left to the Home Secretary to decide when that should happen. We all know the outcome of the Home Secretary's efforts to alter the scheme last year and the appearance before the court and the judgment upon it. But, if I read this Bill correctly, the Home Secretary has no choice but to get on with it. The scheme has to be brought into operation immediately, which I believe to be a very good thing.
My second reason for supporting this measure is that the Government have listened to all of the representations made to them about the proposals presented last year. Not only have they listened but they have responded. Quite frankly, that is something which does not always happen. I suspect that noble Lords opposite will realise that more than anybody else. This time the Government have responded positively and are to be congratulated on so doing.
There is no doubt that the scheme introduced by this Bill is a great deal better than the one we discussed last year, in particular for the reason that what is now proposed will take account of actual and potential loss of earnings, the cost of special care and the like. One can pick holes in the tariff. Some holes have already begun to be picked, and no doubt more will be picked as time goes on. But I do not believe that to be a vital point because last year, when discussing the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, my noble friend Earl Ferrers, the then Minister, said this about the tariff:
"The terms of the tariff scheme are not set in stone. We shall listen to the views of responsible people and practitioners and, if the scheme can be refined or improved in the light of experience, we shall not hesitate to make the necessary changes".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1847.]
That gave me some encouragement, because it seemed to me that the Government were admitting that they had not necessarily got the scheme absolutely right and were prepared to alter it. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will repeat that assurance so that we know that the Government will not hesitate to alter the tariff scheme, if necessary.
I was slightly put out by something that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. I understood him to say that he believed that no changes were to be made to the tariff scheme before 1999. I may have misheard him. If I did, I apologise. If he did say that, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will also refer to that point because I do not know quite where I am. Is she going to hesitate, or is 'she going to wait until 1999?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I did say that in those terms I was wrong. I meant to refer to the fact that there was no provision for up-rating for inflation until 1999, which is a more limited point.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps my anxiety is not justified; but I shall await with interest what my noble friend the Minister says when she replies to the debate.
I should also like her to refer to the question of the speed with which awards can be made. I know from the experience of people I know well that in days gone by, long before my noble friend Lord Carlisle became chairman, payments sometimes took forever to be made. I know of one particular case involving a widow whose husband had been killed in which not one single penny was received for over three years. That is appalling. I know that my noble friend Lord Carlisle has done wonders in ensuring that payments are made much more quickly. However, even a moment ago I heard him say that a substantial percentage of claims were settled within 12 months. Ten years ago the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, which had been examining these matters, mentioned the question of speed. It used a phrase which is familiar to us all:
"He gives twice who gives quickly".
One can go on and say that he gives half as much who gives slowly.
I hope very much that under the new tariff scheme payments will be made immediately, or as early as possible. I should have thought that in some cases that does not present any great difficulty. I give the example of a man who is injured and loses a finger in trying to prevent a robbery. The finger is gone, and that can easily be seen. All that is needed is for the police to confirm that there was a crime. To my way of thinking, the appropriate figure—which I fancy may be of the order of £5,000—should be paid the next day, should it not? If not, why not?
I accept that sometimes cases will not be as easy as that. To take another example, under the proposed tariff—which we have been allowed to see—one can receive compensation for what is known as a whiplash injury to one's neck. There are four scales on the tariff for that injury. For a simple injury one receives £1,000; and the scale increases, depending on the severity of the injury and the length of time one suffers, up to £10,000. I accept that in such cases, and in others, it will not be possible immediately to say that a particular injury has caused permanent damage. It will be some time before one knows whether the damage is permanent. However, it again seems to me that for someone in that situation, once it is known that the injury has happened and it is shown by the police that a crime has been committed, one should at least give the man something—the smallest award which he would receive anyway.
There is no doubt that, particularly for dependants but also for the person who has been injured, if something is done to help straightaway it makes an enormous psychological difference as well as an enormous financial difference. I very much hope that it will be possible for awards which are laid down—not for the long-term injuries involving loss of earnings which will take some time to work out—to be paid as soon as humanly possible; within days if possible, but certainly within weeks.

313
I find myself in disagreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on the Bill. He believes that the scheme and the tariff should be set out in the Act. I do not, because if it is in the Act it is an awful business to change it: there has to be a new Act. We all know how long it takes to pass an Act of Parliament. Despite all the disadvantages of an Order in Council, which cannot be amended, it is a better way, because the legislation can be changed more quickly if circumstances show that it ought to be changed. After all, there is nothing to prevent either House of Parliament saying that they will not accept an order unless the Government change it. Happily, in my judgment, it is provided in the Bill that the scheme requires the assent of both Houses of Parliament before it comes into effect. That is the right way to proceed.
Finally, I come to the question of money. Let us face it, we all know that it is the question of money that has forced the Government to introduce the scheme. They are hoping to save money. I understand that. The Government have produced figures to show what the existing scheme is likely to cost in the year 2000. It would be very rude of me to say that I do not believe the figures, and I shall not. However, I shall take the figures with an enormous pinch of salt. What has been done is to extrapolate what has happened over the past 10 years. To be frank, it is a guess. It may be an intelligent guess or it may not. My noble friend Lord Carlisle does not think that it is an intelligent guess. Furthermore, he does not think that much money will he saved.
However, I accept that there must be some control over expenditure on the scheme and the possibility, from the point of view of the unfortunate taxpayer, of being able to say that we can afford so much for this purpose but that we cannot have an open-ended scheme. I do not know whether the figure of £260 million by the year 2000 given by my noble friend the Minister is right. She does not know, either. If it is about right I submit that that is probably about right for this country. That is why I am happy to support the Bill.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, does not object, in my comments I should like to take up the point that the noble Lord made in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, about whether the scheme should be part of the Act. I regard that as an important element of our debate today on the Second Reading of the Bill.
First, I declare an interest in that for 35 years I have dealt with casework involving injuries to people in my former industry, the post and telecommunications industry. Even before I went to the other place, for 10 years I was involved in casework involving Post Office workers who had been criminally injured. They were the largest group of workers in this country who were at risk from criminal activities. I maintained that interest during my 22 years' membership of the other place and in the three years since I became a Member of this House. Therefore, I declare that interest in that I maintain my role in that work.
314
We come to the debate today with one disadvantage and one major advantage. Here I come to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the response of the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. The disadvantage is that we do not have the scheme in front of us. I take the same view as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the scheme should be part of the Act. The reason is simple. The problem with the affirmative procedure is that one cannot amend an order that is produced for debate. When that order is debated and voted upon one can only vote for it or vote against it. One cannot amend an order under the affirmative procedure. If the scheme were part of the Act, the issue would be open to debate. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, about the need for primary legislation when amending the scheme, and the problems that might create. On balance, it would be much better for the scheme to be part of the Act.
I turn to the advantage of debating the Second Reading today. We are only two days away from the long summer Recess. I hope that the Minister will take this point on board. During the Recess the Government will have an opportunity to discuss the scheme in detail and, if possible, to bring it to the House on the first Committee day. I understand that to be 17th October—almost three calendar months away. They have the opportunity to add that scheme to the Bill as an additional schedule. I believe that would be the tidiest way to deal with the point. It would also deal with the situation created by the acceptance of an amendment in another place which gives the Home Secretary almost carte blanche to amend the existing common law scheme, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, of undermining the decision of the judicial review.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, expressed disappointment (I put it no higher) that the Home Secretary had not apologised for his folly in going ahead, thus facing consequent humiliation. I do not join with my three noble colleagues. I am a simple soul. I never expected an apology in the first place. Anyone who expected an apology from the present Home Secretary simply does not know him. Therefore I do not join in that complaint.
However, I wish to place on record my thanks—I am sure that I speak for Members in all parts of your Lordships' House—and the gratitude of a great many people that the Trades Union Congress and the 10 trade unions pursued the matter through the judicial procedure. Without that pursuance, we would not be debating the Second Reading of the Bill today. We should place on record our gratitude to the TUC and the 10 trade unions.
We shall reach Committee stage in October. Between now and Committee stage, I hope that the substantive point relating to the scheme being added to the Bill as a new schedule will be taken on board by the Government.

315
I understood the Minister in her opening speech to say that the principle of the loss of earnings would apply to all claimants. However, I understood from the legislation—it may well be that I read it incorrectly—that the loss of earnings principle is based on the statutory sick pay scheme. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said, figures have been produced in the House of Commons Library demonstrating that 12 million people in this country do not qualify. They have no mandatory contractual sick pay scheme. They are low paid workers. They work so few hours that they are not entitled to cover under the statutory sick pay scheme. I refer to the self-employed—taxi drivers, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. But if sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses and shopkeepers in general are injured in a criminal act, they have to appoint a locum manager to keep the business ticking over. They do not suffer simply a loss of earnings; they also incur expenditure on the appointment of a locum manager.
I should like to hear a more detailed explanation. The noble Baroness may not wish to give that today; I shall not complain. We shall deal with the matter in Committee. But further more detailed consideration has to be given to the issue. Does "loss of earnings" mean loss of full pay or part pay? What does "loss of earnings" mean? There is no definition in the Bill.
I turn to the question of exceptional risk. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the position of fire fighters. It is important to point out that their position has been changed by the proposals contained in the legislation. Where a fire is started deliberately—we do not refer to house fires, but arson—that is a criminal act. In order for the fire fighter to qualify for compensation under the proposed tariff scheme, the fire fighter has to prove that he was taking an exceptional risk. For example, he has to prove that there may have been a body in the building and he was rushing into the building in order to attempt to rescue that person. Under the present common law scheme, the fire fighter does not have to prove that. That is another point that I hope the noble Baroness will consider.
I regard the issue of time limits as very important indeed. I appreciate that the Minister has moved position considerably since last year. In the original tariff scheme, the time limit was one year. That has now been doubled to two years. But the present criminal injuries compensation scheme has a three year time limit with provision for applications to be considered out of time. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, out of 4,000 applications made out of time last year, 3,000 were granted. Without my telling her, the Minister knows that most cases which have to be considered out of time relate to sexual offences. It takes a very long time indeed for the victim of such crimes to come to terms with what has happened. I honestly and sincerely do not believe that the Government will lose anything by going back to the current common law scheme, making the time limit three years rather than two, because of those exceptional cases.
316
I accept that we are about to have a tariff scheme. In contributing to the debate I seek to improve the proposals before your Lordships' House. I hope to contribute at Committee stage in an effort to improve the proposals rather than to frustrate them.
Finally, we ought not to build up false hopes in the minds of claimants. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, mentioned the time that it takes to pay out criminal injuries damages. Of the applicants under the suspended tariff scheme, only 17 per cent. reached a settlement. Under the present common law scheme over 80 per cent. were settled within 12 months. As legislators, we have to be careful that we do not build up false hopes in the minds of those who will make applications under the new tariff scheme. The evidence that we have, limited though it may be, indicates that only 17 per cent. of the cases were settled. At present, the position is that all those cases which were settled under the tariff scheme which had to be suspended now have to be reviewed by the board of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. They are subject to review now.
There are a number of problems. I finish almost where I began by saying that my purpose in this debate, in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading will be to seek to improve the Bill and make it as workable as we possibly can.
5 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the House for not being here at the start of the debate and for not hearing what the Minister said. I was delayed by an unavoidable public engagement, but I can assure the Minister that I have read the Home Secretary's speeches on Second Reading and Report in another place. So I am familiar with the Government's explanation.
The Bill is an important one and, unusually, on two distinct grounds. It raises in a vivid way the accountability of Ministers to Parliament and the law as found by the courts of justice and the appellate courts. It also deals with the means by which the state should substitute financial compensation for injuries suffered as a result of violent crime where—as is only too often the case—the offenders are not detected or do not themselves have the resources to pay compensation. As we heard earlier in the debate, the policy of compensating victims has been accepted by all parties since 1964. The first point—the accountability of Ministers—is one of the cardinal principles of our unwritten constitution.
The House is familiar with the chequered legislative history of criminal injuries compensation over the past 30 years, and in particular over the past seven years since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The 1988 Act arguably conferred a statutory right to compensation, and it certainly provided proper legislative authority for expenditure of public funds on a substantial scale. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. But, as we know, the commencement order bringing the sections into effect was never implemented. It is not unprecedented for legislation to be on the statute book and not brought into effect for practical reasons, but it is highly undesirable, to put it mildly. There are arguments

317
which perhaps should not be developed now, but which might be followed up in a separate debate, on the whole question of non-implementation. There are a good number of former Ministers of differing parties in the Chamber this afternoon. For example, in Australia if Ministers have practical reasons for not implementing what has been enacted by Parliament, they must report annually to Parliament what those reasons are. That is not to say there may not be good reasons, but at least they have to be put on public record, whereas here they can easily be overlooked.
In this House, those of us who are concerned with criminal justice policy generally are aware of a great debt to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for the way in which he raised the issue in your Lordships' House. It was later taken up by Victim Support, by the representatives of the TUC and the 10 trade unions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and it then proceeded through the courts.
I join my colleagues on these Benches in paying credit to the Home Secretary for the prompt and uncomplaining way in which he immediately accepted the decision of the House of Lords, acting in its judicial capacity. It found that his action in introducing a tariff scheme, while the original scheme based on common law damages still lay unimplemented and unrepealed on the statute book, was an abuse of his discretionary powers, and hence was unlawful.
What we are considering today, therefore, is a Bill presented to Parliament to rectify an error of judgment and to make lawful an administrative action which the highest courts have found to be unlawful. As such, the legislation is to be welcomed.
The challenge in the courts has also provided an opportunity for a breathing space and for second thoughts. No one knows better than my noble friend Lord Carlisle that it is common ground that the original tariff scheme was introduced far too cursorily and with inadequate consultation with the interested parties. More and earlier consultation with the main user organisations as well as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board itself—paradoxically, I may remark in passing, a theme of the Citizen's Charter—might have avoided some of the practical difficulties which have arisen since then.
At this stage I should declare an interest as the national president of Victim Support, the full name of which is the National Association of Victim Support Schemes. Victim Support, has a direct and extensive interest in the subject of the legislation. It is the main user organisation involved with compensation for victims of crime. I thought it would be of interest to your Lordships if I obtained some statistics. I understand that although all of the current returns are not yet in, in the year April 1994 to March 1995, Victim Support assisted with 11,235 new applications for criminal injuries compensation. That is a large part of the work of Victim Support. The noble Baroness will be aware that Victim Support has been in close contact with the Home Office. A meeting took place recently with her colleague in another place, the Minister of State, David Maclean. Victim support acknowledges, as I acknowledge personally, that significant concessions have been made compared with the original tariff scheme.
318
The concessions now include provision for loss of earnings after 28 weeks; dependency in fatal cases; care costs; and provisions for structured settlements. All of those are improvements. Yet those in the field who see the victims, often immediately after the criminal act to which they have been subjected, and when they are in no state to pursue applications themselves, remain concerned about some aspects of the enhanced scheme.
I make the point that the criticisms are not ideological. They are not derived from root and branch opposition to the switch from the common law damages approach to the tariff-based scheme. That stance is taken by some critics, but it is not the position taken by Victim Support. Its reservations are based on sheer pragmatic experience of handling the many thousands of claims every year.
I might remind noble Lords that the independent committee on compensation established by Victim Support and which reported in 1993, came down in favour of a tariff based approach. When I referred to this in an earlier debate it was not music to the ears of my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but that was the conclusion reached by the independent committee. The reasons for proposing a shift were: speed of payment, and certainty in what the applicant could expect. As the number of claims rose steadily upwards in the 25 years following the introduction of the common law scheme in 1968, with QCs assessing the amount of compensation to be paid in individual cases, the process simply became too cumbersome and too slow. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, the chairman, and his predecessor, Sir Michael Ogden, made strenuous efforts to obtain the additional resources to reduce the backlog. But the fact is—I looked it up only this morning and have the figures with me lest I should be challenged from the Benches behind—that in 1992–93, when the decision was taken to change the policy, 53 per cent. of cases took over 12 months to resolve. It is true that in the following year the total came down to 39 per cent., but in 1992–93 over half of the cases took more than 12 months. (I hear a grumbling noise from behind me). That struck me as a highly relevant statistic and I place it before your Lordships.
A change in policy to a tariff scheme was accepted in principle by large numbers of people working in the field with the victims of crime. It held out the prospect of a new approach based on published and clearly stated criteria, and with the potential to achieve the objectives of openness, certainty and consistency more effectively than had been possible before. As regards the basis of assessment and, equally important, the scope of criminal injury, there was a broad measure of agreement on a change of direction. But as so often happens, it has been in the detail and the execution that the differences have emerged.
The priorities now include some relaxation of the lower limit of £1,000. This remains a matter of real concern to Victim Support workers. Secondly, there is the question of loss of earnings. We welcome the fact that that is now to be subject to compensation, which it was not in the earlier version. But the likely impact of the 28-week restriction, and the effect it will have in

319
excluding several categories of claimant is, I think, a criticism familiar to the noble Baroness. She may be aware that this is an aspect on which Victim Support wishes to hold further consultation. Thirdly, there is the all-important matter of setting the levels of award and the mechanism for uprating. As they stand both are open to criticism and further improvement. I shall not pursue these arguments now. They are for the Committee stage. I join the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, in urging the Minister and her colleagues at the Home Office to use the long Recess constructively. It happens that there is now a period of several weeks available to try to reconcile these differences, and to hold further consultations with the main user organisations.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, the Bill before us should be measured against two overriding principles. First, is the compensation proposed at a fair and reasonable level in absolute terms? Secondly, does it bring fairness of treatment to different claimants suffering the same criminal injury? The Bill as presently constructed falls flat on its face on both measures. Being thus critical, I must try to justify my condemnation and possibly, though not with too much hope, influence the Minister who is to reply.
First, is the compensation proposed at a fair and reasonable level in absolute terms? Benchmarks that can be helpful here are, I suggest, a measure of the situation of the claimant before and after the injury; and secondly, how the proposed compensation compares with that for comparable civil injuries and the present scheme for criminal injuries under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The situation of the claimant before and after injury should take into account a multiplicity of factors that make up what we call "quality of life". The most obvious of these are the actual and potential earnings; ability to lead a normal, undisabled life; and psychological factors such as shock, stress, depression and appearance—the latter being particularly the case with young women and girls. All this the present common law based claims procedure does. It assesses the person as a whole individual and makes a settlement as analytically and scientifically as possible, bearing in mind the possible slight subjective variations between one adjudicator and another.
A major difficulty in analysing the Bill's proposals is caused, as we heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon, by the Government's failure to publish the scheme itself. The intentions of the Home Office have been difficult to establish. We in this House have to rely heavily on statements made by the Home Office Minister in Committee and other government statements and speeches in another place.
While the Bill makes provision in Clause 10 for the tariff itself to be laid before Parliament, it does not appear that much of the administrative or qualification arrangements are to be the subject of parliamentary approval; and attempts to throw greater light here were rejected in another place. However, it can be factually stated that the illegal tariff scheme, while it lasted,
320
resulted in significantly lower awards for victims of crime than similar injuries dealt with both by the common law scheme it temporarily replaced and awards in civil cases.
That raises the whole case of the Government's humanity. The Home Secretary's arguments in favour of a tariff are that it is quicker and simpler, which it was not in its year of illegal operation, and most importantly that it is less expensive. It has been my impression that the intention of the present Prime Minister, when he took up office, was to introduce the Age of the Common Man, the dismantling of the "automatic" honours system and the cherishing of all our people as somewhat more equal than they had been. And now, with this pernicious little Bill, it is sought to save money on payments to, of all people, victims of criminal injury, people who have suffered injuries ranging from the grossly inconvenient to the outright horrific. Why should a person who is pushed down a staircase by a criminal be significantly less compensated than an employee who falls down one because a negligent employer has failed to light it properly and who brings a civil claim to court? This is presumably why the present Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards are roughly in line with civil cases involving similar disablement.
Britain is no longer the hub of an empire on which the sun never sets, but we are still a considerable world economy. Any responsible government must indulge in good economic housekeeping and not spend more than it can afford. But to make savings at the expense of those injured by crime is the budgeting of an uncivilised and uncaring government, whose Members in another place were elected to look after their electors' interests. As we heard earlier, we shall be spending one-tenth on criminal injuries compared to what is spent on keeping those who caused them in prison. Quite a lot of people are affected, too. There were 66,387 adjudications in 1994–95. On the subject of the absolute levels of compensation proposed in the new tariff, we do not, I believe, know them yet. But the illegal one was low. The Home Office wants to save money, and doctors widely believe that past performance is a good guide to future behaviour.
Finally on this subject, will the Minister explain to me why the Law Commission has for the past two or three years been engaged on a review of civil damages—that is, broadly, accidents and negligence—and expects to continue for the next couple of years before reporting, so important is the subject; yet the Government can introduce a Bill such as this with a speed similar to making instant coffee?
My other principle for measurement of the stature of this Bill, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is to ask whether it brings fairness of treatment to different claimants suffering the same criminal injury. Surely it cannot do so, by virtue of its very nature—its present tariff-based nature. The airline pilot who loses his sight and cannot fly, losing at 25 years of age maybe an average prospect of £40,000 per annum for 20 years or £800,000 and most of his future, if any, non-flying earnings, is treated broadly in the same way as an 80 year-old who is living with his family, subject to some ameliorating concessions wrung out of the Government

321
during passage of the measure in another place and relating to loss of earnings subject to an overall cap—why is there an overall cap?—and subject to no payment for the first 28 weeks, which is often the period of greatest need. That is a subject which has been raised by other noble Lords.
It is not entirely clear whether loss of earnings for such victims will be compensated on the basis of full loss of earnings and with a cap that must disadvantageously affect some claimants, and be subject to the same maximum of one-and-a-half times average earnings as before. But even with that concession, I ask myself in this context how students who have never earned will he treated. My main problem, which is that of many noble Lords who have spoken, is the inflexibility of the tariff as presently proposed. Injuries are listed against specific and inflexible figures. The same basic criticism therefore applies to the new tariff as applied to the old. No distinction is made between individuals, each victim of crime with the same injury being treated in the same way as another.
That leads to anomalies and unfairness. It cannot be right, for example, that a young child who loses an eye should receive the same compensation as an elderly person. The disability suffered by the child will last for much longer; in fact for decades. The effect of a facial scar on a young woman is likely to be far greater than on an elderly man. No distinction is made between injuries to the dominant or non-dominant hand or arm. It is self-evident that an injury to the right hand for a right-handed person is more disabling than an injury to the left hand. That is a point which has already been made. Anyone who has seen the tortured writing of the one-armed Admiral Nelson in letters and despatches in the Nelson Room at Lloyd's must realise that.
The courts assess injuries by reference to the victim rather than by reference to a fixed scale. But the Judicial Studies Board has recently published the second edition of its guidelines for the assessment of general damages in personal injury cases. Those guidelines are more flexible than the fixed tariff proposed by the Home Secretary, in that they provide bands for the assessment of particular injuries which enable an assessment to be made within parameters but reflecting the circumstances of the victim.
A flexible tariff or banding system would be far fairer than the fixed tariff proposed. I feel that that is the general mood of the House. Victims deserve to be treated on an individual basis as is done, for example, by the Industrial Benefit Disablement Scheme which provides for the assessment of disability by reference to the extent of continuing disability suffered by an individual, comparing "before" and "after" the accident. Why should there not be such a scheme for criminal injuries? Or why not allow the tariff to be seen as a starting point with discretion for the assessor to vary by plus or minus a percentage figure to reflect the victim's circumstances? So far the Government have resisted all attempts to introduce any degree of flexibility into the tariff.
The 1994 tariff scheme made provision for additional and multiple injuries by very low percentage uplifts. The Home Office has indicated that multiple injuries will be
322
assessed under the new tariff scheme in a similar way to that of 1994. But surely improvements are necessary to avoid the problems identified then. For example, the victim with two serious but independent injuries to different parts of the body from the same incident obtained an uplift of only 10 per cent. to the second tariff, 5 per cent. for the third injury and nothing for any additional injuries beyond that. That rough and ready approach is a disaster. As there were only 641 applications in respect of multiple injuries in the year of operation of the 1994 tariff, it seems reasonable that that small number should be separately assessed outside the tariff. After all, 641 was 1 per cent. of total applicants.
That leads me to my final point; namely, that the relativity between people and the feeling that one has been fairly dealt with are quite as important as the fact that there is some compensation at all. While grief from the loss of a parent, relative or loved one mercifully usually passes away after a period, a sense of unjust treatment has quite the opposite profile. It festers and grows with time. We should think of Carruthers, the brilliant chemist who invented nylon in the 1930s. He was so cast down by a feeling of unjust reward from Du Pont, his employers, that he committed suicide. There was also Beck, an underground engineer, who, in his own time devised what we call the tube map. It revolutionised all previous maps which looked like unsuccessful arguments with a plateful of spaghetti. His scheme is used internationally by virtually every city which has an underground railway. At first submission, he was scoffed at, and, in the end, grudgingly paid £50 for his scheme and forbidden to submit developments and improvements. His map is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. But to the nub of my point, the treatment that he received remained with him and ruined the rest of his life.
I fear that it will be thus for many of the claimants under the Bill which is now before your Lordships if it is not significantly amended toward much greater flexibility of treatment of the actual circumstances of the victim, as opposed to the operation of a menu of inflexible payments. With the Government dedicated to saving money, I fear that the answer may well be a lemon, leaving the same bitter taste. I could never support this Bill in its present, inflexible form. Let us try to improve it.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, has certainly given a formidable list of criticisms of this Bill. Most of those matters will no doubt be raised at Committee stage.
I was somewhat surprised by his comments on the meanness of the Government. After all, the Government have a duty to look after taxpayers' money. It is not the Government's money and they have to guard it carefully. Considering that the United Kingdom has the most generous system of criminal injuries compensation in the whole world—as my noble friend the Minister said in her opening speech—more generous than all the member states of the European Union put together and, I understand, the whole of the United States, I do not believe that one can call the Government relatively

323
mean in that regard. I am sure that everybody would like to give as much as possible. But money has to be allocated to a great many other very needful purposes. I consider that the Bill has been extremely generous and we shall look forward to seeing the tariffs when they are finally discussed.
I should also like to say, from what I have heard from previous speakers, how much this House has benefited from the debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on 2nd March last year. Quite clearly, to many of the matters on which concern was expressed during that debate and later the Government have, indeed, as my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, both listened and responded. Of course some issues will be debated during Committee stage but, broadly speaking, I have the feeling that the whole House warmly welcomes the Bill, as indeed I do.
Whatever the past circumstances leading to the introduction of the Bill, it must be said that it remedies a legal defect quickly and without delay, as stated by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. Also, it seeks to set out a balanced and fair system of compensation to the victims of crime. Noble Lords will recognise that that is indeed no easy matter. It is certainly not an easy task for my noble friend the Minister.
Looking at the statistics which relate to crimes of violence, it is depressing to consider estimates showing a continuing increase by the end of the century, contrary to the advice so often given to investors that figures can also fall as well as rise. It is a pity that that particular saying does not apply to statistics on crime. The consequent increase understandably reflects on the number of victims as well as incurring further and enlarged organisation and administrative resources. Already it appears that victims have to wait up to nine months to receive payments which, because of the circumstances, are usually needed as soon as possible after the criminal injury has been incurred. Many noble Lords also made that point.
It is to be welcomed that the Bill now contains provision for loss of earnings and special expenses. Again, the Government are to be commended for that. Great credit is due to the president of Victim Support—my noble friend Lord Windlesham—and the Police Federation, which also welcomed many of the provisions.
I should also like to touch on three issues which may be raised during the Committee stage. The first is the question of the diversity of age, occupation and other relevant features which may be considered over and above the appropriate tariff. I wonder whether the appeals committee, which is to be set up under the Bill, will be enabled to give guidance on individual cases as well as giving general advice on policy for the future.
My second concern is that the police, who deserve our constant admiration and of whom it is estimated around 18,000 will be injured during 1995, may lose some of their legitimate entitlement to benefit and special pensions if they receive compensation under the Bill. I do not know whether I understood that point correctly, but I should like clarification either when my noble friend replies or during Committee stage.
324
The third point relates to the situation where victims are in receipt of benefit from the DSS and receive compensation of over £3,000. It is understood that benefits would decrease and disappear altogether when the amount reaches £8,000. Surely that is not equitable or fair. Anyone not in receipt of benefit would be a net beneficiary under the Act and the person who does not receive benefit is presumably better off than the person who does. That does not strike me as being either fair, in the case of the beneficiary under the DSS scheme, or equitable in general terms. I hope that the Government will be able to look at that point when we come to discuss these issues later on.
I should like to refer to two further points which have not been raised by other noble Lords. The first is that contribution to the cost of paying out and maintaining a generous compensatory scheme should surely be bolstered by every effort being made to encourage the criminal to contribute to the compensatory amounts. I understand that in 1993–94 compensation orders were made in over 2,000 cases as a result of victims' claims and amounted to over £600,000 being paid out. But that is very little either in terms of the numbers of crimes being committed or in the amount of money paid out. I am not aware of any system to encourage victims to make a claim automatically when criminals are convicted. It would certainly be welcome if the issue could be considered. If criminals knew that they had to pay their victims, it may make them slightly more cautious.
In conclusion, I suggest that—recognising that this is not strictly part of the provisions of this Bill—the weekly prizes from the National Lottery should be restricted to a maximum of a fixed sum—say, £5 million or £6 million. That is surely an adequate win for any person who buys a ticket for £1. The balance could be allocated to improving the situation of victims. If compensatory payments are based on the public's desire to be generous to those who have suffered as a result of crime, for the cost of a £1 lottery ticket the public may be willing to see some of the massive winnings go to the victims of crime.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, had to say in relation to people who are injured as a result of a criminal act. Many of those injured pay tax. The impression may have been given by the noble Baroness's remarks—I am sure inadvertently—that it is only people who do not pay tax who suffer injury and claim upon the board.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. My point related to those who have been injured and are in receipt of benefits from the DSS. They will not receive the total benefit of the criminal compensation paid as it will be deducted from their DSS benefit. The point did not relate to taxpayers.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I appreciate the point the noble Baroness is making. I will read with interest what she said in more detail.

325
In the courts we have compensation orders but as I understand it the reason for the existence of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is that in 95 per cent. of cases the people who assault other people are not worth pursuing. That is why the scheme is ex gratia; it is a recognition by the Government that a wrong has been done which should not have been done within the context of society. That is what it is all about and we must sort it out within that context.
At one time I was going to make a speech, but then decided not to; I will simply make some observations.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, what is the difference?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the difference is that a speech has some continuity in it. I do not intend to have any continuity in my remarks. Since the time when the Home Secretary acted illegally—let us not beat about the bush; he was deemed to have acted illegally—what consultation has taken place with any one involved in the area of criminal injuries compensation? What consultation has there been since that decision and the production of this piece of paper we are now considering? I hope the Minister will be able to say who was consulted. Of course, the Home Secretary's domain does not include Scotland but we can look at this on a UK basis. Who was consulted before this Bill was produced? I should say that it is a fairly useless piece of paper at the end of the day, and observations have been made by various Members of your Lordships' House in regard to its contents.
I said that I did not intend to make a speech, but I should perhaps declare an interest as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I shall not say a great deal about the Bill. But just looking at page 1 we find that there is somebody called a "scheme manager"—that is a lovely expression. Then I find the qualifying words,
"if one has been appointed".
When we go into the detail of the Bill, we do not know whether or not we are going to have a scheme manager. The scheme manager seems to be an alternative to the Secretary of State. Quite frankly, as a lawyer I cannot understand what the Bill is about or how it will be implemented. One either appoints a scheme manager or one does not. The word "if' is a small but important word. When we look into the context of the Bill it becomes even more important.
Then we read about "claims officers". Who will they be? There is no definition at all in that regard. Then we have magic people called "adjudicators". I may have misheard the noble Baroness when she was presenting the Government's position, but I believe she said that existing members of the board may be adjudicators. I should say that I am not remotely interested in that position because I am on the way out, so it does not matter. I am getting on a bit so I do not have an interest in who is going to be an adjudicator. However, did I understand the noble Baroness to say that existing members of the board would be appointed as adjudicators?
326
I am only dealing with the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum; we have not really started yet. Coming to the bottom of the page we find the heading, Effects of the Bill on public sector manpower. As I understand it—I will be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong—the criminal injuries scheme as it stands at the moment, even with all the difficulties caused by the illegal act of the Home Secretary, is still running at a commercial rate administratively of between 11 and 13 per cent., which is within the acceptable range.
Including myself, there are 44 members of the board. According to the financial memorandum, the 44 members—if I understand it: perhaps I do not understand it—will disappear and 50 civil servants will be appointed; at what grade we do not know. Perhaps I may say—this is not self-pleading—that the Government and the country get the services of the members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at a fairly cheap rate. The noble Baroness the Minister smiles. But there are no pension implications. We get the daily deputy recorders' rate in England. In Scotland we do not have deputy recorders, so I do not know whether I should be paid at all. The 44 members who are doing the job without a pension and without any other rights will be replaced by 50 civil servants who will carry with them all the implications of Civil Service terms of contract.
I have studied what is said under Effects of the Bill on public sector manpower. What is the output per member of the board at the moment? I read that the staff will each settle 180 cases a year. That is a ludicrous figure. I am fairly certain that if the noble Baroness asks her advisers she will find that 180 cases a year is minimal. What is happening here is that to get the settlement of 90,000 cases the staff has to be increased by 50. I do not know anything about economics but that seems a perverted form of economics. Perhaps the Minister will let us know what that is all about.
There is also the question of inspecting the victims of violence. That is a central and crucial part of settling the level of awards and a public relations exercise is also carried out in that context. As I see it—I may be quite wrong about this—the whole objective behind this exercise is to exclude lawyers from participation in the criminal injuries compensation scheme. If that is the objective, let the Government be honest about it and say that this will be Civil Service orientated and that lawyers will have nothing to do with it. The end result of that will be that the judicial review procedure, which has become an industry certainly within the English Bar—not so much within the Scottish Bar—will increase tenfold. People will be seeking a review by the courts of decisions taken by civil servants. What will be the extra cost of that?
What will be the qualifications of those who will administer the scheme? Clause 3(4) refers to scheme managers and claims officers. The interesting phrase in the subsection is that a claims officer,
"shall be appointed on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
There is not one word about what training is to be given to the scheme managers, the claims officers or the adjudicators. Who will they be? Will they be nameless

327
people picked up off the streets? Will they be told, "You go in and adjudicate on what you think you would give that chap or that lady for the injury that he or she sustained"? I could go on at some length—I shall probably go on at some length anyway—but I am challenging the very essence of the Bill. One cannot run a criminal injuries compensation scheme without the professionalism required to adjudicate on the effects of assaults.
Perhaps I may make one final point. Many of your Lordships have already spoken on this matter and therefore I shall not expand too much on it. What has been the cost to date of the illegal actions of the Secretary of State? I can tell the House as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that many of us will be sitting in August submerged under bags of review cases from the tariff system. The Secretary of State was put on his guard very early on that he might be wrong. From the very outset of this exercise he paid no attention to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I say that with the greatest of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who had meetings with the Financial Secretary, Mr. Jack, and with the Minister of State, Mr. Maclean. The theme throughout the proceedings was that the tariff scheme was not negotiable. It is still not negotiable because it is in this Bill. In the interim, instead of sitting back to see what the courts were going to do, the Secretary of State in his wisdom—or lack of it—continued this scheme with letters to people saying, "Here is an award of £1,500 for a broken nose and a couple of black eyes. By the way, it might be reviewed. If that is so, you may have to pay back the money".
The Government took a deliberate decision. Some of your Lordships may be aware that there was a leaked letter of advice to the then Secretary of State to say that it was politically incorrect to try to claw back money from victims of violence. Therefore, when I am sitting going through these bags of cases and I see that an award of £1,500 has been made and I think that it should not have been £1,500 but £1,000, it will not matter a damn—if your Lordships will excuse me—because the Government will not claw it back. That is in contrast with what they do in civil litigation with the recovery unit in respect of social benefits. People are penalised beyond bounds. The whole thing is quite ridiculous.
What is the figure to date—not only the balance between what would have been awarded under the old common law system but what the cost of administration has been since the Home Secretary stuck his head in the sand and ignored what is going on around about him and ignored the courts? I cannot remember which noble Lord said that he had a 50:50 chance of success. Would it not have been a more prudent course for the Home Secretary at the time to have suspended the system until the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House had made its decision?
The administrative costs will be horrendous by the time the review of all the cases done under the tariff scheme has been conducted. In the cases where the award is lower, there will be no claw back and the country will have lost. By the time we discuss the Bill
328
in Committee I hope that a little more common sense will have been applied to the whole operation of criminal injuries compensation.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having had the privilege of listening to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I wish to congratulate him on a most enlightening speech which has no doubt enriched the order of our debate while, along with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, challenging the essence of the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord asked some most interesting questions which are not really for me to answer but are answerable and are a matter for my noble friend the Minister, if she cares to deal with the matter today.
At the outset, from these Benches I want to acknowledge the action taken by the TUC as a result of which your Lordships' Appellate Committee aborted the previous Bill on judicial review on the ground of ministerial misconduct. As has been said, the merits and principles of the Bill were wholly irrelevant. At all events, this Bill, which in a sense has arisen like a phoenix from the ashes of your Lordships' sustained objections to the previous one, serves as a tribute not only to your Lordships' House in the exercise of its revisory role, but also to the Government, something which seems to have been forgotten by certain noble Lords. In this Bill they were able to reflect, to a certain measure, such objections.
Why it should be suggested, as it has been, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should don the mantle of sackcloth and ashes and grovel around the place, is simply not understood, for he has responded in full measure to your Lordships' reservations. Of course, it is a fair political point because, I suppose, all political points are fair. I do not object to it being made, but it is a pure political point. At this stage all your Lordships accept the principle of the Bill, as indeed do I. It is that we have to replace the common law system of compensation with an enhanced tariff scheme; what is called a "tariff-plus" or "hybrid" scheme.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about the principle of the Bill, is not its essence that it will cut the amount going to victims by almost one half?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, no, that is not the essence of the Bill. With respect to the noble Earl, as I see it, the essence of the Bill—and I can only speak for myself—is the principle: do we carry on with the common law principle of the assessment of compensation, or do we change to a tariff or hybrid system? That is the principle. The noble Earl is referring to the consequences of the change. At this stage I am not dealing with those. This is Second Reading and at this stage I am dealing with the principle of the Bill, which is that we move from one system to another. That is acceptable to all noble Lords. I shall come in a moment to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said—with much of which I agree—that

329
really we simply have to move, as a matter of principle, towards what the noble Lord called a "hybrid" or an enhanced "tariff-plus" system.
Why? Because as a matter of principle that affords the reasonable resolution of a fair compromise between the interests of the victim, the obligations of the state and the burden on the taxpayer, under any government. For that reason the Bill has my full support. It also has the support of my noble friends Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, Lord Colnbrook and Lord Windlesham. We all opposed the previous Bill for reasons which are known and on record.
I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that it is not an easy solution but, as he said, we cannot go back to the old common law regime. He asked a number of cogent questions which assuredly warrant serious consideration, no doubt at Committee stage. I shall not seek to enter further into them because of time.
As my noble friend the Minister has said, this Bill will continue to afford the most generous compensation scheme in the world, and will dispense more compensation than all other European countries put together. It would surely be unrealistic and idle to suppose that the existing non-statutory scheme, under which compensation is awarded in line with common law damages, can continue.
There is no Bill which is incapable of improvement. Speaking only for myself, I hope that by some supplementary provision within the tariff scheme, some flexibility can be introduced to meet the individual needs of the victim in certain types of cases. If that were to be done in all cases, it would break the whole tariff concept wide open. Nonetheless, I hope that that may be possible. I have in mind some machinery to enable discretion to be exercised within financial constraints, such as might be acceptable to government. I do not have the skill to formulate that—or do not have it yet—in the form of an amendment.
One has to strike a fair balance. I agree that the figures given by my noble friend the Minister about what happens in the year 2001 inevitably have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Who on earth knows what will happen then? But the Government have to work on predictions and assumptions. There is no doubt that these are respectable predictions and reasonable assumptions, on which the Government are entitled to work. There is a very high degree of saving between £1.8 billion and £1.1 billion. That saving seems to be considered by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as a shameful attack on the social services, and by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, in stigmatising the Bill as a pernicious little Bill. Every noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, but when considering the realities of the situation, the burden on the taxpayer and the fair resolution of compensation, as compared with other countries, some of which are far better off than ourselves, I believe that this is a reasonable response.
However, expenditure is not the only problem. There is the backlog, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook and is a very serious problem. As yet 110,000 cases are unresolved. That is not a government prediction; it is, I am told, a clear statistic. The
330
importance of immediate payment has been stressed and is of great importance, but how one gets immediate payments with that order of backlog, I am uncertain.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that the scheme was too cumbersome and too slow. I am not here to criticise the administration of the scheme; only to point to the fact that the number of applications has risen from 554 in 1964, when the scheme was set up, to 73,000 in 1993–94. I am informed that under the tariff scheme, it is expected that the backlog will be reduced substantially and that that reduction will continue. I suggest that that is yet another reason why, if the tariff scheme will reduce the backlog, as I understand that it will, one should support that tariff scheme.
The Bill has many attractions which have been explained in full by my noble friend the Minister and by my noble friend Lord Windlesham in particular. The structured settlements with the annuity payments which are not taxable are, among other aspects, very important attractions. At all events, it is a regime which is very different from that proposed in the previous Bill, and which is broadly acceptable to my noble friends Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and Lord Colnbrook with whom consultation on the Bill has, I understand, ensued.
The Bill is not open to objection as a skeletal Bill. I am coming now to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The degree of the proposed implementing machinery is wholly appropriate. The affirmative resolution procedure affords a satisfactory measure of safeguard. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Colnbrook that it would be wholly impracticable to have that complex implementing machinery, which may and, indeed, should require amendment from time to time, cluttering up the face of primary legislation. I wholly reject the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in that regard.
With reference to Clause 11, I can see no reason to suppose why on earth the Home Secretary would seek to ignore, avoid or evade the decisions and rulings of your Lordships' Appellate Committee. Some suggestion was made to that effect, but I find it unacceptable and clandestine. There are no serious criticisms of the Bill on that score.
In conclusion, I should like to make just one point. The common law system is a tariff system. Between brackets, we advise, in the light of decided cases, as to how much on the basis of full compensation, on full liability, and how much on the basis of contributory negligence and so on and so forth. There is a bracket and there is a tariff, but under the common law system you take the risk of litigation. You have to prove liability. You have all the' costs of substantive trial, and in all litigation you have the inevitable risk of failure and of vast expense. You are on risk. How you compare the common law system in that set-up with a system in which all that you have to do is to prove causation and get your money without substantial risk, I do not understand. To my mind—I am an ordinary lawyer—it is not a comparison as between like and like. Under the tariff system, you are getting something without risk and without expense.

331
Therefore, on that ground alone, quite apart from the issue of expense and quite apart from the point about the reduction in what people get, which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and other noble Lords, we should support the principle of the tariff. There should be a reduction in any event because the scheme should never have started off on the basis of common law compensation, but no yardstick other than that was thought of. On that ground also, it seems wholly right that, leaving aside the burden of expense, the principle of introducing the tariff as proposed by this Bill, albeit enhanced, is wholly justified.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the debate has provided the Government with much well-informed criticism of the proposals and some responsible suggestions for further improvement. There may be a distinction between a speech and some observations, but I hope that the noble Baroness will avail herself of all that wisdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that the Government have responded to all of the criticisms made in the past—
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, not to all of them.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord actually used the word "all", but if he says that he did not, I accept it. Then, even the noble Lord is not claiming too great an open-mindedness on the part of the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just emphasised, there is still the question of the change which occasioned all the problems—the change from the common law basis of assessing compensation to a tariff system. I make no secret of this: I agree with the strictures of my noble friends Lord Ewing and Lord Longford on that change. However, I suspect that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is right and that our horse has long escaped.
There are some criticisms to be made of the common law system. I am not referring to what I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was adverting to, which was the method of deciding liability. Nevertheless, there are criticisms to be made of the common law system of assessing damages. Of course, not all of them are addressed in the new proposals. However, the common law at least attempts to address the principle of fairness—and fairness entails two factors. The first is that similar situations should be treated alike and the second is that relevant differences should be reflected in different treatment. That requires room for flexibility. The Government's initial proposals clearly failed to give effect to that second element. Victim Support, which has the advantage of having as its president the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, together with the Bar Council and other organisations demonstrated some of the more absurd consequences of what the Government were then proposing, as did a number of your Lordships during the subsequent debates in this House. I should like to add my tribute to those paid about the initiatives of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
332
So, belatedly, the Government looked at it again and emerged with a tariff-scheme-with-some-flexible-elements—I hope that that phrase will appear in Hansard with hyphens between the words—still operated not by lawyers who are accustomed to assessing damages but by the same officials who were to operate the original tariff scheme. I accept, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the result is a substantial improvement. However, I suspect that the result will be what it usually is when one sets out unreflectingly to create one thing and then halfway through changes one's mind and decides to create something else.
The Devil begins with a tail and hoofs and halfway through it is decided to give him a human face. The parts do not fit together and it is not a pretty sight. Certainly, the new scheme still admits of the anomalies referred to by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Broadbridge. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, pointed out, the number of identifiable injuries has doubled but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, commented, there is no suggestion that the single rigid figure against each may be replaced by a band or a bracket.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh reminded us, there remains a distinction between the method of assessing compensation for a tort and compensation for a crime, corresponding to no distinction in either the loss or the need. At the end of it all, I share the doubt of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, about whether the new scheme is likely to be more expeditious.
That case has been made out in this debate and it will not profit from further comments from me. Nor do I believe that your Lordships would be assisted if I were to repeat what has been said about some of the questions which your Lordships may wish to address in Committee. I hope that I may be forgiven if I spend what time falls to me not on the content of the Bill but on its form. Perhaps I may express agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my noble friend Lord Ewing, and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, because I believe that it is one example—probably the most blatant but, unhappily, certainly not unique—of a tendency by the present Government to lose sight of a fundamental constitutional principle. It is the difference between the functions of the Executive and the legislature.
If the Executive has proposals for changing the law, it submits those proposals to Parliament. Parliament may agree or disagree, or it may agree subject to some amendments. Of course, Parliament may initiate legislation without waiting for a proposal from the Executive. But normally the division of function is that the Executive is responsible for policies, for which it is accountable to Parliament. Where those policies entail changes in the law, including changes in Ministers' powers, it submits a proposal to Parliament.
The question which sometimes arises is: what is a proposal? There was once a body of opinion, chiefly among traditional Conservatives, that a proposal meant all the details of the changes which it was intended to make. Lord Hewart, a former Conservative law officer, argued in the book on which many of us were reared, The New Despotism which was published in 1929, that

333
all the details should be embodied in the primary legislation and that leaving details to delegated legislation was a dangerous transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive.
That was an extreme version of the doctrine. Since the Donoughmore Report in 1932, it has been generally agreed to be acceptable if the primary legislation sets out clearly what is to happen and Parliament entrusts to the Executive the filling in of the details, subject of course to some of the proper safeguards referred to in the debate. That is for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook; there needs to be a degree of flexibility.
We are familiar with provisions such as those in Clause 10, inviting the Secretary of State to decide on the details after Parliament has legislated and then to lay those details before Parliament. Your Lordships will notice that in this case it is not all his proposals, even as regards the details, but only some of them. In Committee, your Lordships may wish to discuss some of the proposals which the Secretary of State is empowered to make which are not brought within Clause 10 and which he will not have to lay before Parliament.
However, the point that we are considering here is more fundamental. When Parliament is invited to approve subordinate legislation it is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As my noble friend said, there is no provision for amending it. The time when the debate takes place is at the mercy of the Government's business managers. It is likely, if I may say so from experience, to be at a very inconvenient hour and conducted to a background of yawns from the Government Whips. No one would consider those procedures satisfactory if they were applied to primary legislation. They are acceptable for matters of detail.
Yes, we have moved from the position of Conservatives such as Lord Hewart. There is a place for subordinate legislation. However, the present Conservative Government have moved not only away from their Lord Hewarts but they have swung out of sight, in the opposite direction. The Executive comes to Parliament not with a proposal at all but with a request for a blank cheque. Of course, a blank cheque is more flexible but most of us prefer to fill in the amount on our cheques because it makes it clear to what we are agreeing.
What we are requested to say in this Bill is, "There shall be a scheme of some kind and the Secretary of State is hereby empowered to decide what it shall be". That is not a proposal; it is inviting Parliament to abdicate its legislative function. We have been told most helpfully by the noble Baroness today—indeed, we have been told on other occasions—what is to be in the scheme, but it is not in the Bill. It is at the discretion of the Secretary of State and it may be changed when he chooses and without any prescribed procedures. That is precisely a Henry VIII provision.
Constitutionally, of course, it is all a very dismal episode and the more alarming because it comes from the Home Office. That is the department which, above all others, is expected to understand and accept responsibility for constitutional theory and practice. The
334
past history is well known to your Lordships and it has been recounted in this debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, my noble friend Lord McIntosh and other noble Lords.
In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Parliament was invited by the Government to approve the structure of a statutory scheme. However, it delegated to the Home Secretary, the discretion to decide when it should come into force. It used to be thought that a provision of that kind was inserted in order to give time to the Secretary of State to make the necessary preparations before the statutory provisions became effective. It was not generally believed among lawyers that, when Parliament provided by statute for certain things to be done but authorised the Secretary of State to decide when they should be done, that constituted authority to decide that they should not be done at all. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, noticed, has occasionally been breached in the past and it has usually occasioned some surprise.
In 1994 the Secretary of State went further. He did not simply decide to himself that the provisions should not be implemented; he announced publicly that he had decided that the provisions made by Parliament were not to be implemented. Even that was not all. With a statutory scheme having been approved by Parliament, not only did the Secretary of State decide that it should not be implemented, but he decided that he would make provision for a wholly different scheme, ignoring the intentions of Parliament in the statute. Of course, as your Lordships have recounted, he was firmly told by the judiciary that that was not constitutional. I am bound to say that I share the curiosity of my noble friend Lord Macaulay as to the cost to the public of that episode.
All right, that is in the past. What is more worrying is what is happening now and what is to happen in the future. Now he says, "I need the authority of Parliament. Very well, I shall not simply write the new scheme on my own notepaper. I shall ask Parliament to place a rubber stamp on it. But I shall not ask Parliament to rubber stamp the scheme when it is set out. I want the rubber stamp in advance of the scheme". Lord Hewart rests in his grave, although I suspect that his spirit may be emitting a few howls.
We are now facing the opposite extremity—not a refusal to admit sensible limitations on the doctrine that the legislature is there to legislate but inroads which threaten to eliminate the doctrine itself. Another recent obvious example was the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. Unless Parliament intends to become a department of the Executive, the time is fast approaching to make a stand.
There is one specific area in which the danger is magnified. The jurisdiction and powers of the judiciary are fundamentally matters for Parliament. It would be doubly dangerous if the Executive sought to reserve to itself the power to decide on the existence and extent of appeals against its own creations. I doubt whether, ever since the Franks Report, there is any serious dispute that tribunals and adjudicators are part of the judiciary.
I must now pause and, declare an interest. This is a matter on which the Council on Tribunals, which I am privileged to chair, feels strongly. Although I have no

335
reason to believe that my party would disagree, I should make it clear that I am speaking for myself and not necessarily for my party.
Clause 5 provides that the scheme shall include provision for appeals to adjudicators. The remainder of the clause confers a wide discretion on the Secretary of State as to their terms of appointment, their mode of proceeding and all the other matters associated with that. I say at once that there has been some consultation between the department and the Council on Tribunals. I recognise and appreciate the inclusion of Clause 5(7), to which the noble Baroness quite properly adverted, which brings adjudications within the supervision of the council.
But the Secretary of State is left to provide for appeals. He will appoint the adjudicators; he will decide what qualifications, if any, are required; he will decide whether the adjudicators will sit alone, as a panel or in some other combination; and whether there shall be an entitlement to an oral hearing. Those are matters not for the Executive but for the legislature.
I should like to quote from the annual report for 1992–93 of the Council on Tribunals. It states:
"We emphasise here, as we have in the past, that when establishing new tribunals, the Government should give due consideration to the appropriate legislative division between primary and secondary legislation. To establish a new tribunal by statutory regulation, however clear the legislative intention, does not accord with current practice. Establishment of a tribunal by Act of Parliament emphasises the tribunal's independent standing which is appropriate for a body exercising adjudicative functions in relation to the statutory rights of individuals".
That is a matter of principle which your Lordships would expect me to raise on Second Reading. There are further matters which your Lordships may wish to ventilate in Committee. But in view of the time that I have taken, I shall leave those matters until Committee stage and keep the noble Baroness on tenterhooks.
What should be said now is that the differences in function between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary are fundamental to our constitution and we shall permit them to be blurred at our peril. I do not believe that the noble Baroness wishes harm to the democratic process. I do not believe that there are officials in the Home Office who are plotting to destroy democracy. I doubt whether even the Home Secretary is opposed to democracy, although there are occasions when he is in danger of misleading us about that. But there can be death from a thousand cuts. And history may judge him less charitably than we do. Meanwhile, we must do that which lies within our power to address the more detailed matters about which anxiety has been expressed in the debate. The noble Baroness may demonstrate her commitment to the democratic process in her responses to those suggestions.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said at the outset, this is an important issue. We have had a full and interesting debate. It is clear from the thoughtful contributions which have been made that your Lordships feel genuine concern for those who have been injured as a result of violent crime. Not unexpectedly, differing
336
views have been expressed about what should be done. We are all agreed that we need a system which gets generous payments to victims as quickly as possible and at a cost that is affordable. We believe that our enhanced tariff scheme is the best way to achieve that.
Many points have been raised in the course of the debate and it will not be possible for me to address them all. I know that the matters that I do not address will be the subject of further debate as the Bill passes through each of its stages in this House. Nevertheless, I shall try to cover the main issues that have been raised.
Much has been said about my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the course of the debate, and in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, at the beginning of the afternoon. My right honourable friend acted throughout in good faith. He was subsequently judged, as we all know, to have acted unlawfully. With good grace my right honourable friend accepted fully that judgment and acted speedily to present the current Bill before the House, taking into account many of the anxieties voiced by your Lordships and others outside the House.
Much has been said about the detail of the scheme. The detail of the scheme will be set out in the draft scheme which we hope to publish within the next two or three weeks. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House and sent to noble Lords and Members of another place who have taken an interest in the scheme. Of course, copies will also be sent to interested organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to undertakings about the future shape and structure of the scheme. Clause 10 requires prior parliamentary approval of the tariff and other key features before the scheme starts. It also requires parliamentary approval before any changes can be made to those key features. Thus, it will be Parliament which has control over the future of the scheme. I shall return later to that aspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred also to the costs of the scheme and compared them with the costs of the prison service. He suggested that the costs of the scheme are only one-tenth of the costs of the prison service. He seemed to imply in some way that the Government are spending more on offenders than on victims. But expenditure on prisons and the criminal justice system as a whole benefits victims by ensuring that offenders are prosecuted and punished accordingly. That is as much in the interests of offenders as it is in the interests of the community as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as pompous. If the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that one of the adjectives which he used was "pompous".
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as well as to the Minister, I made a very specific reference to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. That alone I said was pompous. I hope that he will forgive me for that. I thought that the rest of his speech was absolutely splendid and not pompous at all.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, reduces many matters to personal comment. He knows and I know that we do friendly battle across this Dispatch Box. But perhaps I may say that, uncharacteristically for the tone of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has developed pomposity to an art form.
The noble Lord suggested that we should spend more—perhaps a related percentage of what is spent on, for example, Bosnia or prisons. I believe that he even evoked the GDP. During the course of the Bill it will be interesting to know what is the precise percentage of public expenditure that the noble Lord would wish us to spend on this scheme. Perhaps he wishes that to be totally unlimited.
We shall review and revise the benefits. Parliament will be involved in that process. However, I must ask what proportion of the claims will be met in the first year under the new scheme as opposed to the old scheme. I shall refer again to that matter.
The noble Lord referred to changes in the existing common law scheme before the tariff scheme starts. The only planned change is to allow structured settlements to be made where claims under the old scheme have not yet been settled. I believe that the whole House would welcome that opportunity being afforded to those set-back claims that have not yet been settled. The noble Lord went on to ask for comparative figures for the new tariff and the common law damages scheme. However, I gave them in my opening speech which I invite the noble Lord to read in Hansard tomorrow morning.
I have mentioned the action of my right honourable friend and I rest my case in that respect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to Clause 11 which allows the Secretary of State to make changes in the common law damages scheme. Perhaps I may link that hack to the point that I have just made. There is nothing sinister about Clause 11. It puts beyond doubt that the common law damages scheme may continue until it is replaced by the new scheme and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may make any changes necessary. That will ensure, for example, that the necessary changes can be made to allow for those structured settlements to which I referred a moment ago.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to dependency payments and asked if they were subject to the 28-week rule. That is not the case. In fatal cases, there will be a fatal award for all qualifying claimants, plus a payment for loss of dependency where the qualifying claimant was financially dependent on the victim. That will be calculated from the time of the death of the victim.
Much has been made of incidents where someone may lose a left or right hand, and concerning the difference in treatment of those two injuries. The tariff awards are based on an injury to the dominant limb. Therefore, the actual basis is on the dominant limb. If, in Committee, the House wishes to suggest that there is a lesser payment for the less dominant limb, then of course we shall consider that if someone wishes to table an amendment. We would like to think that there is an
338
overpayment concerning the less dominant limb and the right payment for the dominant limb. However, we shall await developments during the further stages of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook referred to loss of earnings. In cases where loss of earnings or special expenses are payable, the expectation is that the basic tariff payment will be made as soon as possible—that is, of course, once eligibility has been determined—rather than waiting for a loss of earnings assessment which, as my noble friend will know, could take more time. However, we take the point about paying people as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, referred to the tariff scheme and said that it was not quicker than the common law damages scheme. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is not possible to make proper comparisons on the basis of one year's experience of the tariff scheme, especially as the scheme was under challenge at the time. Priority was given to dealing with the backlog, which I am sure the noble Lord would agree was the right thing to do, of cases under the old scheme. Therefore, until the tariff scheme stands alone and the old scheme cases have been dealt with, it will not be possible to make proper comparisons. However, we are confident that the scheme will deliver speedier payments to most victims and we believe that there has been some support for that in the Chamber this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asked if members of the existing board would become members of the new panel. Well, we expect to invite some members of the existing board to become members of the new panel as, indeed, happened with the tariff scheme which operated last year. We shall, of course, be inviting people from a wider range of backgrounds to become members. Therefore, it is not quite the "horror house" that I believe the noble Lord described during the course of his speech.
As regards my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, perhaps I may say, first, how very good it is to see him in his seat today following a very recent operation. Indeed, my noble friend returned to active duties in the House with unseemly haste. We wish him well as he recovers to full fitness.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, first, for what he said about the Bill; and, secondly, for the important point that he made. Any government have to balance competing interests—that is, those of the victim in this case and, of course, those who must fund the scheme, the taxpayers. However, as my noble friend said, the scheme remains the most generous one in the world.
I listened most carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, when he criticised the proposed new scheme. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is not too dismissive of additional payments to the fixed tariff of loss of earnings, costs of care and of the facility to opt for structured payments which allows for a tax-free income stream for life. That was, indeed, the impression that he gave to the House. If, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord is advocating a more

339
generous scheme, then, let him tell his colleagues in another place about it because I believe they will note what he says with interest. Alternatively, would the noble and learned Lord cap the overall amount, but offer a different form of distribution? If so, perhaps we will understand what the capping arrangements could be during the course of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I must have been more than usually incomprehensible. I thought that I said clearly that I wholly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in that the new scheme is a great improvement on the old one.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I actually heard the noble Lord say that; but I also heard him dismiss the sort of "add ons" to the tariff scheme. Perhaps we should both read Hansard tomorrow morning to clarify the matter. I shall offer a fulsome apology if I misunderstood what the noble Lord said.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, and indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, both referred to Henry VIII clauses. I said that I would return to that issue. First, if the scheme were to form part of the Bill, any change, however minor, would have to be a matter for primary legislation which would present very considerable difficulty. Again, that point was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The Bill will, of course, go before the scrutiny committee between now and the Bill's next stage. Indeed, that is an important part of the process. It will be for that committee to take a view on whether my right honourable friend is seeking proper powers or whether he is exceeding his office in that respect. In that case, no doubt the scrutiny committee will report the matter to the House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to awards and suggested that they should be selected from a band; and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to a banded system. Assessing an appropriate payment from a wide band for each injury description would, in effect, mean reverting to a common law method of assessment. It would reintroduce an element of subjectivity and consequent uncertainty for the victim. It would undoubtedly lead to more appeals and to a gradual, upward drift towards the top of the band.
I should also remind the House that we are not looking to provide finely judged compensation on the same basis as before; we are looking to provide a speedy and generous payment to the victim for the injury suffered. The tariff approach is open and transparent and victims will have a pretty good idea when they apply of how much money they are likely to receive. However, that would not necessarily be the case under a banding system, but it will, of course, be for the "add ons" to take particular account of the circumstances of each claimant.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the rising cost as being due to the increase in crime. I believe that that fact was also mentioned by other speakers. There is no absolute correlation between the crime figures and the number of applications under the scheme. Since the scheme's introduction in 1964, it is true that violent
340
crime has increased by 500 per cent., while the number of applications has increased by 3,000 per cent. Moreover, the amount of compensation paid has increased by no less than 40,000 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the time limit. We intend to introduce a time limit of two years. The one-year limit under the old tariff scheme was criticised as being too short, but the three-year limit under the common law damages scheme is, we believe, rather too long. Police and other records are often weeded out at three-yearly intervals. That can make it most difficult to secure the documentary evidence needed to substantiate the claims. However, there will continue to be discretion for the authority running the scheme to waive the time limit in exceptional cases.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and said that it should be able to refer difficult cases to an oral hearing. We recognise that in such a scheme there will always be cases which are more difficult, especially those involving complicated loss of earnings and special care calculations. However, we do not believe that a power of referral for an oral hearing, as is possible under the current 1990 scheme, would be appropriate. The enhanced tariff scheme is administered in a different way from the current scheme. Under the tariff scheme there is complete separation of the original decision taking process and the appeals function. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the CICA to refer so-called "difficult cases" to the appeals panel for an oral hearing. To whom would any dissatisfied claimant then apply? The appeals panel would have to become both judge and jury, thereby compromising the independence of the appeals process.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will be able to call upon the advice of senior experienced staff and lawyers in more difficult cases. I believe that that point was also made by my noble friend Lady Elles. However, the initial decision must be for the authority alone. If, after review—that is, if one is requested—the authority decides on the balance of probabilities that a certain award should or should not be made, that must be a matter for the authority. It will then be open to the applicant to decide whether to appeal to the independent appeals panel, which can then consider the matter afresh without having been involved in any way in the earlier decision.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was fairly condemning of the Government and their treatment of victims. It was the Government who introduced the victim support scheme in the first place. The Government have supported it well, and will continue to do so. The victim is central to our concern about fighting crime. We have toughened up the criminal justice system almost precisely because we are concerned about the plight of victims.
I was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, why the tariff and the detail of the scheme were not on the face of the Bill. I believe that I have already referred to that. Until it comes before the scrutiny committee, in my view changes to the scheme, which sometimes are very minor, will require a primary place

341
in the programme for primary legislation. I do not believe that that is the way to deal with the details of such a complex scheme.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the up-rating of tariff levels. The tariff levels have been left as they were when the earlier scheme was introduced on 1st April 1994. Those levels were based on board awards and included at the time an unquantified element for loss of earnings and special care plus a generous amount for inflation. Though we are now paying loss of earnings and special care, in addition to the tariff award in more serious cases, we have not stripped those elements from the tariff levels which are therefore higher than they would otherwise have been. There is already a considerable cushion built into the tariff. For the future, the intention will be to review the tariff bands every three years. We shall give further thought to how that review will be undertaken. The priority for now is to get the scheme up and running successfully. But the element of the award for loss of earnings and special care will go up automatically in line with wages and the costs of care.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook referred to early payments. I agree with him: it is our intention that payment should be made as soon as possible once liability has been established. My noble friend also asked whether I would repeat assurances given by my noble friend Earl Ferrers that the Government would not hesitate to make any necessary changes to improve the tariff. First, I should set the context of the way in which my noble friend asked the question. He was referring to the 1994 tariff scheme which had to be withdrawn following the ruling of the Judicial Committee of this House. Under that scheme, the Government would have been able to make changes administratively without having to come to Parliament and so could have acted much more promptly. Under the new scheme the tariff and other key features bearing on quantum will require the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament, both before the new scheme is introduced and before any subsequent changes are made to the tariff or to those key features.
Therefore, I cannot give an unequivocal assurance to my noble friend that we shall make any necessary changes because they will no longer be in the Government's direct gift. What I can say to my noble friend is that the Government will continue to be receptive to ideas and suggestions to improve the tariff, or other aspects of the scheme. If it seems appropriate, we shall not hesitate to invite Parliament to approve the necessary changes just as soon as that is practicable.
Reference was made to the minimum award of £1,000. It was said that it should be abolished. That would not make sense. There must be a minimum threshold to stop the authority from being swamped with minor claims which will hinder the award of compensation to the more seriously injured victims who have more need for it. The minimum threshold of £1,000 has been at that level since February 1992, and we have no plans to raise it.
342
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, referred to the 28-week trigger point for loss of earnings. I believe that his point was that it would be particularly serious for those in part-time or low-paid temporary work, as well as for the self-employed.
There needs to be a trigger for loss of earnings and special care to differentiate those who are most seriously affected by injury, and those for whom we all have particular sympathy from those who are less seriously injured and who recover more quickly. The 28-week trigger was chosen because that was the period for which statutory sick pay was payable by employers. Those of working age who are ineligible for statutory sick pay should qualify for incapacity benefit or other state benefit, as I think the noble Lord knows.
The prudent self-employed may also have made provision for absence from work for whatever reason through business or other insurance payments. Successful claimants will all receive the basic tariff award for their injuries. The minimum payment is £1,000, and more serious injuries will attract much more. All tariff awards still have some unquantified element in them for loss of earnings and special care. Therefore, it is difficult to see quite how the absence of additional payment for loss of earnings will be likely to lead to hardship. Therefore, we believe that between incapacity benefit, the state statutory sick pay benefit and income support probably everybody is covered.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Windlesham for the work that he does with Victim Support. He will know that the Government take the work of that body very seriously. He referred to the levels of award on the tariff in 1996, and said that they were based largely on median awards paid in 1991–92. The 1994 tariff was indeed based on median awards. The most typical award was that made in 1991–92. But those awards were first reflated by 19 per cent. to bring them up to what was thought to be 1994 levels. The actual increase in average award over the three-year period was under 12 per cent. Therefore, the awards under the 1994 tariff were 7 per cent. higher than they need have been. From the point of view of Victim Support, that is a point worth noting.
Being based on the median award, under the old 1990 scheme, the 1994 tariff included elements of all the heads of damage payable under that scheme. I repeat that it included many of those now separately considered as add-ons. My noble friend also referred to the levels of award being reviewed only every three years, with no guarantee of an increase in line with inflation. We have given a firm undertaking that tariff levels will be reviewed every three years. For the reasons already given, we believe that to be adequate.
Reference was also made to some very low awards which it was said gave rise to concern. It was said that the sexual assault of children resulted in an award which was less than that for a broken finger. The tariff is based on 20,000 awards made by the board under the present arrangements, and therefore reflects what actually happens under common law damages. We believe that it is the most defensible basis on which to construct a tariff. It would be wrong to substitute someone else's subjective assessment for that more objective approach.

343
But we have undertaken to keep the tariff under review. If, with the passage of time, it appears that some of the relativities in the tariff need to be changed, then I go back to my promise to my noble friend: we shall consider inviting the House to reconsider them.
My noble friend Lady Elles referred to social security benefits and how they related to compensation. It is necessary to deduct social security benefits and payments made in respect of loss of earnings to avoid claimants being compensated twice over from state funds in respect of the same period of absence from work. The rules for taking account of capital when assessing eligibility for benefits are a matter for the Department of Social Security. We understand that that department considers that it is unfair and impracticable to attempt to distinguish capital received under the scheme from capital received from other sources, such as insurance payments. That replicates the situation that exists under the present scheme.
My noble friend Lady Elles also posed the question why National Lottery prizes could not be capped and the excess used to fund the compensation scheme. Parliament has agreed that the five areas to benefit from the National Lottery are: the arts, sport, National Heritage, charities and projects to mark the year 2000 and the start of the new millennium. Therefore, it would not be possible to use Lottery money for the criminal injuries compensation scheme. To do so would require a change in primary legislation. Even if that were possible, international experience has shown that large prizes are an essential part of any successful lottery. Attempts to cap prizes in other countries have generally led to a significant loss of sales and therefore a consequent loss of lottery money for good causes. However, I have no doubt that that particular point will rattle around for some time.
My noble friend Lady Elles also referred to court compensation. I hope that she is comforted by the fact that the Government share her view that defendants should be made to pay compensation where appropriate. The courts are required to consider making compensation orders in all cases, but such orders depend upon an assessment of offenders' means. It is often the case that they do not have adequate means to pay compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asked whom we had consulted in the course of the intervening months. We have received many helpful comments and consultation from a number of quarters, including the Law Society and my noble friend Lord Carlisle, the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Many of those comments are reflected in the new proposals.
I was also asked how the scheme affected the police and who are the major beneficiaries of the scheme. Like other claimants, the police, firemen and nurses should all receive broadly similar payments under the enhanced tariff scheme as they presently receive under the common law damages scheme, including past and future loss of earnings.
344
I shall stop addressing individual points in view of the time. I shall sum up by reiterating that the Government are committed to doing their best both for victims and for taxpayers. We have considered very carefully all the representations that have been made about the scheme, and we believe that we have devised a scheme that achieves the right balance. It is a simple scheme. It is a workable scheme. And it is an affordable scheme. Yet it will remain the most generous in the world. We can all continue to take pride in that. I await, on tenterhooks, the further stages of the Bill. Meanwhile, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she will deal with the point that I raised as to the cost arising to the public purse from the Home Secretary's illegal actions in introducing the tariff scheme. The Minister did not deal with that issue at all. I accept that she may not have figures available now, but will she give an undertaking to provide the figures to the House, perhaps in a month from now?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the important point is that claimants have been treated fairly in the intervening period. The question of whether parliamentary time has cost money is not the only point raised during the course of the debate that I have not dealt with. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for not answering the question, of which I was not given notice. If I can produce some quantifiable figures I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
6.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 17th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill
6.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I am tempted to follow the procedure of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, but I have a suspicion that we may take a little longer than on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
The Bill is promoted by three colleges of the University of London: Queen Mary and Westfield College, of which I have the honour to be a Fellow; St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college; and the

345
London hospital medical college. The central purpose of the Bill is to enable these three colleges to merge together into a single institution. The colleges intend to create a new medical and dental school to be called St. Bartholomew's and The Royal London Hospital School of Medicine and Dentistry.
As well as being a Fellow of QMW—as Queen Mary and Westfield College is commonly known—I was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services in 1980–81 when, with the benefit of the advice of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, whom I am very pleased to see will speak in the debate, I recommended that the two medical schools and what was at that time Queen Mary College should form a consortium, with the pre-clinical departments transferred to Queen Mary College. That grouping of the three institutions, which became known as BLQ—Barts, London and Queen Mary—was the subject of widespread consultation, and after some hesitation it was agreed to proceed. Accordingly, in 1990 the two medical colleges transferred their pre-clinical departments to Queen Mary and Westfield College where a new faculty of basic medical sciences was established. The three colleges also came together in the City and East London Confederation of Medicine and Dentistry. Under those arrangements the medical and dental students spend the first two years of their course at Queen Mary and Westfield College and then complete their clinical training at Bart's and the London.
It is now the wish of those three colleges to build on that collaboration by merging into a single institution. That proposal has a history. The process of integrating the teaching of medicine in London with multi-faculty colleges in fact goes back much further—to 1968 when the Royal Commission on Medical Education, under the chairmanship of Lord Todd, recommended that pre-clinical students should study in a multi-faculty environment. The London medical schools were unusual in being free-standing independent colleges and not part of multi-faculty institutions. Initially, as with BLQ, it was the pre-clinical departments which were the subject of the first moves but, later, full mergers took place. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the University College hospital medical school was merged with University College London in 1979, King's College hospital medical school was merged with King's College London in 1983, St. Mary's hospital medical school was merged with Imperial College in 1988; and in that same year the Middlesex hospital medical school was merged with University College.
It is now widely accepted that there are great advantages in medical schools being fully integrated into multi-faculty university institutions in that way. It is regarded as being good for the student experience and for the curriculum; it is also now regarded as essential if medical and dental research is to reach the highest levels.
So, when in October 1992 the Tomlinson Report into health services and medical education and research in London recommended the linking of the two medical schools of Bart's and the London with what was by then Queen Mary and Westfield College, that was in full accord with practice and earlier recommendations.
346
That is the purpose of this Bill. It will bring the three colleges together into one institution. The pre-clinical departments from the Bart's medical college and the London medical college have been together now for some five years in a splendid purpose-built building on the Mile End campus of QMW called the faculty of basic medical sciences. The Bill will complete the process of the merger of the three colleges into one institution.
The Bill has wide support. The governing bodies, the councils, of all three colleges are fully behind the Bill. They wish to see the merger and the creation of the new unified school. So, too, are the staffs of the colleges. I believe it has the support of my noble friends on the Front Bench and also of noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite.
There is one point that needs to be made clear, particularly in the light of debates in another place. Although the merger was recommended by Sir Bernard Tomlinson, it stands entirely separate from any question surrounding the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital or, indeed, of any other aspect of the reconfiguration of health services in London. This Bill is about medical and dental education; it is not about the delivery of NHS services. Indeed, the merger of the colleges is fully justified in its own right, irrespective of what may or may not be the future of medical services at St. Bartholomew's hospital in West Smithfield. As I am sure noble Lords fully understand—it is right to spell it out—the medical college is an entirely distinct and separate legal entity from the hospital.
The Bart's college council resolved to promote this Bill and to merge with the other two colleges before the decision to close Bart's hospital was taken. If hospital activity continues on the West Smithfield site, then the new medical school's teaching and research will likewise continue on that site. But if there is to be no clinical activity at Smithfield—and that is not a decision which rests with any of the colleges—then that activity must perforce take place elsewhere. In either case this Bill, and the merger which it seeks to bring about, is the right way forward in the interests of medical and dental education and research.
Of course, nothing affecting medical education or services in London can be without controversy. This Bill was opposed in another place mainly because it was thought that opposition to the merger of the medical schools might strengthen the case for the retention of Bart's hospital. But even the most cursory scrutiny of the debates will show that to have been a thoroughly mistaken view. The Second Reading of the Bill in another place was moved by my right honourable friend Peter Shore, himself an avowed opponent of the closure of Bart's hospital. The Third Reading was moved by my right honourable friend Peter Brooke, who achieved some notoriety when he attacked the proposals for Bart's of the then Secretary of State for Health. They opposed the closure of Bart's. Each in turn moved a debate on the Bill. The argument that the Bill has anything to do with the closure of Bart's has been firmly blown out of the water. Given the strength of support for the Bill and for the principles which have advised the

347
proposals for merger, the Bill received resounding majorities in another place. At Second Reading the majority was 164 to 19; and on Third Reading, 213 to 56.
A new objection has more recently been raised by way of justifying opposition to this Bill. The petitions which have been laid reflect that new ground. It is said that the Bill aims to destroy one of the world's greatest medical schools—St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college. Although the decision to merge was taken by the council of the college, and although the dean of the college signed the petition to bring the Bill forward, it is said that they are misguided, have responded only to external pressure and direction, and presumably, therefore, that their views should be disregarded.
Even that argument is founded upon a complete misunderstanding. The Bill will not destroy St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college other than in a purely formal and legal sense. It is a merger Bill. It will link this distinguished college with another distinguished medical school at Whitechapel and bring about a significant strengthening of the academic and research base largely in brand new buildings and facilities. All that is good at Bart's medical college will be preserved and will continue to flourish.
It is not surprising that those who carry responsibility at St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college have been alive to the realities of the situation. They have seen the developments taking place elsewhere in London—I referred to them a few moments ago—creating some of the strongest and most dynamic medical schools in strong multi-faculty institutions in the country. They have been aware—sometimes painfully aware—of the fierce competition for the best students and for research grants and for the most talented academic and research staff. They have realised the need to strengthen interdisciplinary links. They have recognised the need to raise research ratings in order to bring in more funds from the Higher Education Funding Council. Of course, the college's decision to seek this merger is not unrelated to what is going on in the worlds of higher education and medicine generally. But to argue, as has been done, that it is not a decision freely arrived at on the basis of a careful and rational consideration of all the arguments, is absurd, even grotesque, particularly when one knows, as many noble Lords do, the kind of people who are members of that college council.
Before I conclude, I should like to say a word about the Motion for an Instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. He is quite right that Clause 7 will have the effect of widening the powers of the trustees of the St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college trust. I should explain that that is a separate charitable trust. If one is familiar with the main teaching hospitals, they have special trusts of that kind. He is right in saying that the powers will be widened because the Bill will substitute the name of Queen Mary and Westfield College for that of St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college. Everyone agrees, however, that it would not be appropriate for these trust moneys to be spent on things other than for the support of medicine and dentistry.
348
Accordingly—this addresses the point of the noble Lord's Instruction—a formal agreement to that effect has now been reached between the principal of Queen Mary and Westfield College, Professor Zellick, and the chairman of the trust, Sir Anthony Dawson, which has the support of all Sir Anthony's fellow trustees.
As a result, the council of Queen Mary and Westfield College unanimously resolved to take steps, outside the Bill, to seek to amend the terms of the trust deed following merger. The council affirmed,
"unequivocally that it wishes to see the Trust acting for the benefit of medicine and dentistry in the College following merger and warmly welcomes the role it will play in support of the new School".
In any case, the trustees continue to have full discretion to devote their resources to the support of medicine and dentistry within QMW if that is their wish, as it is expected to be.
I have had the opportunity of discussions with the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. I believe that he is now fully apprised. I think that he will accept that Sir Anthony Dawson and his fellow trustees do not believe that the Bill needs to be amended in the sense of the Instruction. Given the urgent need now to move forward swiftly, and to avoid any possible risk of the Bill being returned to the maelstrom of another place (I hope that that is not unparliamentary language), perhaps the noble Lord will be persuaded not to press his Motion.
I conclude on a personal note. Some years ago I was privileged to serve on the council of Westfield College. I formed a great affection and respect for that college and could, therefore, entirely understand and sympathise with the anguish when, towards the end of the 1980s, it became necessary for that college to merge with Queen Mary College to form QMW. To have to abandon the attractive campus in Hampstead for the Mile End Road was an extremely difficult and painful decision. Nevertheless, with the committed support and enthusiasm of all involved, that merger has produced great academic and related benefits. QMW is now the fourth largest college in the University of London with over 6,000 students. Its reputation as a teaching and research college is extremely high. When this Bill becomes law, and it merges with the two medical schools of Bart's and the London, the new institution will be able to seize with great enthusiasm the opportunities that that merger will offer.
The Bill is essential to achieve the objective of a single, fully integrated institution within the University of London, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
7.9 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I observe with some trepidation that my intention stated on the Order Paper—to move an Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill will be committed—seems to have provided three past and notably distinguished vice-chancellors of the university, in which I taught for most of my working life, with the prospect of an

349
afternoon's shooting. Let me assure them and other noble Lords that I am not worth the waste of a single cartridge.
I assure noble Lords at the outset that I support the merger of the colleges, for the reasons given so succinctly and effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I have no desire to criticise the present policy of the University of London to reform medical education. Indeed, I wish it had happened in my time when I thought that doctors exercised far too much domination over the university. I then had my hopes—like many others—falsified by the failure to act on the recommendations of the Todd Commission.
Most certainly, I shall not discuss or discourse upon the past history or future prospects (or lack of them) of St. Bartholomew's hospital. They have no bearing upon the anxiety which led me to put down my Instruction.
Clause 7(1) of the Bill will, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, explained, prejudice the objects of the charitable trust of St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college. At present, the trust is authorised to seek the promotion and advancement of all aspects of the medical college and education in the college and to hold the trust's assets for those purposes. Under the terms of the Bill, however, the assets of the trust will be held upon different terms, as Queen Mary and Westfield College will replace the medical college as the remaining body. That would mean that any of the assets held by the trust after the amalgamation could be applied towards the promotion and advancement of any form of education of the unified body and need not necessarily be confined to medicine, surgery or dentistry. While this new body will include the medical college, the situation would still be that funds could be spent outside the present objectives to which the trustees are confined.
My concern is that as the funds administered by the trust were raised by public subscription with the intention of them being devoted to medical and dental education and research, it would be improper to ride roughshod over the wishes of the donors.
I am happy to know, however, that—as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, explained—that view is now shared by the council of Queen Mary and Westfield College. Yesterday, the principal was kind enough to send me a copy of the resolution passed unanimously by the college council and from which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, quoted. Professor Zellick gave me permission also to quote from it directly. I do not propose to do so because it would be pointless to repeat what the noble Lord has already said.
I add that I also have the permission of the chairman of the medical college trust, Sir Anthony Dawson, to say that he was consulted about the phrasing of the resolution and that he is happy with it, as are his fellow trustees.
Accordingly, the differences of opinion that have clustered around the merging of the colleges have been greatly eased by recent discussions and agreements. The principle that my Instruction sought to establish—namely, that funds subscribed for charitable purposes should be used for the purposes for which they were subscribed—has been entirely accepted by all the bodies involved, in so far as I understand it is possible for them
350
to accept it. The result is that I do not intend to move my Instruction at the appropriate time. Its purpose was no more than to focus attention on what I regard as the peremptory requirement of maintaining the integrity of charitable bequests.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, set up the case with such clarity and force that I hardly think much more needs to be said. I wish to emphasise that the mergers began often for financial reasons. The schools and institutes of the University of London and all the medical schools and institutes used to be given grants by the court of the University of London, where a sizeable bureaucracy operated and flourished. The Senate House, which was also meant to co-ordinate the academic activities of the constituent parts of the university—and very time-consuming and self-indulgent those boards and committees were—created a further bureaucracy.
However, when the financial axe fell in the 1980s, it became clear that the university had to be reorganised. The Senate House bureaucracy was cut and slashed but, most striking of all, many of the small colleges were compelled to marry. Before the debacle, when I was vice-chancellor, I remember trying to persuade Bedford and Westfield to do so, but in the end they had to be dragged to the altar. Perhaps they might have been wiser had they earlier chosen a partner rather nearer home, but they had a much warmer welcome where they went than they would have got in the centre of London.
I call the amalgamations "shotgun marriages" because the bride was pregnant. The smaller colleges brought with them not only devoted staff but the dowry of their sites and buildings. Last Friday I was giving a paper in Queen Mary College to a learned society. I was absolutely amazed by the transformation. Indeed, I could not find my way among the new buildings. Vast new palaces have arisen, financed by the sale of the site buildings and other assets of Westfield College. This, I believe, will also be echoed when the medical schools are amalgamated.
I do not wish to be disingenuous, of course; there is a medical issue here. I shall leave to the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Quirk, to relate the history of why, ever since Lord Todd's Royal Commission on Medical Education, the University of London has been wrestling with the problem of rationalising the number of medical schools. But I will just say this. Long ago it was recognised that doctors ought to gain a much more profound understanding when they are medical students of basic medical science. All medical courses begin therefore with the study of pre-clinical subjects: physiology, anatomy, pharmacology and the like. Now, the pre-clinical teaching, which was very strong when it was carried out in large multi-faculty schools such as University College, which numbered such famous scientists as Sir Andrew Huxley in physiology, Sir James Black and Heinz Schild in pharmacology, J. Z. Young in anatomy. When those people were there, obviously the medical students benefited enormously from their presence. But most of the London medical schools had very small pre-clinical departments which

351
could not attract the research funds or the staff that they deserved. That is why pre-clinical teaching at Bart's and the Royal London has already been moved to Queen Mary College, and why the pre-clinical departments at Guy's and St. Thomas's hope to find a new site when they can merge with the pre-clinical departments of King's.
I shall say no more about that, except that the 12 London medical schools are falling in line with medical schools in the rest of the country, all of which are anchored to multi-faculty institutions. That is of course what the General Medical Council wants, and what the Higher Education Funding Council wants. I am very glad indeed to understand from the Labour Benches that we shall have some support for this Bill. I believe that the statement in another place that Bart's medical college will be destroyed is totally false. On the contrary, floreat et florebit. If the Government change their mind and preserve Bart's as a hospital with a full range of clinical departments, then of course clinical teaching will be continued there. If they do not, then it will not be continued. But that is a matter that is wholly distinct from this Bill.
There remains the caveat of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. I must say that I understood the noble Lord's concern only too well. I have seen a number of dubious transactions in universities. I have seen chairs in accounting converted to the study of the more esoteric crevices of economics. I have seen bequests to teach drama used to fund lectureships in English literature. And who can forget the dismay of Lord Nuffield at seeing a college which he hoped would teach practical engineering and train industrialists converted into a temple for the social studies by that wily operator Lord Lindsay of Birker?
But surely in this case, can we credit for one second that the doctors and medical scientists of the college would meekly accept the malversation of their funds to endow the study of palaeontology? I very much appreciated the account by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, of the reasons why he was prompted to move his amendment, but also the reasons why he will in fact withdraw it. With great respect, although it is perfectly true that bogeys do exist, this bogey is a pumpkin, and fit only to frighten tiny tots. I hope that the Bill will have a smooth passage through Committee.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, the Bill was admirably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has already made some of the points that I might otherwise have made, and made some other remarks, too, which perhaps I would not have made. It seems therefore unnecessary for me to say much more than that I warmly support the Bill. As the second of the Three Musketeers—who once carried shotguns, however—there are perhaps two points that I might briefly make by way of emphasis.
First, the sole purpose of the Bill is to unite, with their concurrence, three academic institutions of the University of London. Some years after the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was vice-chancellor, I had the honour to become vice-chancellor of London. I therefore declare
352
my interest. It is an interest arising from my profound respect and affection for those three institutions and from my concern for their future welfare within the university, and not from any formal connection that I have with any of them or with the university itself at the present time. I merely wish them well.
The Bill does not affect any of the hospitals with which those institutions are concerned. At the risk of a little overkill, perhaps I may say that the hospitals do not belong to the University of London; they belong to the National Health Service. Medical schools are separate entities from hospitals, legally distinct and with different paymasters. The merger proposed in this Bill would continue to be proposed by the institutions concerned even if the disposition of hospitals were different. Likewise, the future of the hospitals does not depend on whether or not this merger takes place. There has been great confusion on this matter, which is why I take the liberty of rubbing it in a little, even though it was already stated very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
For 30 years or more, the University of London and the Government have been advised that the great potential strength of London medicine will manifest itself again only if its multiplicity of medical schools are brought together into a few major centres, each containing in addition a multifaculty school to provide all the links with science, technology and the humanities which are indispensable to modern medicine. Each centre will then, in all but name, constitute a fully-fledged university in its own right. Each will have the potential to be first-rate in medicine as in other subjects. Contrary to popular belief, not all London medical schools are first-rate at the present time. There are plenty of statistics to establish that beyond any doubt.
I made a modest contribution myself some 15 years ago to the advice to which I referred, together with the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, who is to speak later, and a number of others, at the request of the university, which was fully aware of the impending decline of its medical prowess. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was good enough to recall that.
In more recent years there has been wide agreement that there should be just four such centres in London, associated with University College in the north; Imperial College in the west; King's College in the south; and Queen Mary and Westfield College in the east. Only in that way can the needs of teaching and research be catered for in modern circumstances, as well as the needs of patient care. So this Bill is to merge together the London hospital medical college, St. Batholomew's hospital medical college, and the multi-faculty Queen Mary and Westfield College. The names of all three institutions will be preserved in the merger, not only to emphasise their historic roles but also to continue in a larger context their distinct characteristics.
It has often been said that you can always tell a Bart's man, but you cannot tell him much. I expect that in the future that will be said of members of the three newly merged colleges as if they were all from Bail's. Good gracious me!

353
But there is another source of common misunderstanding, and this is my second point. It is often said that one should first of all provide equitably for patient care, and when that has been done find some way for the medical schools to fit in. After all, it is said, the patients should come first. There are other noble Lords who are much more able than I to explain the difficulties of trying to satisfy in that manner the teaching and research needs of medical schools, with their necessarily multifarious priorities and specialities, I shall only say, as someone who in the past has had to grapple with this problem, that every serious study has come to the conclusion that, at least in London—where for the size of its population there is an over-abundance, not of hospitals in general but of teaching hospitals and medical schools in particular—that is not the way to go about it. The major centres of teaching and research have to be settled first and the generality of patient care can then follow.
It is very much to the credit of this Government and especially Mrs. Virginia Bottomley when she was Secretary of State for Health that they have at last tried to tackle the problem of London medicine the right way round. It would have been so easy and politically so much more palatable to have put if off yet again in response to popular but uncomprehending pressure. I know that that remark was not strictly relevant to the passage of the Bill, but I thought that it was time that I stood up to be counted in the matter.
The Bill is not a government measure, but it sets in place one of the cornerstones of London medicine. It is going about it the right way round. I commend it to your Lordships.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, it would seem that any opposition to this Bill must rest upon misconception. Let me therefore begin by re-emphasising the sharp and essential distinction between the organisation of medical care and the organisation of medical training.
The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, reminded us, responds to the imperatives of demography together with the most efficient disposition of high skills and specialised equipment. The second is dictated by purely educational desiderata, and it is only with the second that the Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill is concerned. To be specific, the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital has no bearing upon the future of St. Bartholomew's medical college, on which alone the Bill before us impinges.
That impingement is not new. It did not arise as the result of or in connection with the Department of Health's recent consideration of hospital deployment. It is not true, to quote a "Save Bart's" leaflet dated 14th July that crossed my desk this morning that:
"the proposal was in fact designed to facilitate the closure of St. Bartholomew's Hospital".
So far from this being in fact "a fact", the proposal was formulated on solely educational grounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out and reminded us in his opening speech, by the Royal Commission on Medical Education under the chairmanship of Lord Todd.
354
The Todd Commission was thoroughly expert and authoritative, as befitted a body with so distinguished a chairman. It included men and women in the very forefront of medicine and medical education. There were Josephine Barnes, Peter Medawar, Robert Platt (who was subsequently ennobled); and there were heads of a couple of London medical schools, like Brian Windeyer and John Ellis.
The Royal Commission's report in 1968 (Cmnd 3569) took the view that changes in the training of doctors required more laboratory science and more interaction with disciplines beyond the purely clinical. The commission argued convincingly that, to achieve the critical scientific and professional mass as well as the desirable intellectual mix, a medical school not only needed to have an annual intake of at least 200 students but also needed to be an integral part of a multi-faculty institution, so that medical students were not isolated from chemists, physicists and engineers, nor yet from philosophers and historians.
Confronted by the situation in London, where there were no fewer than 12 medical schools fulfilling none of those conditions, and with several mustering an annual intake below 100, the Todd Commission recommended a radical programme of mergers. The one that concerns us today is firmly adumbrated in paragraph 438 of the 1968 report, which recommended combining the Bart's and the London medical colleges so as:
"to become in due course the medical faculty of Queen Mary College".
The report went on to note that that college had the rare feature among the University of London's institutions of having space in which "physical expansion is possible" together with just such an environment of "natural and behavioural sciences" as the Royal Commission sought for the enrichment of medical education.
That was 1968, and the academic thrust of the Todd Report was widely accepted as thoroughly sound. But if a week is a long time in politics, a decade is a very short time in academe, and when I became the University of London's vice-chancellor in 1981, in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I was confronted—as had been the Todd Commission 16 years earlier—by 12 medical schools, together with the need for collegiate rationalisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has reminded us, that went far beyond medicine.
Like the Todd commissioners, I was struck by the potential of Queen Mary College, and it was promptly identified as a growth area. The college's science and engineering were first expanded, and ultimately the humanities too, not least through the merger which brought, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, reminded us, the additional strengths of Westfield College to the Mile End Road. In other words, at the present time, the enlarged and enriched Queen Mary and Westfield College is an incomparably superior body in which to combine the Bart's and London medical colleges than even the Todd Commission could have envisaged.
Many in your Lordships' House, both past and present, have striven to see the goals achieved that are set out in this Bill, among them Lord Todd, Lord Platt and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and of course those

355
who are here this afternoon, including the trio of London University's former vice-chancellors who are speaking today. The case for what was proposed was powerful enough 30 years ago; today it is overwhelming.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, after listening to the remarkably comprehensive and detailed opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and subsequently to three former vice-chancellors of the University of London, I begin to recognise with even greater strength than in the past the force of the comment made by one academic, who said how surprised he was that the vice-chancellor's room was so sparsely furnished with nothing but a throne and a prayer mat.
This is a Bill which I believe deserves the universal support of this House. The record in teaching and research of the London medical schools over the past half century at least has been one of outstanding achievement. There is no doubt that they can be proud of all that they have done for medical teaching and research. But, as other noble Lords have said this afternoon, the Todd Commission warned that the quality of London's medical education was threatened by having 12 medical schools, each with an independent teaching hospital but with no direct contact with a multi-faculty college and only a tenuous contact with the university.
Those 30 years have seen a revolution in medical education. There has been the development of new curricula with increasing integration between the pre-clinical and clinical subjects, with a massive development in knowledge of basic medical sciences, which in turn has had a tremendous impact upon clinical practice and patient care; there has also been a proper increase in the emphasis on the social and behavioural sciences and on an increasing degree of teaching in the community in collaboration with family doctors and others, and with individuals working in the other caring professions. That has led many medical schools to revise their curricula, not only under pressure from the education committee of the General Medical Council, but based on sound medical principles.
Speaking as someone who was, for 10 years, dean of a provincial medical school and for a time chairman of the education committee of the General Medical Council, it became apparent in the 1970s that some of the London medical schools were being slow to move with the times, not only in revising their curricula, but also in developing to the full the research expertise required by modern medicine and that that was, in some respects, largely a result of their isolation. That did not mean that centres of excellence in London did not exist; indeed they did, and some of them flourished, but that was by no means universal. It became increasingly clear that mergers of the type which the Bill provides were crucial to the future of London medicine.
An article published in The Times Higher Educational Supplement in May said,
"Institutional loyalties undoubtedly remain, but there is a new pragmatism, largely due to financial pressures"—
356
as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said—but partly due, and very properly so, to educational ones and to the needs of research which require a far greater concentration of expensive research facilities and equipment, but perhaps above all, a concentration of teams of individuals working in groups in larger institutions where they can bring their full research expertise to bear. As the article said,
"Free standing medical schools, facing demands for strategic plans from the Higher Education Funding Council, see value in being anchored to larger, more flexible institutions. Merger leads to critical mass: uniting strengths can create something bigger than the sum of the parts, particularly valuable when confronting the continuing pressure of the research assessment exercise".
This proposed merger, as set out in detail in the Bill, is not only timely but, as others have said, it is long overdue. These mergers will bring London into line with the rest of the country since only the capital, by historical accident, has provided in the past medical education through separate, free-standing institutions. Bringing medicine into multi-faculty colleges will help to implement the curriculum reforms even now being demanded by the current education committee of the General Medical Council, and it will also result in bringing together teams which will have the facility, the ability and all of the opportunities to carry forward the frontiers of medicine through research with the inevitable consequences of improvement in patient care.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I must open with a declaration of interest; it is, that somewhere in the interstices of the affairs of the House a Bill is coming forward from Guy's and St. Thomas's for a similar merger, so I am particularly anxious that this merger is not in any way impeded, so creating a bad field for those of us who come later.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that this marriage between St. Thomas's and Guy's was by no means a shotgun marriage; it was based on a subject about which we have been hearing this evening; namely, history. After all, Guy's was across the road from St. Thomas's when St. Thomas's was situated by London Bridge before that great woman, Florence Nightingale, moved it to the other side of the river opposite your Lordships' House.
As has been pointed out, this Bill is part of medical adaptations to changes in demography; changes in the distribution of medical skills outside London and throughout the country; and, in some ways, it is a reflection of the changes in what is expected of doctors and medicine today. We have heard how important it is that if young people are going to work in teams, they need a wide range of contacts with basic science, the social sciences, engineering, ethics, molecular biology and many other subjects. They are engendered by working, living, learning and researching in multi-faculty institutions, a point which was heavily emphasised by previous speakers.
The Bill reflects one of the four centres of medical education which is evolving in London. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Quirk for mentioning the name of Sir John Ellis. Those of us who were embroiled in the

357
affairs around the time of Lord Todd's commission, recognised him as being the mastermind behind the idea of bringing Bart's and the London hospital and Queen Mary's together.
I want to say also how important it is that before we leave this subject we send out strong messages of support to Bart's and the clinical people who work there. You cannot tell a Bart's man much, if anything; this I know. But it should not be forgotten that nothing geographic or demographic can take away the incredible past of that hospital. It is enshrined in William Harvey. So long as there is a college of physicians in London which embraces the spirit of William Harvey as an experimental observer; as a man who changed the attitude towards how the body and the heart worked, William Harvey's memory will be kept alive and Bart's will be revered all over the world, as it has been.
I say to my friends from Bart's, and I have many, that, whatever may come out of the maldistribution of hospital sites and the changes in the demography, "Do not worry. You will not be lost to history, whatever happens to the Smithfield site".
This is a digression and I hope your Lordships will forgive me, but I should also like to say that when I look back on my own medical education I am astonished how often I have been involved with colleges of education, medical schools and so forth which have had shifts of sites. A former dean of Bart's is in the Chamber watching us tonight. He did not enjoy the Radcliffe Infirmary. I went through Oxford before him. The Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford that I knew has been translated to the new Radcliffe. I am now living in Cambridge. The clinical school with which I was associated started there and was set up in a new hospital. St. Thomas's itself changed sites.
A decade is a short time for academic affairs; a century is not too quick for social change; but we may see dramatic changes in Docklands. I cannot believe that we shall not see something develop in Docklands, rather like what has been developing in Thamesmead. The awkward part about this is that people from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge will want to go to Bart's to row in the Olympic stretch that is to be set up within the twinkling of an eye in Docklands.
I cogitated a little while, but I want to end on another figment of my imagination. I have mentioned some places that had two centres but I am suddenly reminded that in that great city of New York the New York hospital has had three centres. I went to the trouble to check the dates in order to encourage people from Bart's to realise that, even when in the next century they get to developing things in Docklands and East London, there is still a chance that they can go further afield out into Essex, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows well, there are many opportunities. The New York hospital started by Trinity Church down by Wall Street. It was opened first in 1791—that is long ago in America but a very short time for us. It moved into mid-Manhattan—16th Street and 5th Avenue—in 1877 and finally to its East River site, where it is the Cornell Medical Centre now, in 1932. The important point is that 1932 was so soon after a terrible depression in
358
America that they saw the importance of putting medical buildings at the head of the priorities for new developments.
I have said those things because I do not want people at Bart's to feel that we are not anxious to maintain and follow their incredible reputation in this field of endeavour. In that spirit I support the Bill.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I am going to take a rather different line from earlier speakers. Perhaps that is because I do not have the enlightened advantage of being a former vice-chancellor of London University, although my research in microbiology at Oxford was supervised by a Nobel Prize winner.
By way of introduction perhaps I may say that it seems to me that this Private Bill has been propelled through Parliament with surprising and perhaps suspicious haste. The more debate we have, the more Members are involved, the longer it will take. Yet, in another place the Bill had to be blocked to secure debate and was whipped by the government party, although the Opposition had a free vote. The final fact that leads me to suspect the promoters' motives is the Short Title of the Bill. It is a travesty of what it should be, perhaps, as I mentioned in starting, to curtail involvement and debate and therefore hasten its passage by the obscurity of its title. Surely the Short Title of the Bill should be "The St. Batholomew's Royal London and Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill". I believe that the Short Title of a Bill should be as informative as possible as to the contents of the Bill. I do not believe that that applies to the Short Title of this Bill.
This place buzzes like a hive of bees at the mention of Bart's; so does another place. So I wonder why Bart's and the Royal London's names were omitted. I fear I can only suspect the ulterior motives I mentioned. The last Question put at Committee stage is "That this be the Title of the Bill". In 20 years in your Lordships' House I have never heard anyone shout "Not-Content", but I am sorely tempted; or perhaps to seek an amendment at some stage.
The nub of this Bill is to formalise into one institution, with its own warden, principal, dean and one common legal, financial and administrative procedure, these three bodies which function very well together at present as the City and East London Confederation of Medicine and Dentistry. As with criminal injury compensation, which your Lordships have just been debating, I believe the best policy is to consider the situation of the victim before the event—in this case the merger—with the situation afterwards, and to try and make an informed judgment about the merits of proceeding to full merger into one institution.
The medical college at St. Bartholomew's has existed almost since Rahere's foundation in 1123. After a short while there were apprentices who worked with the doctors, and they, in effect, were the first medical students. Today Bart's medical school is the greatest centre of excellence in medical training in London. In examination pass rates, starting with 1989, it has come

359
respectively—out of the nine London medical colleges—second, first, third, first, first and third, and in distinctions second, first, first, first, third and first. The latest results, for 1994, rank it in first place in distinctions yet again.
Although technically a Private Bill, this Bill is effectively now a government Bill since they whipped it in another place, a government whose great Conservative philosopher Edmund Burke based his theories of excellence on the virtues of custom, tradition, stability, renewal and excellence. In nearly 900 years of continuous operation the medical students of Bart's hospital have followed that tradition, as well as the great hospital itself, of course. In other words, if things are working very well indeed, leave them alone.
The confederation I mentioned earlier is working excellently, Bart's students being based in first class and integrated teaching surroundings—that is, the hospital. It is being asked in this Bill to become part of an institutional whole which will involve a three-site operation with all the unknowns that that entails and formal unity with Queen Mary and Westfield College, which is hardly medical, and the Royal London, which has, comparatively, little teaching facility. Thus, we move from proof of the excellent to the unknown, not a particularly good recipe. And why with such urgency? The combined institution is supposed to start operating this 1st August, hardly a feasibility in view of the recess of Parliament until mid-October and the need for subsequent stages of the Bill here. But, overall, why take the risks inevitably involved?
I have left two factors unspoken for. First, the future of the great hospital with which Bart's medical school is integrated and, secondly, why Bart's has put its name to this Bill. First then, the future of Bares hospital. Continuation seems more likely than for some time. I mention this only in the sense that the medical college is obviously integrated with the hospital; not that one affects the other, as has been said already. I have heard it from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition, in answer to the direct question, that he will not allow St. Bartholomew's hospital to close, and will probably restore the accident and emergency department. I sit on the non-political Cross-Benches, but those who specialise in omens and signs tell me that, in racing terms, the return of a Labour Government in the next two years is extremely likely. I suppose this Government cannot be expected to make allowances for what a possible Opposition turned Government would do, but regardless of that we have a new Secretary of State in this Government in the place of the discredited Mrs. Bottomley—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. If that is out of order, I take it back. My apologies to the House. Though a final formal notice of closure of Bart's was given three weeks ago, in the face of 1 million signatures against and 34 letters from
360
professors of Harvard University alone, et cetera, these things can always subsequently be fudged. Better the devil you know than the one you do not, and the medical college's umbilical link while it lasts, and maybe sine die, is surely better than, a merger into the unknown.
Secondly, why has Bart's put its name to the Bill? I believe there must be an element of outside force majeure in this. After all, the medical students of Ban's had, via Marcus Beadle, expressed their true feelings by putting in one of the three Petitions against the Bill in another place—we have two here in this House—but it was then mysteriously withdrawn. It is the overriding view of senior clinicians at Bart's that pressure of some sort was put on, and this pressure perhaps influenced them, too, to put their names to the Bill. It is extremely odd that the Bill should be formally endorsed by those whose current verbal utterings seem to be somewhat to the opposite and also that a petition should be withdrawn. One of the two present Petitions to your Lordships' House is in the name of the Doctors Save Bart's Society which, and I quote from the Petition,
"represents the doctors who trained at Bart's, including some current members of staff at Bart's totally dedicated to keeping separate and maintaining St. Bartholomew's Hospital and Medical College and associated interests and properties as they previously were before the recent changes".
They state in paragraph 8 of their Petition, and again I quote:
"It was very distressing for the Dean to learn that all grants would be withdrawn from the college if the Dean did not comply with the merger in this Bill. As it was already part of London University this does appear to be very irregular".
All I can say is that that is what they have said in the Petition. Paragraph 10 of the Petition states:
"The students are terribly demoralised about the whole closing down of the medical college but they are called to see the bureaucrats at the London Trust if they dare to enter a petition to stop it, as indeed they were at the Second Reading in the Commons, when their petitioner was 'persuaded' to withdraw, having most enthusiastically submitted it.
We believe that they were told that they will be marked men and their future careers affected."
That is all from the Petition.
The mover of this Bill this evening did mention that it had the full support of the governors of the medical college concerned. The other petition is from John Currie, who is a governor of St. Bartholomew's medical college and a consulting surgeon at the associated hospital. From 1977 to 1983 he was sub-dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college. Among his objections are that the funding for the new combined clinical school, which will be needed if this Bill is passed, has not been guaranteed. He states that,
"the merger proposed in this Bill has been brought about not by agreement but by force majeure".
Again, I am only quoting what he says. His final objection is that,
"Statements made and actions carried out by those associated with Queen Mary and Westfield College while this bill was passing through the House of Commons and provisional appointments made in anticipation of the bill becoming law, give rise to serious concern as to the ability of the merged colleges to cope lawfully, properly and effectively and in the best interests of medicine".

361
This to me is a pretty damning indictment of the management already in place before the Bill is passed and their ability to do their jobs in the view of a governor of Bart's medical college.
Finally, professor Lesley Rees, for some years dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college and whom I have met, wrote a couple of years ago, and perhaps before coercion was brought to bear, as follows:
"As far as the medical college is concerned the Tomlinson Report recommends a merger with the London Hospital Medical College and the Queen Mary and Westfield College. I believe that the City and East London Confederation for Medicine and Dentistry (CELC) provides the optimum link between the two medical colleges and Queen Mary and Westfield College. The Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences at QMW has largely met the claims for medicine being placed within a multi-faculty college of the university. Cementing further the CELC arrangement will provide no added advantage that I can see in a medical faculty structure for teaching and research. Indeed, with activities on at least three major sites such a faculty structure would be unlikely to create economies of scale".
What more is there to say? I cannot support the Bill.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for putting my name down after the list of speakers had been published. I did so at the request of an old colleague and friend in another place whom the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will remember well. I refer to Ronald Brown, the one-time Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, who has been associated with St. Bartholomew's for a very long time.
I shall not oppose the merger in any way, although I have a personal interest in mergers connected with Bart's because a number of years ago, while I was the pro-chancellor of City University, we had an ambitious plan to merge the City University—which is not part of the University of London—with St. Bart's medical school; the Guildhall School and also with what was then the City of London Polytechnic. Let me say that that ambitious plan fell and I have no intention of reviving those imperial thoughts this evening.
I am not opposed to the merger as such. I support the Bill. But I have worries about Clause 7. There are legitimate fears about that clause, which were outlined earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. I have no need to repeat them in any great detail. I shall briefly remind your Lordships, before we finish the debate, of some of those fears.
The fear is that, as a result of the revision of Clause 7, any of the assets held after the amalgamation could be applied towards the promotion and advancement of education at the amalgamated body, which will clearly not be confined to medicine and surgery. While that will include the medical college, it would allow funds to be spent by the trustees outside their present objects.
This is a serious matter. I believe that the Bill should be amended in order to ensure that the original purposes of the trust are not frustrated, thereby avoiding the risk that the assets of the trust be applied for general educational purposes rather than those for which they were originally intended.
362
We have had the advantage of hearing from several vice-chancellors or former vice-chancellors of London University. When I was young I looked on such eminent academics with awe and took their word as gospel. Now that I am no longer young, I still look on them with awe.
Noble Lords: Really!
Lord Howie of Troon: But I no longer take their word as gospel, my Lords. That is the one thing I have learnt in a long life of believing what I am told. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, told us that these fears were groundless. If I understood him correctly, he thought that the merged colleges would not behave in the way which is feared. Unfortunately, he also listed a number of occasions on which universities have behaved in exactly that way. There is no reason to believe that universities, having behaved in that way in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, would not behave in that way in future. Perhaps these fears are not quite so groundless as he made out.
I have been reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who spoke about an agreement which had been reached. The point about agreements reached between people is that at a later date those agreements can be "unreached", if that is a word, by other people. I am not quite sure of the power and strength of the agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. I would like to see the terms of that agreement in the Bill where they would be ring-fenced, as it were, and would not be capable of being changed.
In conclusion, my noble friend Lord Peston must have been pleased to hear the kind words said about Queen Mary College. It is not often that he hears these things. He will have enjoyed that. I conclude by saying that the Bill should go ahead with the reservations I have made.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we must all thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing this Bill in a clear and cogent fashion. Perhaps I may also say that although I speak from this Bench, I hope that the Minister will agree that there are no political implications. I hope that she will also agree that this is certainly not a Government Bill.
In speaking briefly on this Bill, I must declare several interests. I was born in the East End of London and lived a fair part of my life there. I and my friends went to east and north-east London grammar schools, and learned about classical music and foreign films by going to the People's Palace, which is now part of Queen Mary and Westfield College. I myself founded the economics department at what was then Queen Mary College. I have been an economics professor there for three decades. I regret to say that in my years of decline I am now an Emeritus Professor of the university.
I took the territorial bit of my title from the Mile End Road, which I used to hang about in as a boy. My family has spent more time at Bart's, Homerton and Hackney hospitals and the London hospitals than any of us would care to think about. I cannot emphasise too much the pleasure that I get to discover—to some extent I am echoing what my noble friend Lord Howie said—suddenly how many other people have developed an

363
interest in health and education in this part of our great city. I thought that no one cared about us, but I now know, especially from debates in the other place, that we are uppermost in people's minds.
Of course, it is true that both Queen Mary and Westfield Colleges, from small, but high quality beginnings, now comprise a major force in higher education in our country. I have no doubt that the medical school will itself achieve the highest standards, certainly no less and a good deal more than what went before.
This debate is about the Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill. Such a Bill would normally go through your Lordships' House with the minimum of fuss and almost as a matter of form. I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that I did not know about the Bill on Guy's and St. Thomas's which is to come before your Lordships' House. However, I can assure the noble Lord—I am absolutely certain of this—that so many of us have been patients at those hospitals that any Bill coming from that source will certainly go through on the nod. The noble Lord has no need to worry about that. Indeed, I have discovered that nothing is more bonding in your Lordships' House than to mention an operation that one has had in either of those hospitals.
I said that this ought to be a formal matter, but that is not the case now. For my part, although I have strong views on the effects of aspects of hospital reorganisation in London, I must echo the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and others, that this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. Whatever the traditions of the other place, on which I should not dream of commenting, it would be a misuse of your Lordships' procedures to debate all that under this rubric, and I have no intention of doing so.
I must, however, comment on the Petitions that I have received and to which the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, referred. I am surprised that any noble Lord would wish to be associated with them. It is hard to discern any locus standii for the petitioners, but that is probably of minor interest. I am more disturbed by the content of the Petitions, which are misleading—in fact, they are wrong—and, to put it as mildly as I can, they are damaging to the point of being defamatory—so much so that I forbear from quoting them since it would be inappropriate for them to appear in Hansard.
I note the support that has been given to the Bill by so many academic heavyweights and I am gratified by that. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that I will not indulge in my usual antic of making life miserable for vice-chancellors. I have taken great pleasure in that in the past, as the noble Lord well knows.
In addition to those heavyweights, I sought the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, who has been my mentor on many aspects of higher education, but is unable to be with us today. However, he has written to me and said that I may quote from his letter, which I shall do. The noble Lord writes:
"I must say that I am horrified to learn that there are those who seek to oppose this Bill, for in so doing they are going against the grain of opinion of all those who have given serious thought to the most advantageous way of dealing with education and research in
364
medicine … When I became Chairman of the UGC in 1973 I faced a proposal to expand intake in UK medical schools from 2400 to about 4100 per annum. Nothing concentrates the mind more! It gave the impetus to a reconstruction of medical education and research in London and, of course, we concluded where common sense and theory converge that the earlier Royal Commission was right and that London's free standing hospital medical schools must be integrated with large multi-faculty university-status colleges of the University of London which had the requisite strength in science. As far as East London was concerned the solution was obvious, namely, to bring the Royal London and Barts HMCs together with QMC".
He concluded:
"So, in the light of those experiences I think I can claim sufficient knowledge of both principle and practical detail to express a valid opinion on the merits or otherwise of this Bill. In my view to reject the Bill would be a wholly retrograde step whilst passage of the Bill will pose no threat to either of the two hospitals and I have not the slightest doubt that old and valued traditions which contribute to the well-being of the new school will, if for that reason alone, be preserved".
In addition to what we have already heard, that seems an overwhelming argument. Indeed, it should really be the end of the matter, but I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, having most properly raised the question of the hospital trust, has now been reassured that the dangers that he feared have now been dealt with and will not move his Instruction. I am slightly surprised that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon has not yet been so reassured but I hope that he will be, because it seems to me that the commitment that has been made is absolutely binding and there should be no problem with it.
I am sorry to say that I am advised that there is nothing that we can do about the Petitions. They are laid and a committee will therefore need to consider them for their locus which, as I said, I think is rather doubtful, and for content which, as I also said, is even more doubtful. However, we have to go through that stage. Subject to that, I hope that we can support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and others, that we must proceed correctly and rapidly to bring the matter to an end so that this excellent new development can take place.
8.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government welcome the case that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has made for the merger of the medical college of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the London hospital medical college with the Queen Mary and Westfield College.
The move presents welcome opportunities to develop a continuing partnership between medical education, research and clinical services in East London. As my noble friend said, the Bill has the support of all the institutions concerned. The principles supporting the case for merger of the schools stand on their own merits. Those merits have been ably explained by the noble Lords, Lord Annan, Lord Flowers and Lord Quirk. As has been pointed out, each of those noble Lords has been a distinguished vice-chancellor of London University. Indeed, we should not forget that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has twice been a vice-chancellor

365
of the university. I have been trying to think of the collective noun for vice-chancellors and have come up with a "virtue" of vice-chancellors.
The Bill is one of a number introduced over the past 20 years to unite medical schools within multi-faculty colleges of the University of London. It will strengthen the institutions concerned and develop important links with other departments such as life sciences. As medical practice changes, it is essential that the doctors of tomorrow are able to participate fully in the huge and fast-moving developments not only in biological sciences, but increasingly in biotechnology, engineering and the social and behavioural sciences to name but a few of the sources of knowledge which are so essential to the sophisticated medicine that is necessary for the 21st century.
The Bill will ensure that the tradition of excellence in medical teaching and research in that part of London will continue from a strong academic base. The forging of stronger links with the medical schools and the University of London will provide a fertile environment for new ideas and developments in medical teaching and research. It will ensure that London's healthcare is able to stay at the forefront of clinical practice.
The Government have made clear their strategy for ensuring that London retains its well deserved reputation, both nationally and internationally, for outstanding education, teaching and research. The Bill will help to contribute to maintaining London's leading position in those fields as well as securing a medical and dental school of great distinction in east London to match those which are being established in other parts of the capital.
I congratulate my noble friend on the case for merger which he has placed before the House today. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is a Private Bill and that I have been scrupulous in my conduct in respect of the status of the Bill.
Your Lordships rightly have the fullest confidence in the Select Committee which is appointed to consider Private Bills. Several matters, some controversial, have been raised today, but I have no doubt that they will all receive the most detailed consideration by the Select Committee. That would have included the Instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, if the House had agreed it and if the noble Lord had chosen to move it.
Meanwhile, it is difficult to refrain from emphasising the importance of the Bill to the rationalisation of medical education in London. The resulting merger will build on the existing strengths and traditions of the three great colleges to create a school of national and international distinction in medical and dental teaching and research, an institution of which we can be justly proud. I therefore trust that your Lordships will accord the Bill a Second Reading.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the overwhelming majority who supported the Question, That the Bill be read a second time. I must
366
say that I have not enjoyed a debate so much for a long time. We heard some splendid contributions from what I would describe as a glittering galaxy of academic distinction. I enjoyed my noble friend's description of a virtue of vice-chancellors and I hope that my description is not considered as over-egging the pudding. As a humble politician and former Secretary of State, it was a matter of enormous pleasure to be supported by such distinguished university figures. My noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, who unfortunately was not able to stay to take part in the debate, assured me that the Bill had her support.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, reminded us of that remarkable character the first Lord Lindsay of Birker. During a spectacular 1938 by-election in Oxford, at which he was the Labour candidate, I performed my first political act by going up to the blackboard in the upper sixth at the Dragon school and saying, "Vote for Hogg".
The House much appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in particular the tribute that he paid to the person whom I regard as perhaps the most courageous Secretary of State for Health we have seen for many years. I refer to my right honourable friend Virginia Bottomley. She took an enormous amount of flak, much of it thoroughly ill-intentioned and grossly ill-informed and she stuck to her guns. I believe that the noble Lord's comment, in coming from him, was well received.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, suggested that the great centres of medical excellence and teaching would move further east. I spent a day last week chairing an appointments advisory committee at Whipps Cross Hospital. I am chairman of the trust and that was the latest of many committees that I have chaired. The fact that we must question every candidate on his or her ability as a teacher, and that we must have representatives of the university sitting on the committee to assess the ability of every applicant for a consultant post as teacher, means that as the patients come east so education is bound to follow. I have no doubt that hospitals in Essex and east London will benefit greatly from that. I greatly value the support that we have received.
The House will not welcome a long speech in winding up the debate. I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for agreeing not to move his Motion. As regards the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, I wish to make only one point to put it firmly on the record. The Government do not whip on Private Bills. It is most important to have that principle restated because it was the case in another place. The Government did not whip on this Bill.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As he said, what is needed is that the Bill should proceed with all dispatch through its remaining stages with a view to achieving Royal Assent in the overspill period in October or early November. The three colleges had hoped that it would become law before Parliament rose for the Summer Recess. However, as a result of protracted proceedings in another place that is impossible. I believe that this House owes it to the many thousands of people in the academic community who will make up this great new college to do their best to

367
end the uncertainties as swiftly as possible. We can begin by giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading tonight. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes to enable the documents for Royal Assent to be prepared.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.24 to 8.39 p.m.]

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

Appropriation Act,

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act,

Merchant Shipping Act,

Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Act,

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act,

Crown Agents Act,

368

Environment Act,

Pensions Act,

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act,

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act,

Insurance Companies (Reserves) Act,

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act,

National Health Service (Amendment) Act,

Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act,

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Act,

Child Support Act,

Criminal Appeal Act,

Children (Scotland) Act,

Bell's Bridge Order Confirmation Act,

Sheffield Assay Office Act,

Birmingham Assay Office Act,

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

Birmingham Assay Office Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendment agreed to.

Children (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.