Lords Sitting of 3 May 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 Exeter.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty the Queen has appointed 12 o'clock on Friday 5th May in Westminster Hall to be the time and place at which Her Majesty will be attended by this House to receive their Address on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Research
2.37 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty' s Government:
Who was responsible for formulating the specifications in the original advertisement for proposals for epidemiological research into OP sheep dips.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, on 1st December 1993 the Government announced the setting up of a panel of independent medical and scientific experts to look into reports of long-term health effects claimed to arise from OP sheep dip exposure. It is part of the panel's terms of reference to advise on any additional work needed to elucidate potential long-term effects on humans of OP dips.
The panel considered a draft specification for epidemiological research. The final specification for research proposals was issued by the Health and Safety Executive, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Health, and incorporated the advice of the panel.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is it correct that the panel received 13 tenders for the epidemiological study, including tenders from two members of the special scientific and medical panel, MAFF's own laboratories, and the Institute of Occupational Health, Birmingham University? Will the noble Earl explain why all the applications were rejected? Despite those people knowing what was required, they were not asked to brush up their tenders so that the epidemiological study could be brought in before the next dipping season. With the delay until July, we have lost another dipping season.
Earl Howe: My Lords, let me say, first, that the Government share the concern and disappointment of the noble Countess that none of the 13 proposals for the study was considered to meet the specification. It is highly regrettable. The noble Countess should be in absolutely no doubt of the Government's commitment to see this important study under way. However, it is equally
1368
important to ensure that the research which is commissioned is scientifically sound and will fully address the points of concern.
We looked very carefully at possible alternative ways of proceeding, but all were ruled out under the principles for open competitive tendering by which the Government are properly bound when awarding research contracts. Those principles are in place to ensure fairness and even-handedness to all those who submit bids. There was, therefore, no choice but to proceed to a second advertisement seeking new or revised proposals. That is what we have now done; and proposals are required by 19th June.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it seems extraordinary that the Ministry was unable to find one organisation out of the 13 which responded. One begins to wonder whether the Ministry was concerned about the outcome of the research.
If the contract is let by the end of July, when will the work be finished and will the outcome be published?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government want to get to the bottom of this Question as much as does the noble Countess, or the noble Lord.
A second advertisement was published. As I said, fresh tenders are invited by 19th June. To try to ensure that the research fully addresses the issues of concern, detailed briefing is being arranged for those wishing to tender. It is anticipated that the fresh tenders will be considered by the panel in July. It should be possible to award a contract shortly afterwards.
We expect any study to take two to three years to complete. The results of the studies will be published so that they can be considered by all who have an interest.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister gave a detailed Answer indicating the Government's strict code of conduct when asking for tenders. Can the noble Earl tell us why the same code of conduct for government tenders does not apply to some of the quangos which appear to accept tenders based on their own criteria, not those stated by the Government? The quangos' criteria leave a lot to be desired; some are not open tenders.
Earl Howe: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to give me examples of unfair tendering practices, I should be happy to look into them. I am concerned to know what he has in mind.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister expects replies from the same sources from which he previously received tenders. If he was not satisfied with the tenders, why could he not negotiate with the most likely one and get the important work under way? Why delay asking for fresh tenders? Does the Minister hope for new sources of research to apply? Why is there this new procedure?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we received 13 bids and there were different problems associated with each bid. The problems were all significant; there was no question of a quick revision of minor points. The key objective is to have a proposal which stands the best possible chance of giving an unequivocal answer to the question of whether

1369
the use of OP sheep dip leads to clearly defined patterns of chronic ill health. None of the proposals satisfied the specification.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in an earlier reply my noble friend mentioned detailed briefing. With the wisdom of hindsight, is he satisfied that there was sufficiently detailed briefing and, if I may use the lay term, specification in the original tendering?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have seen the original specification and the revised version. The material content of the specification has not changed at all; the specification is still designed to elicit proposals for properly constructed epidemiological studies.
As regards the questions posed, in substance they were exactly the same as before. I can only say that it is regrettable, to put it mildly, that no single bidder was able to meet the specification in full.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the detailed briefing available for interested parties to scrutinise or is it only available to those wishing to tender?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is available to all those wishing to tender. I shall write to the noble Baroness to let her know whether it is an open meeting.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I and a great many other people who are interested in the subject are still not convinced that the Government are not using delaying tactics? That, combined with the action of the Health and Safety Executive in not publishing the Birmingham research until Thursday and embargoing it until midnight on Friday—which seems absolutely barmy—is, it seems, all part of the scheme to hide what might be very bad news for the Government. Can the Minister tell me in what ways the new tender is different from the old one? How do the Government expect to obtain different bids from the teams that have applied so far? If the situation is not satisfactory, will the Government consider using multi-disciplinary schemes: for example, joining the Glasgow University and Newcastle University bids together so that a really good study may be obtained?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Countess is wholly and completely wrong that the Government wish to hide anything associated with this matter. Quite the reverse is the case and I very much regret that she should have implied that there was some conspiracy or cover up to conceal the true position.
As regards the study performed by the Institute of Occupational Health, the intellectual property rights of the study rest with the IOH. There is therefore no question of the Government being able to pre-empt publication of the report. I have, however, arranged for a copy of it to be sent to the noble Countess as soon as it is available. I understand that that will be early next week.
What we have done with the revised specification is to simplify, expand or add emphasis to the original specification, which was, I repeat, to my eyes at least, both complete and explicit. I very much hope that the result will be successful this time round.

NHS Medical Staff: Expression of Views
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the new code of practice will permit the medical staff on NHS trusts to express their views freely.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, all National Health Service staff have a right and, indeed, a duty to raise with their employer any concern they may have about health care issues. The new code of practice on openness in the NHS aims to improve public access to information about health services. It does not alter the duty of medical staff to express views to their employers, nor does it change nationally agreed terms and conditions of employment which give them freedom to speak and write.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, is the noble Baroness aware that I was hoping that she would include some reference to medical staff complaining in public rather than to their employers? Is she aware that the present code of practice in no way deals with the gagging of doctors and nurses? That is because of the increasing competition between trusts who regard public statements by employees as a betrayal. Does the Minister agree that the first loyalty of medical staff should be to the patients and that there are some—not many—occasions when they should speak in public? Would not a constructive way forward be to require all trusts to inform the Government of the details of the gagging clauses in their contracts of employment, to have those clauses reviewed independently and to have the findings reported to Parliament?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are two issues here. First, there is the guidance sent to the National Health Service in June 1993. Secondly, there is the code of practice on openness published in April and to be implemented in June this year. Those are two different documents. The first deals with staff relations with the public and the media, the second with the rights of individuals to have access to information about the National Health Service.
The guidance for staff makes clear that under no circumstances are employees who express their views about health service issues in accordance with the guidance to be penalised in any way for doing so. It takes into account also the new contracts that are being drawn up by trusts for staff. It states that,
"any explicit confidentiality provision in an individual staff employment contract must be expressed in a way that does not conflict in any way with the principles and the advice set out in this guidance".
The situation is absolutely clear. Staff have the opportunity to speak to the press and other media if they wish to do so. However, we believe that their first duty is to take up the matter through the local management system. They have opportunities to refer matters to Members of Parliament, to trade unions, to professional

1371
and regulatory bodies, and, in the case of detained patients, to the Mental Health Act Commission, and in some circumstances to the ombudsman. There is therefore plenty of opportunity.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I must again declare an interest as chairman of the Royal Free Trust. The House must be getting rather tired of my saying that. As chairman of the trust, I should like to make this point clear to the Minister. Is she aware that, as in most well-managed trusts, there are no gagging clauses whatever in our contracts? Patient confidentiality is of course a different matter. Can the Minister tell the House about the access to information that the public will have? We have received the document on openness in the National Health Service, according to which no one can be charged for information unless over one hour is taken up when dealing with a query. That is rather a worry to any efficient trust, as lots of people could take up half-an-hour of one's time. I notice that under the code representatives and official bodies are required to provide information free of charge, no matter how much time is taken up. Will the Minister confirm that there will be an opportunity to review this state of affairs should it be found, as in courts and industrial tribunals, that some people become rather vexatious and constantly take up valuable time?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree entirely with the first part of my noble friend's question. It is up to trusts to have a very open regime so that the staff can raise issues. On charging policy, we think it reasonable that people who want information about their local health services should have access to it. If a small charge is made, we believe that that is reasonable. For example, when a schoolchild writes in and says, "Please can you send me everything you've got about the NHS?", that causes a problem. Indeed, sometimes our officials find that they are writing PhDs for people, given the way in which questions are framed. We think that it is unreasonable not to make a charge in such cases.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is a matter of degree!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the Minister explain how both the codes of practice and the guidance to staff will apply to the new regional offices? As the House will know, they replace regional health authorities under the Bill which will presumably pass its Third Reading in this House tomorrow? As I understand it, the regional offices will be outposts of the Department of Health, and will therefore come under the Civil Service code. Presumably, the staff employed in those offices will have no rights to speak out.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the staff in the regional offices are civil servants and are therefore bound by Civil Service codes.

IGC and the Maastricht Treaty
2.54 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the implications of Article N of the Treaty of Maastricht (whereby any alterations to the treaty may only be made with the unanimous consent of the signatories) for the Government's negotiating position at the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the consequence of Article N is that all member states may veto treaty changes that they find unacceptable.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the price for our agreement to any new arrangements which the other countries may wish to make at the forthcoming IGC and which may not suit us should be a net repatriation of sovereignty to this country? Does he further agree that that might create the variable geometry which appears to be favoured by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend raises a whole series of hypothetical matters. The IGC is a multi-party negotiation. We have a number of positive changes that we want to see occur in the European Union. No doubt other member states equally have ideas, and we shall work together to try to bring forward as many of our positive ideas as we can.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can we be assured—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to my noble friend. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Cabinet—the whole Cabinet—will first of all read what is proposed at the IGC and be made to understand the implications of it? I say that bearing in mind that after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the Prime Minister said that he had won game, set and match—which he had not; the Foreign Secretary, having signed the treaty, said that now he had better read it; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended the treaty and then admitted to the Tory Party Conference that he had not read it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, yes.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, did my noble friend the Minister find it as difficult as I did to understand the terminology of my noble friend's supplementary question? Does he agree with me that the stream of rather negative questions about Europe is likely to do nothing to improve the Government's negotiating position?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend hits the nail absolutely four-square on the head.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the Minister said a little earlier in answer to this Question that the Government have a number of positive proposals to put before the IGC.

1373
If the list is so long that he cannot give them lo us now, would he care to give them to the European Union Select Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member; or would he drop us a note to tell us what they are?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the proposals include developing further inter-governmental co-operation on defence; common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs; the establishment of a fairer voting system; ensuring better budgetary discipline; embedding subsidiarity further into the treaty; enhancing the role for national parliaments; improving financial management of the Community budget and effective action against fraud; and better implementation of European Community law. I hope that for now that will be a start.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, am I to understand that my noble friend's answer is a reiteration of the Government's belief that neither Article N nor any other part of the Maastricht Treaty can be interpreted in a way that would interfere with the opt-outs that we obtained at the Maastricht discussions?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords, that is right.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The noble Lord, Lord Ezra!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have the text of the treaty in front of me and that it contains an obligation for any agreement to changes to be the result of accord between the member states? In spite of that, will the Minister give the House, and indeed the country, an assurance that the Government will use their position in the Inter-Governmental Conference to do their very best about the growing bureaucracy of Brussels, which is as repugnant to the country as it is to many Members of this House, in spite of the limitations placed upon them by Article N of the treaty?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government will enter the negotiations aiming to secure the best possible agreement for the British people. One of our concerns is to curtail excessive centralised bureaucracy from Brussels.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that a few weeks ago my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead introduced a Motion in this House calling on the Government to take a positive attitude in the negotiations to come? Does he also recall that the Government's response was that indeed that would be the case? Would it therefore be better to think about positive proposals in the forthcoming negotiations rather than considering ways in which we can turn down the proposals of others?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We are committed to entering the negotiations in a positive manner. We want to use them to secure the best deal that we can for Britain. We believe that by going out and being positive we are most likely to achieve that goal.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I welcome the reply of the noble Lord and the inclusion in particular of a reference to embedding subsidiarity. Will he expand further on whether that means that the
1374
Government will interpret "subsidiarity" in the same way as other member governments; namely, as applying to local and regional levels as well as the national government level? Does his reply also mean that the Government will sign the charter guaranteeing British people the right to local self-government?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the nature of the subsidiarity principle is that matters best left to member state governments should be left to member state governments. With regard to local government, it is for this Parliament to determine these matters.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, powerful as his words always are, put me irresistibly in mind of the statement of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge when the railway was to come to Cambridge? He wrote in protest saying that the proposal was as repugnant to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge as he was sure it was to Almighty God. Nevertheless, will he not take too much notice of the noble Lord, powerfully though he speaks, and pursue a more constructive line?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall pay regard to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as we consider appropriate, as we equally pay regard to the views of Almighty God.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister remind the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the railway driver was an Englishman, or a British subject, which makes a very great difference in my view? Does going to the IGC in a positive frame of mind with positive proposals mean increasing or decreasing the subservience of this country to Brussels?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is not a matter of subservience to Brussels. We are trying to increase the potential for Britain and the British people.

Southern African Development Community and the EU
3.2 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the relationship between the European Union and the Southern African Development Community; and what role they advocate for the European Development Fund in this respect.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the European Union and the Southern African Development Community maintain a regular dialogue at ministerial and official level on a wide range of political and developmental themes. The European Development Fund can be used to fund EU/SADC initiatives.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that the economic, social and political strengths of both South Africa and members of the southern African community in the future lie in the success that they make of regional co-operation; that their regional co-operation relates very closely to the regional

1375
co-operation in Europe; and that the EDF is the way in which the efforts of Europe as a whole are drawn together in making a success of the future of southern Africa? Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will remain fully committed to the EDF in the years ahead?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The relationship between the European Union and the SADC is important. It is an important element in the future relationships between our corner of the globe and southern Africa. As part of that, the EDF has an important role to play. Within that context and indeed within the wider context, we are committed to the EDF.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this House yesterday the representative of UNICEF spoke on the deplorable situation in Rwanda? Is he further aware that he paid a compliment to the role of Her Majesty's Government in the affairs of that unfortunate country but was extremely disturbed that the European Union had played no role whatever in discharging its responsibilities in that area?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I was not aware of the remarks to which the noble Lord refers. I am glad to hear that the representative feels that the British Government's part has been significant. Obviously, I am upset to hear the comments made about the role of the European Union. I shall report them back to my noble friend Lady Chalker.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful for the assurance that the Government are committed to the EDF. Can the noble Lord go a step further and assure the House that the Government will rigorously oppose any reduction in the resources available for southern Africa through the EDF and indeed will give a lead in ensuring an increase in those resources?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, one of the high points of our aid programme is our work in southern Africa. He will also know that negotiations are still going on about the future funding of the EDF. We are concerned because an increasing amount of our total aid budget is swallowed up in multilateral programmes rather than in bilateral programmes. In order to ensure the future strength of our bilateral programmes, which have been given such a clean bill of health by the OECD, we have made it clear that we cannot continue to contribute the same amount to EDFVIII as we have done for the EDFVII contribution. However, I cannot give details of our position which remains confidential because we are still negotiating. Nonetheless the amount will still be substantial.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the most practical aid to South Africa itself would be to assist in the development of housing, schooling, water and sanitation in the shanty towns of South Africa, thereby giving the people, who have great expectations, some prospect of an improvement in the future?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in September last year the Prime Minister and President Mandela signed a memorandum on development co-operation which sets out the agreed areas of focus for £60 million worth of UK bilateral aid to be provided over a three-year period. The
1376
main areas of focus are education, good governance, health, rural development and small enterprise development. As the noble Lord will see, that covers many of the points to which he drew attention.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Inglewood will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement, an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on Bosnia.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Government Chief Whip tell the House what he has in mind when he says "at a convenient moment after 3.30"? As he knows, these matters are normally arranged after consultation, but there has been no consultation as to the appropriate time. I should have thought that if "after 3.30 p.m." we are still discussing the next item of business and have not started the main debate, it would be convenient to take the Statement before the main debate started. The alternative is either to break into the debate, which no one wants, or to wait until the end of it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at this stage we are not in a position of knowing whether or not the Private Notice Question will have started in another place by 3.30 p.m. If that is the case and we have completed the next business, it is right that we should go ahead with the Statement. Otherwise, I propose that we should break after the Front Bench speakers have made their contributions to this afternoon's debate. That would, therefore, be after the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I simply want to make the point that these matters are normally dealt with through consultation, if not negotiation. I do not feel that it is right, for the good order of the House, to be advised in this manner at this stage on how the matter will be dealt with, especially as it is generally understood that a break in a debate is undesirable.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised by the Opposition Chief Whip and the tone that he used. He made a suggestion to the effect that if the next item of business were completed by the time that the Private Notice Question was asked in another place, we should repeat the Statement at that time. I entirely agree with that. If, however, the next item of business has been completed and the debate has started, it seems to make sense for us to break into the debate, however undesirable that may be, as otherwise we should have to wait until the end of the debate, which will not be until round about 8.15 this evening.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Chief Whip did not reply to my noble friend as to why there was no consultation. That is the real issue. It is usual that consultations take place before making statements of that sort.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my understanding of these matters is that when a Statement is proposed and

1377
accepted by the Opposition, a Business Statement is made in the way that I have just made it; that at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. the Statement will be taken. I cannot see why any discussion which has taken place this afternoon should change that. The Opposition Chief Whip suggested that it could be taken after 3.30 p.m. before the debate, if we have not started the debate, and I entirely agreed. It is not a question of consultation, but I shall make a point in the future to involve the Opposition and other usual channels at the earliest possible opportunity to decide when we should take these Statements.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Viscount Whitelaw set down for this day shall be limited to five hours.—(Viscount Cranborne)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I presume the noble Viscount refers to the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseekers Bill
3.11p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition for any confusion that may have arisen.
The House will be aware that since the Committee of the Whole House concluded its consideration of the Jobseekers Bill, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has published a further report commenting on the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to comment on the work of the devolved powers scrutiny committee because it is relevant to the question before us this afternoon.
The work of the committee is rightly considered in your Lordships' House as being of increasing importance. It was for that reason, as well as many others, that I was particularly pleased that my noble friend Lord Alexander was asked by the House to take over the chairmanship of the committee in view of the regrettable illness of my noble friend Lord Rippon.
It is important that the devolved powers scrutiny committee should be authoritatively chaired in your Lordships' House in view of the increasing importance that secondary legislation is playing in our legislative programme. It is equally important that the Government, having made the commitment they did to the devolved powers scrutiny committee, should listen with the greatest care to the recommendations contained in the reports of the committee and, indeed, that they should seek to respond quickly and positively to the views expressed in them. It is in that spirit that I move the second Motion standing in my name this afternoon.
1378
As your Lordships will see, the Motion seeks to give the House an opportunity to consider Clause 6 of the Bill further in Committee so that the matters to which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has drawn attention may be debated at further length. While I believe I am right in saying that noble Lords opposite would wish to recommit more clauses than merely Clause 6, I hope that your Lordships will feel that what is proposed will give the House an opportunity to take into account the comments in paragraph 5 of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee report which particularly seeks for definition of the terms "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" to be introduced onto the face of the Bill. The Government will do their best during the course of the recommitment on Clause 6 to satisfy the strictures contained in the reports.
I should like to make one further comment. I understand through the usual channels that, following various representations made to me in the past 24 hours in my capacity as Leader of the House, further representations have been made regarding the time available for consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill. It is extremely important that the business of this House should proceed on the basis of good will and consensus. There is no other way in which your Lordships have ever proceeded with success and I feel that it is part of my duty to ensure that that spirit is maintained.
If that is the wish of the substantial part of your Lordships' House, I would be the last to try to stand in the way of its fulfilment. I shall be extremely happy to ask the usual channels to see whether additional time can be found beyond the additional time we have already found for further consideration of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will feel therefore that the Government have done their best, not only to meet the recommendations of the devolved powers scrutiny committee, but also to ensure that the business of your Lordships' House is addressed and managed in the most constructive way possible. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Jobseekers Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday 11th May in respect of Clause 6 and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Report of Clause 6 to be received on the same day.—(Viscount Cranborne)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal. However, his Motion is unsatisfactory for two main reasons. One is that the scope of the recommital is not sufficient; the other is that the arrangements, which I appreciate the Leader of the House mentioned towards the end of his speech, in relation to the taking of the recommitted stage of the Bill are profoundly unsatisfactory.
I have a little to say on this matter and I hope that the House will bear with me because it raises issues of not inconsiderable importance, not only in relation to the Bill, which in itself is extremely important, but also, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, in relation to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
The Motion is moved by the Government today in the light of the reports of that committee on the Jobseekers Bill. Those noble Lords who sat through the Committee

1379
stage—I did not sit through the debates but I read every word that was uttered—will feel that the committee has been heavily critical of a heavily criticised Bill. I am not concerned in this part of what I wish to say with the merits or otherwise of the Bill as such. It is a thoroughly nasty, mean, unpleasant measure which will cause considerable hardship to some of the most vulnerable sections of our society. But leaving that point aside, I am much more concerned, at this moment on this Motion, with the way in which the legislation has been framed and what should now be done about it.
The reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee raise some fundamental questions, two in particular. The first relates to the convention in this House that we cannot amend and do not vote against regulations, delegated legislation, coming to this House. When we have a Bill of this nature in which all the meat is to be introduced by delegated legislation, if we pass the Bill in its present form we are in effect disenfranchising this House from taking a decision upon the real issues which will be legislated upon. We can take a decision on the general skeleton and framework of the Bill, but if the Bill remains in its present form we cannot take a decision on the actual pieces of legislation which will implement it and affect people in this country. We cannot do that because it will be done by delegated legislation and we have the convention I mentioned.
Secondly—this is important too—a fundamental point arises as to what is to be done with the reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The report is in front of your Lordships tangentially today only because the Leader of the House has introduced a Motion in which the Government say, "We have looked at the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We think we should do a, b and c in order to respond to that report." With respect, that is not wholly satisfactory. Surely there ought to be a procedure whereby, if at all possible, the reports of the committee come out before the beginning of the Committee stage of a Bill, and when they do come out they are debated perhaps at the initial stages of the Committee stage itself.
I am grateful for what the Leader of the House had to say in relation to Clause 6. In the middle of an offensive Bill Clause 6 stands out as perhaps the most offensive part of all. I wish to read one subsection of Clause 6 because in a sense it encapsulates what is wrong with the Bill and why in our submission to the House more of it should be recommitted than is contained in the Motion which the Government have put down. Subsection (1) states:
"For the purposes of this Act, 'available for employment' and 'actively seeking employment'"—
those are two very important phrases in the Bill—
"have such meaning as may be prescribed".
In other words, the Government will tell us what "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" may at some stage mean and they will do it in the form of regulations. We have a clause the like of which I have never seen before. It goes on to state:
"Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act—

(a) a person who is not available for employment is to be treated as available for employment;

(b) a person who is available for employment is to be treated as not available for employment;

1380

(c) a person who is not actively seeking employment is to be treated as actively seeking employment; or

(d) a person who is actively seeking employment is to be treated as not actively seeking employment".

I have never heard such rubbish in my life! Quite frankly, if that is the kind of legislation this House is being asked to pass, it is time we had a full-scale recommittal of large chunks of the Bill. That part of the Bill is breathtaking in its imprecision, and we have to do something about it.
Perhaps I may say one thing to the Government about their proposal to recommit Clause 6. In our view it will not be enough merely for the Government to come along and provide two definitions—in other words, to say that "available for employment" means X and "actively seeking employment" means Y—and then to pretend that that satisfies what the sub-committee of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee asked for, which was "a more detailed framework"—that was the phrase it used in relation to Clause 6. Merely to supply two definitions will not be sufficient to do it.
But there remain in the Bill Clause 4, Clauses 7 and 8 and Clause 16. I shall not weary the House by going through them in great detail but I shall say this. All of them at some stage received the attention of the Select Committee. All of them were criticised by the Select Committee in different terms. Perhaps some criticisms were made in the first report and some in the second report, but they all fit into the general criticism made by the sub-committee:
"There is nevertheless a strong argument that the bill is no more than a skeleton bill, in spite of the Departments' arguments as to why the powers are needed to the extent provided for. The Committee must accordingly draw to the attention of the House the extent of the powers Parliament is being asked to delegate to Ministers".
Clause 4 relates to the calculation of the amount of the jobseeker's allowance itself. I should have thought that it is pretty fundamental to a Bill on a jobseeker's allowance that the precise clause which deals with the way in which the jobseeker's allowance is to be computed is blank. All it says is that regulations will be made to deal with it in the future. That clause, too, should be recommitted. The first report of the Select Committee raised the issue as to whether such a fundamental point should remain undefined. In our view, it should not.
Clauses 7 and 8, which deal with the jobseeker's agreement, give enormous power to the adjudication officer—power which in paragraph 38 of their own memorandum, the Government say:
"Clause 7 … has no precedent in the legislation relating to unemployment benefit and income support".
Those clauses should be recommitted also.
Finally, Clause 16 allows regulations to prescribe circumstances in which an adjudication officer is, and is not, to take into account in determining the period for which the allowance is to be paid. The first report of the Select Committee said that,
"there is no indication of what is intended in substantive terms".
It is quite wrong that this Bill should leave the House when citizens do not know and cannot ascertain their rights in relation to the entering into of the agreement, the criteria to be employed by the adjudication officer, the circumstances in which he or she might lose the allowance, the amount that the allowance is to be, and the circumstances to be considered when deciding whether

1381
the applicant is available for employment and/or actively seeking it. There should be a comprehensive recommittal of the relevant portions of the relevant clauses in the light of the Select Committee's report.
That brings me to two further points. I am sorry to take up the time of the House. No, I am not actually sorry because, quite frankly, this Motion raises some fundamental issues and it is right that the House should consider them. I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, if I am holding up his debate but these are important issues and this is the time when they have to be raised.
I turn to the procedures for the regulations—the affirmative procedure or the negative procedure. As I read the Bill, it is a most extraordinary provision. The Act is due to come into force on 1st April 1996. If the regulations are introduced before the Act comes into force it has to be done the first time by the affirmative procedure. Thereafter, any regulation, whenever introduced, has to be by negative procedure. We are giving powers to the Government and we are allowing them after 1st April 1996 to do everything by the negative procedure. That cannot be right. That is not the proper way for the Government to legislate in relation to rights and issues as fundamental as those dealt with in the Bill.
Secondly, the Government have from time to time said in various memoranda and pieces of paper what their intentions are. They have said, "It is our intention that we should do X or we should do Y". Intentions are not good enough. The Select Committee pointed that out. The Select Committee said that instead of intentions, what we should have is a series of ministerial undertakings. I should have thought that the least the Leader of the House could do for us this afternoon is, first, to deal with the issue of the affirmative or negative procedure and, secondly, to say something about whether or not he accepts the obligation to upgrade the Government's statement of their intentions into ministerial undertakings.
I am not sure what the Leader of the House has now said in relation to time. If the only result of this afternoon is that Clause 6 is recommitted I would hope that what he means is that on Thursday 11th May the half-day which is down for the consideration of the Bill shall be confined to the recommitted Committee stage. The Leader of the House shakes his head. If he does not mean that, I am bound to say that I do not think he is giving us anything at all. If all that is happening is that we are to have a recommittal of one clause of the Bill and that that is to take place on the same day that the Government have already slated for consideration of the Report stage, so that on that day we shall have the consideration of one Bill first, then the recommitted Committee stage of this Bill, followed by the Report stage, I am bound to say that I think that that is behaving with an arrogance and insensitivity to the rights of the Opposition and the rights of this House which I find profoundly disappointing.
I shall listen with great care to what the Leader of the House has to say in response to the debate but I have to tell him now that we do not find the proposals the Government are making satisfactory.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we are not here considering a technical issue of minor import. The
1382
substance of the matter is that the largely skeletal nature of the Bill—the word "skeleton" is not the word of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, or my word but the word of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—could lead to oppressive conditions being laid upon underprivileged and heavily disadvantaged groups in our society.
Furthermore, this Bill, as proposed by the Government, could have paved the way to a constitutional shift by which not merely the powers of Parliament as a whole in relation to the legislation but the influence of your Lordships' House, as compared with that of the House of Commons, could have been reduced, as it were, by the back door. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House elliptically drew attention to a convention in answer to a Written Question in yesterday's Hansard. If that is a somewhat contentious convention, and it is accepted that your Lordships' House does not vote against statutory instruments, then to the extent that legislation is done by statutory instruments and not by Act of Parliament we are surrendering a considerable part of our influence over what happens.
That real danger in the Bill has to some extent been frustrated by the two relevant reports of the scrutiny committee. The House is deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and to the other members of the committee for the work they have done. The Government have shown some response to that.
Lord Strathclyde: Oh!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, they could hardly have done otherwise, with respect to the noble Lord the Chief Whip. We welcome the recommittal of Clause 6 although a wider recommittal would have been desirable. The recommittal of Clause 6 would be welcome in itself, although not regarded as satisfactory if at the expense of squeezing the Report stage of the Bill down from a day-and-a-half. No doubt it will be clarified, but from the timetable spoken about by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, it is not exactly clear what squeezing is to take place.
This Bill is now a recommittal issue. The report from the scrutiny committee is now an issue of major importance. The matter should be dealt with at the beginning of the day's business. It should not be brought on at six o'clock, seven o'clock or eight o'clock in the evening and the Report stage should not be squeezed.
There is another point on which I would like to have the intentions of the Leader of the House made clear. The Motion not only provides for the recommittal, but also for the stages of the Bill—namely, the recommittal and Report stage—to be taken on the same day. That does not mean, I trust, that the Report stage of Clause 6 takes place on the same day as the recommittal. If that were to happen, it would make a total mockery of a Report stage as distinct from a Committee stage. Whatever else may happen on that day as far as Report stage is concerned, there should be an interval of at least 24 hours between the recommittal and its outcome and the Report stage of that particular and now highly controversial and important clause.

1383
We have had no indication of the Government's response to paragraph 8 of the further report of the scrutiny committee which states,
"The House may wish to consider with care whether regulations under this Clause should not always be subject to the affirmative procedure regardless of when they are made".
Important issues arise here. I always listen with interest—on this occasion it was with amazement—to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the deputy Leader of your Lordships' House. Last week he proclaimed, as it were, the Government's principle that legislation was of itself undesirable. He said that if it is not absolutely necessary to make law it is absolutely necessary not to do so. I wondered whether I was listening to a history of a Government who have produced how many criminal justice Bills; how many education Bills; and how many local government Bills? I wondered whether the noble Earl was living in a fantasy world of his own.
The Minister of State, Home Office: Oh!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, must occasionally get used to listening to things which do not entirely fit in with her compass of views of the world.
I pose these questions without the slightest politicking. What can be a worse possible government approach to their theory of little legislation than the practice of Ministers, before moving bewilderingly from department to department, feeling that they must put their imprint by an Act on their particular department? The worst of all worlds would be to have a great deal of legislation but with very little content, leaving it all to be filled out by statutory instruments. Such an approach would be the worst possible solution. It would leave us with skeletal legislation almost wholly dependent on statutory instruments to give it meaning and therefore, in the last resort, insulting.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to say a very brief word in support of the Government. They have acted with total propriety. They have acted swiftly and given the scrutiny committee the credence which all noble Lords would wish the Government to give. As regards the recommittal of Clause 6, when one looks at the amendments which have been tabled already that would appear to be sufficient.
I shall come very quickly to my reason for saying that. I support the concept that a little more time be given. The reason is that when one looks at the scrutiny committee report, and at paragraphs 4 and 5 in particular, one sees that they are requiring, or suggesting firmly, that there should be more detailed framework in the drafting. I have tabled an amendment under Clause 1 to deal with that. The Bill Office has arranged to redraft it and put it into Clause 6 so that I can speak to it. There is no other amendment down dealing with the framework. Surely the framework is the crucial part of the report. That is a matter which your Lordships and the Government would wish to consider, but there is not yet a government draft of that particular format. Sufficient time should be given. There are no other amendments tabled that cannot be redrafted
1384
under Clause 6. Therefore, as appears from the list of amendments, the recommittal of Clause 6 only would appear to be sufficient. I support the Government.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may follow what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said and recognise that in the drafting of his new amendments he has gone some way to try to meet some, but not ail, of the criticisms of the committee on delegated legislation.
I wish to address only the constitutional implications of the extent to which we are dealing with matters of the greatest importance to many of our fellow citizens through the method of secondary legislation. I often have the privilege in this House, as I did in the other place, of hearing people refer to parliamentary sovereignty. The exercise of parliamentary sovereignty by the method of negative resolution as regards regulations is a deeply unsatisfactory part of the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty.
I am not going to raise partisan considerations. In this Bill matters of the greatest significance are to be dealt with by secondary legislation only. Perhaps I may mention just two in addition to those mentioned by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend Lord Jenkins. At Committee stage we attempted again and again to get on the face of the Bill a reference to the limitation of the possibilities of discrimination against a jobseeker on grounds that seem to be wholly inappropri-ate.
I give only one example. It is a matter on which Members of the Committee were lobbied by both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. I refer to the fact that an unwillingness to work on the sabbath has not been accepted as grounds for refusing to take a particular job although that might lead to the jobseeker's allowance being unacceptable and benefit being with-drawn. Furthermore, there are no references to race, origin or disability on the face of the Bill.
The crucial question of the level of the jobseeker's allowance has not been put on the face of the Bill, despite the reference in paragraph 8 of the report of the scrutiny committee to which my noble friend referred. There is also the crucial question of whether a jobseeker can be forced to take a job on pay that is below the minimum income support level. That has not been put on the face of the Bill although those provisions come very close to compelling people to work against their own rational interests.
Finally, the disturbing distinction between people who are sufficiently disabled to find it hard to hold a job but who are not so disabled that they might draw a disability income allowance—the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made repeated references to that—is not dealt with on the face of the Bill.
I believe that one of the most significant roles of this House is the protection of our unwritten constitution and of the custom and tradition of the liberty of the individual in this country. A former Poet Laureate, Lord Tennyson, once said that the greatness of English law was that it,
"broadens down, from precedent to precedent".

1385
I ask noble Lords to consider whether at this moment we are not being asked to "narrow down" from precedent to precedent. I beg noble Lords to take seriously this effective limitation on the powers of this House, the guardian of our unwritten constitution.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before my noble friend responds, I really do think that—
Noble Lords: The Lord Privy Seal.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, does not seem to want to pursue that point, perhaps I may address one or two matters briefly to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I do not think that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition was being critical of the scrutiny committee when he said that he understood that the objective was that a report from that committee should be available to this House prior to the Committee stage of the Jobseekers Bill. That has always been our objective. Unfortunately, because of the Easter Recess, there was a slight delay in receiving the memorandum from the department explaining the purposes of the Bill and, without it, we could not proceed. That became available to members of the committee on the Monday of the week when we rose for Easter on the Thursday, so there was no time to do anything other than make an interim report. It is only since then that we have been able to consider the whole issue and produce our report which, of course, meant that the Committee was unable to take into account the views of your Lordships' Select Committee to which the Leader of the House himself attached importance.
I can see the Government's difficulty in having the whole Bill recommitted. Clause 6 of the Bill was specially mentioned in the report because it seemed to us to be perhaps the most important issue. However, the report also refers to Clause 4 and to a number of other difficulties that arise in the Bill. I know that the Leader of the House has gone a long way in recognising the need for recommittal of Clause 6. However, will he recognise that other parts of the Bill can be identified as causing concerns? If the Government allowed more time for their consideration, I believe that the wishes of the whole House could be met. I do not think that we should spoil what has been an effort on the part of the Government by not doing a little bit more so that all can be satisfied.
In my view, the Bill is unique. I do not think that there is a precedent for it or that there has ever been a Bill of this nature before. It would be unforgiveable of the House to allow the Bill simply to go through late at night. This is not a party matter. It is not a matter of seeking delay. This is a matter for the House, and I think that the House should at least recognise the nature of the Bill and the way in which it is constructed. We should remember the people who will be affected by it and ensure that the Bill receives much more careful consideration. Perhaps the recommittal could relate to something more narrow than the whole Bill, but that is
1386
something that could be identified. With a little willingness from the Leader of the House and a little willingness from our side, I am sure that we can come up with an admirable solution.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I really do think that I should say just a tiny word. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on getting us back to the Motion and away from what I can only describe as Second Reading speeches on the Jobseekers Bill.
I should like to comment on what will happen if we do not pass the Motion. As I understood the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House—reading between the words, if one can do that—the Government are offering to do something which has been demanded in both Houses for a number of weeks; namely, to put into the Bill a definition of "available for employment" and "actively seeking work". If I am wrong, perhaps my noble friend will tell me. However, on the basis that I am right, I am absolutely convinced that the right way to do this is to have a recommittal of Clause 6, which is where those words appear; otherwise, we shall go straight into Report and have only limited debating time in which to consider the matter.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, were it not for the solemnity of the occasion, I would have been tempted to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in particular on managing to manufacture a great deal more time on this Bill than even I had hoped to be able to concede. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I am not tempted down the path of discussing the individual merits or otherwise of the Bill. Naturally enough, I can do nothing but disagree with the way in which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition characterised the Bill and its contents. Its desirability seems to me to be self-evident. I am sorry that he disagrees.
On the substance of the noble Lord's complaint—and, indeed, that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—I am sorry that both noble Lords felt that it was appropriate to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Bill on a purely procedural Motion. Nevertheless, I hope that they will recognise—I do not think that they were trying to imply otherwise—that both I and the Government mean what we say when we say that we take seriously the reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
We have done the very best that we can to meet the substantive point about Clause 6. I must point out that we have already spent six hours discussing Clause 6 in Committee. We have already had three days in Committee on the Bill. That is a substantial amount of time during a crowded summer's legislative programme.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the reports of the Select Committee were originally intended to be produced in time for the Committee stage of the Bill. The fact that the Easter Recess intervened was an unfortunate occurrence, and I take seriously the strictures that various noble Lords have made on that point. We shall try to ensure, as best we can, that my noble friend is able to publish the reports of his committee in time for consideration of them at the

1387
beginning of the Committee stage of a Bill. That is a right and proper procedure. I can do no more than agree with noble Lords who have made that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was anxious that, as he put it, the Report stage should not be squeezed. I have already offered conversations through the usual channels to try to provide additional time above the day and a half that remains to us. I am sorry if that was not clear in my original remarks. I tried to make it clear that during the original representations about recommittal made to me by a number of your Lordships in the wake of the devolved powers scrutiny committee's report that the question of extra time was not raised.
Nevertheless, I have heard subsequently that in a number of parts of the House it was thought sensible that more time should be given. I should be happy for the usual channels to discuss the question of additional time over and above the day and a half that has already been given. I wish to point out to your Lordships that the half day is already additional time over and above what was discussed through the usual channels in the first place. I am glad to see the Opposition Chief Whip nodding his head. This would be a second tranche of additional time that we would be discussing, and I hope that the usual channels will take serious note of the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to try to ensure that the Committee stage is not squeezed by the demands of time on Report.
I could go on for even longer, and further delay the start of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw's debate. I hope that I have demonstrated that I think it undesirable that we should discuss the merits of the Bill in this forum. Equally, I understand clearly that there are number of noble Lords who are concerned by the contents of the report and have strong views on the subject. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me repeating this, but if the business of the House is to be conducted in the civilised manner which is in the best traditions of your Lordships' House, I believe it right that the Government's business managers do their best to meet concerns.
I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that my noble friend the Chief Whip and I have done the best we can in the short time (24 hours) following the original representations made to us to meet a substantial number of concerns and that therefore noble Lords will not seek further to impede the passing of the Motion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the Leader of the House sits down, will he say something about the other two points—the affirmative/negative procedural point on the regulations themselves, and ministerial undertakings as opposed to statements of intent?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me betraying a confidence in public, but he raised both points with me in earlier private conversations. I hope that he will agree that I took note of his concerns and undertook to raise them with my right honourable and honourable friends. Since we will have considerably more time on the Bill than was originally budgeted for, I hope that both those concerns will be able to be addressed by my noble
1388
friends when they return to the Bill. I cannot give a categorical undertaking, but we shall endeavour to be as sympathetic as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children (Scotland) Bill
3.54 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Atomic Energy Authority Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Former Yugoslavia
3.55 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House it may now be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement being made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"The Cessation of Hostilities Agreement which provided for a ceasefire in Bosnia ended without extension on 1st May. There had already been a steady increase in fighting and skirmishing between Bosnian Government troops and Bosnian Serbs since 20th March at a number of flashpoints along the confrontation line, including Sarajevo, Bihac, the hills to the north of Tuzla and around Turbe and Travnik in central Bosnia. The end of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement has not been marked by any new heavy fighting on the ground. The situation has not yet returned to levels of violence or difficulty experienced last autumn, although the gradual deterioration and restrictions on freedom of movement has made it more difficult for UNPROFOR to carry out its tasks in areas near the confrontation line. There is no fighting in most of central Bosnia.
"The situation in Croatia, however, has taken a sharp turn for the worse. Croat forces moved into western Slavonia on 1st May and in two days' fighting have taken control of the central highway and expelled forces of the Krajina Serbs, who retaliated by launching five or six missiles into Zagreb. The Croatian Government announced on 2nd May that they had completed their operations. But the situation remains tense. There were further explosions in Zagreb this morning.
"Early on 2nd May, the Security Council adopted a statement which expressed deep concern at the resumption of hostilities and demanded that the Croatian Government end their military offensive and offered full support to the special representative of the UN Secretary-General in his negotiations to secure a ceasefire, to ensure safety of the highway and of UN personnel and generally to normalise the situation. Those efforts continue.

1389
"What has happened in both Bosnia and Croatia shows again the urgency of the political process. A negotiated settlement remains the only way to a lasting peace in Bosnia and Croatia. No party will win a decisive military victory. The Contact Group is continuing its efforts to secure a settlement in Bosnia based on the Contact Group plan and mutual recognition among former Yugoslav republics. The immediate priority in Bosnia must be to secure a further Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. The Bosnian Government have indicated that they could agree to this if President Milosevic were to recognise Bosnia. The Contact Group, in meetings this week, is focusing on this aspect. Recognition of Bosnia would be an important step which would signify an end to Serb dreams of a greater Serbia. But it is only one element in an overall package which must include recognition of the other republics and a settlement on territory and agreement on a constitution which preserves territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia Herzegovina".
My Lords, that concludes the statement.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I am pleased that the situation in Bosnia itself does not seem to have deteriorated so much, but what has happened in Croatia is deeply disappointing.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a number of questions relating to the UN aspect of this matter. Is the Government's view that there is still sufficient agreement among the five members of the Contact Group to enable the Security Council now to be re-seized of this situation and perhaps to produce some new initiative? Do the Government have a clear idea of what sort of new initiative they would like from the Security Council so as to enable UN forces in Bosnia and Croatia to do their job properly?
Finally, is the Minister aware that to make peace there has to be agreement that peace should be made, and that the difficulty, in Bosnia especially, is that I do not believe that either side has yet come to the conclusion that the military options should be closed and that the diplomatic process should be the way through which peace should come? I do not know whether the Government can do anything to help in that respect.
Finally, will the Government be careful to ensure that our troops do not stay there once they cease to be able to perform their humanitarian role? It is a difficult question of balance and I appreciate the delicacies that exist. Nevertheless, if there comes a time when the United Nations effort is clearly not producing the required results, will the Government be most careful about the safety of our troops?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. He did so in a measured way against the background of events in former Yugoslavia. Inevitably, our minds are focused on what has happened in the past
1390
few days in Croatia and we realise the danger of an escalation on that second front within the former Yugoslavia. The Contact Group meets in London today. Has any consideration been given to the situation in Croatia?
One looks for a means of exercising some kind of sensible influence on what is a dangerous situation. The winter is ending, the cease-fire appears to be crumbling and one looks for a means of leverage. I believe that the European Union is considering an association trade agreement with Croatia. I do not believe that one should go too speedily ahead with that until there is a sign from Croatia that it is ready to behave in a proper way as regards the promotion of peace. As regards the Serbian Government, discussions have taken place on lightening the sanctions in relation to Serbia. Obviously the role of the Serbian Government is crucial and that is another opportunity for the international community to exercise influence.
Finally, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the role of the UN forces. When one thinks of the difficulties which face the UN in the former Yugoslavia, one sometimes forgets the role that it has played in preventing major wars from spreading. Not so long ago, some gloomy Cassandras suggested that the war would spread easily to Kosovo and Macedonia. I believe that the presence of the UN has helped to prevent that happening. One would be reluctant, therefore, to see a situation in which the UN could no longer keep the peace. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and perhaps the Minister will give the House the assurances that have been made elsewhere: that in dealing with that matter there will be no unilateral British action in terms of our forces as part of the UN peacekeeping arrangements.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in considering the matter it is important to be clear that while the events in Bosnia and Croatia are contiguous they are in many ways distinct. The recent upsurge of military action in Croatia has been on the back burner.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked a number of questions and I shall do my best to give appropriate replies. We believe that the Contact Group is the right forum from which ideas for trying to deal with the problem should emanate. We believe that there exists a unanimity of intention and that we should tackle the problems from that origin.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked whether we have any new ideas as regards initiatives that the United Nations could take, in particular in the context of Croatia. We have seen a Croat attack on the United Nations. We believe that it is important that the European Union supports the United Nations which, after all, is a victim of an attack by the Croats. The events are entirely contrary to the cease-fire agreement and to the Croatian commitments to the United Nations. It is particularly deplorable that they happened three days after Security Council Resolution 990 endorsed the deployment of the UN Confidence Restoration Operation (UNCRO). Against that background we must try to stabilise the situation and prevent a further escalation. The UN Secretary-General's special

1391
representative, Mr. Akashi, is in touch with both sides. We fully support his efforts and urge both sides to co-operate with him and to show restraint.
The next point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was a truism—
Lord Richard: My Lords, truisms are true.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, indeed. Peace depends on the willingness of the parties to a dispute to accept a peaceful solution. We believe that the only long-term solution to the difficulty is a political solution and we underscore that proposition. For that reason, we continue with our allies to try to bring about a peaceful solution—it can be the only solution.
The noble Lord also asked what would happen if the humanitarian role of the troops in Bosnia expired. It must be the case that troop contributors cannot be expected to go on taking casualties while the parties show no interest in peace. Ultimately, the responsibility must lie with the parties themselves. At the top of our list of concerns is the risk to our troops in Bosnia and we will hear that in mind when we consider how best our troops might best be deployed while at the same time remaining committed to peacekeeping efforts there.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, echoed many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I hope that to a significant extent I have already answered many of them. The noble Lord was right to draw attention to the position of Serbia. We are most anxious to ensure that the Serbian Government fully understand that a greater Serbia is not a dream that can be realised. We believe that if that can be accepted we will have the basis of a political settlement.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept the fact that I take no satisfaction in restating the impotence of the UN, the European Union and ourselves in trying to deal with the latest manifestation of the Balkan question which is now taking place in Croatia. That is the part of the former Yugoslavia that I know best. I know of no way that they will listen to anyone and certainly there is no military solution.
Perhaps world opinion will have some influence on the activities of the former republics of Yugoslavia. I know that that is a forlorn hope because 50 years ago I saw what they did to each other, and they carry on doing that. Nothing seems to alter them. It is a truism that many of those representing the recently recognised constituent parts of Yugoslavia have been invited here this weekend and will sit in high places as though somehow they played a part in the winning of the war. They take no notice of anyone and they should not be allowed here this weekend.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, we have invited the heads of state of all those former Yugoslav republics which we recognise. All four have accepted. The invitation to President Tudjman stands for now, but is naturally being kept under review.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth; that negotiations are taking place with regard to trading agreements between Croatia and the European Union. In the light of the flouting of the arrangements of the United Nations, which are supported by the European Union, would it not be right to suspend those negotiations? Would it not also be right to withdraw the invitation to the President of Croatia, who is coming here tomorrow to join in the VE celebrations? In the light of his flouting of UN resolutions, how can one possibly support that invitation and recognise his position?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I fully understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. As I have said, the invitation to President Tudjman is under review. As regards the co-operation agreement, the Croatians have launched an attack on the United Nations and that will have a severe impact on any matters which may need to be resolved in relation to that agreement. It is important to appreciate that events have moved very quickly. The full implications of what has happened may not yet have had time to be dealt with administratively.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government take the lead in making it absolutely clear that any new attack on the beautiful and historic city of Dubrovnik or its airport will be resisted with the full force of NATO?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a hypothetical question to which I am not in a position to reply.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the review of the invitation to President Tudjman takes place, will the noble Lord take note that doubts about that have been expressed extremely widely on all sides of this House?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have no doubt about the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has underscored. I am sure that that matter will be brought forcefully to the attention of those responsible for such matters.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether an invitation has been extended also to the head of state of Serbia and whether that matter, too, will be kept under consideration?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, invitations have been extended to the four heads of state which we recognise. We shall bear in mind all those points in view of the strongly held feelings in this House.

VE Day: The Wartime Spirit of Service
4.11 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw Viscount Whitelaw rose to call attention, at the time of the commemoration of VE Day, to the need for service to the nation and overseas, and in particular to the valuable role of voluntary organisations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, shortly before he became Lord Stockton, Harold Macmillan entered the Leader's Room. "My boy", he said, which was a rather surprising welcome to a Leader of your Lordships' House, as I was 67 at the time. But I have never forgotten his wise advice to me. "Always", he said, "remember that in politics, as in life, the history of the past is a valuable guide to future action, not exact in everything but certainly not to be neglected". Of course, Lord Stockton was referring mostly to the history which he had known personally from all his long experience.
Now that many of us are commemorating VE Day we are in a similar position. We are discussing much of our own life as part of history. In moving this Motion, I do not intend to indulge in personal memories of bravery and successes, nor of tragedy and disaster. Equally, I shall not refer to amusing wartime anecdotes, of which I have no doubt there are many in your Lordships' House. Nor have I any intention of imposing on your Lordships' House details about armed services activities.
On the other hand, I hope that we can gain value from the actions taken, mainly by the civilian community, in wartime. Certainly history in this last war, and indeed in previous wars, proved clearly that the people of a nation join together with patriotic fervour when their country is at war, with many valuable results for the community. I believe that we can gain in peacetime by following their example.
If your Lordships agree with me, I hope that we may have some important ideas or valuable proposals for voluntary organisations which will be useful for the future and indeed memorable for the commemoration of VE Day.
I am very pleased to have the chance of opening this particular debate because since I left the Government I have spent much of my time concerned with charities and voluntary organisations. In particular, I have been Chairman of the Council for Charitable Support for six years, which has helped me to appreciate the problems of many charities and how much voluntary work is carried out behind the scenes by many dedicated people.
For that reason, I want to deal first with that part of the lottery arrangements which is directly concerned with voluntary organisations and the plans which are the responsibility of the Home Office. I have for some time been pressed by various charities about the plans of the National Lottery Charities Board. Indeed, I had intended today to ask my noble friend Lady Blatch to tell us more about it. But that, I am glad to say, has already been done.
The National Lottery Charities Board announced yesterday, after several months of consultation with the charitable and voluntary sector, the basis of its plans for
1394
applications and for the payment of grants. It was obvious that time would have to be taken for the board to organise its work. I am glad that, after consideration, the board has produced a full and detailed first grant programme which seems to me a very good and clear document.
It sets out its plans for applications by which the board and charities should be able to discuss their problems together. I emphasise that. It is easy to have doubts about things at the start, and there has been a great deal of rough and tumble about what was said yesterday about the board. I do not believe that that is justified. The board and the charities can get together to discuss their problems. I hope that that will be done, and I believe that that must be the next step.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will tell us more about the development of the "Make a Difference" voluntary initiative which was launched by the Home Secretary in 1994, and indeed inspired by the Prime Minister himself. I am glad to hear that my noble friend is chairing an inter-departmental committee on that initiative. Perhaps she will give us some information about her progress.
I feel that I should now turn correctly to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. It tells me that it achieved Royal status in 1966 and is now the largest active voluntary organisation in the United Kingdom. What is even more remarkable, your Lordships may be surprised to know, is that one in 10 of its members is now a man. Its members are particularly active in hospitals, in the community and with the emergency services. All members of the WRVS in the private and public sector are committed to being the premier providers of voluntary assistance to those in need of care in their local community. I can only say that I know the Cumbrian branch very well as it has already tried to book me for a date next winter!
I turn now to two papers which have been sent to me, particularly about young people, one of which my noble friend Lord Henley has sent out from the Ministry of Defence. It is clear that good plans have been made for the young who wish to take part in the Armed Services. I know that some of my noble friends wish to talk about these in detail, and so I shall leave it to them, except to say that, if interested in the Armed Services, that is the way in which at the present time a young man can do and learn a great deal, certainly in the cadet world.
The second, on a different aspect, comes from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt (of Llanfair Waterdine)—I do not know whether that is a correct description but I have no doubt that someone will tell me—who is better known as Lord Everest Hunt, and very properly so. No one deserves that title more than he does. He has written a letter to me about this debate. He much regrets that he cannot come here to speak, as I do, but he has sent me his views on the young, together with an article which he had published in The House magazine. He is well known for having studied the problems of the young and, indeed, has given much of his life to that work.
I am most anxious not to use his article in his absence, but I think it is fair to put forward his main conclusions because they are important. He said:
"On all this evidence and informed opinion, and from personal experience, I rest my case for a comprehensive programme to prepare all our young people for their opportunities and responsibilities as citizens of tomorrow".
It would indeed be extremely interesting to discover the reaction to that from the Armed Forces so far as concerns the cadets, and of course from many other people.
It is a highly controversial area. Some people believe that there should be compulsory military service of one sort or another. I know that that is a view which is held; indeed, I suspect that that is so in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I believe that he was one of those who originally believed that that would be best but he has accepted over a long period of time that it is unlikely to happen. It would, therefore, be very interesting now to learn what exactly he would like to see instead. He is accepting that there is an alternative, and that was the point that he made in his article.
Personally, I hope that there may be a chance in your Lordships' House to discuss the issue of the young on some other occasion when both those views can be put forward. But I can say, with a little care and a little understanding, that now as far as your Lordships' House is concerned it is nothing to do with me. However, I believe that the value of a discussion such as we are having this afternoon shows some of the issues that will come up and some which should come up for full investigation.
Before I leave youth organisations, I should like to mention—because I think it is of great importance and shows great understanding—the contribution made to young people through the Duke of Edinburgh's Award and the Prince's Youth Business Trust; and, indeed, much of the work of Voluntary Service Overseas which is most helpful and valuable.
I am pleased that there are so many speakers with knowledge of these important subjects this afternoon. I ant sorry—I know that everyone feels something like this, but these things happen—that noble Lords will be later than they would originally have been. However, that does not mean that the debate will not be extremely valuable. I can assure noble Lords of one thing: it is now my privilege to listen to them with great interest, and that I shall most certainly do. I have one further comment to make: my Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for tabling the Motion and also for introducing it in the way that he did. The noble Viscount will not remember it—indeed, why should he?—but he was Leader of the House when I was introduced here. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for the courtesy and kindness on that occasion—and, indeed, thereafter—although I do remember occasions where that courtesy was present but the kindness only relative when I tried to make some relatively feeble intervention on party points and was put down very elegantly by the noble Viscount.
1396
Today, the noble Viscount has spoken of voluntary organisations and linked that with the anniversary of VE Day. He spoke with the authority and humour that we have all been led to expect from him. Of course, he speaks on VE Day as one who knows, as his record of military service in the war was of the most distinguished. I have to tell your Lordships that, in that particular, I am unable to follow the noble Viscount as I have no record of any sort. However, that was not for want of trying. It was quite simply that when the war started I was six years old and when the war finished, as your Lordships will figure out by the method of simple arithmetic, I had reached the majestic age of 12.
Having said that—and I believe that I ought to say this from these Benches—I wish to join with all noble Lords in celebrating the end of the Second World War and all that went with it. Millions of men and women gave their lives, not only from this country and our Western allies but also from Germany—in battle or by bombing or in the dreadful holocaust—and from what was then the Soviet Union some 20 million, so it is said. Many millions also suffered injury, both physical and psychological. We must honour, and we shall honour, all those—the dead and the damaged—regardless of race, colour, nationality or creed. And in honouring them, I hope that we will do so in the spirit that the noble Viscount introduced, not of triumphalism but in a spirit of reconstruction in trying to find out what we can do as a result of all this as well as in a spirit of sad remembrance and reconciliation. We must also recognise that what happened 50 years ago is now part of history and, however difficult it is for those who lived through the horrors of the time, we must remember that it is history for today's youth, in the same way as the Great War was history to those of my generation whose childhood was spent in its shadow.
Perhaps I may now address the other matters in the noble Viscount's Motion. It speaks of the,
"need for service to the nation".
Now there is no doubt—at least I hope that there is no doubt—that at the end of the war there was a sense of community, that the war had been fought for some sort of purpose. We could not go back, it was widely said, to the 1930s. We had to find a different way of organising our affairs. It was the electoral expression of that feeling that resulted in the return of a Labour Government with Mr. Attlee, as he then was, as Prime Minister. The platform, if I may put it as such, was clear: it was to introduce a change in the way we ran our affairs. Perhaps the most potent example of this was the creation of the National Health Service, and it is a matter of record that it was Aneurin Bevan's experience with the Tredegar Medical Aid Society that set him on course to create such a service for the whole nation.
However, even leaving that aside, there was at that time general popular support for the principle that we were and are a community and that, in one way or another, we can only survive if we help one another—in short, that we were all members of the whole agglomeration of people, military and civilian, English, Welsh, Scottish and, indeed, Irish, who had joined in the enterprise of defeating the common enemy and now wished to join together to

1397
make a success of the peace. In the words of the noble Viscount's Motion, "service to the nation" was the order of the day.
So indeed, was "service overseas". Our community went further than these islands, and it is no accident that we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations almost exactly at the same time as we celebrate the end of the war in Europe. Idealism, both nationally and internationally, was in the air at that time.
Since then, of course, time has moved on. Britain is no longer a world power. Indeed, there are some who would say that Britain, to use the expression in the noble Viscount's Motion, is no longer capable of remaining a nation. Furthermore, the sense of community—that the individual can only realise his or her full potential within a community—seems to me, for some reason or another, to have been lost. There has developed—and I mean no party political implication at all—what Mr. Neil Kinnock has described as the "Me; Me; Me now" society. Public service—service to the nation—seems to be at a discount. Only last week I was drawing your Lordships' attention to the deterioration in the sense of service in local government. The same phenomenon, I believe, can be observed in the Civil Service. On the other hand, service overseas seems to me to be in good shape. It is certainly true of the Armed Forces that morale improves if there is work to be done, and that includes joining with others in United Nations peacekeeping operations, which our forces, in my view, do spectacularly well.
If public service is, as I say, at something of a discount, this lays an extra burden on voluntary organisations, and the noble Viscount was quite right to draw our attention to their importance and value. This theme will have particular resonance for your Lordships, many of whom are connected, in one way or another—including the noble Viscount, as he has explained—with such organisations from the Red Cross to the Boys' Brigade, or whatever organisation it may be. For myself, I have two connections. The first is historical, and dates back to wartime; my mother was a founder member of the Oxford Committee for Greek Famine Relief, which has since, as your Lordships will be aware, become Oxfam. The second is one which I have revealed to your Lordships on a number of occasions; that I am President of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales.
Now it seems to me that voluntary organisations, whether operating overseas or at home, have two advantages and one disadvantage. The two advantages are simple to describe. First, there is no doubt in my mind that such organisations are able to move into areas where official organisations are reluctant to tread. There are many instances of this overseas, where Oxfam or Save the Children have been doing work of the greatest humanitarian value at times and in places where the political impediments are too great for effective government or inter-governmental operation. But this is also true in our own country, as I know from my experience with CPRW.
The second is that they are able to attract those with a sense of idealism, particularly young people, of whom the noble Viscount spoke, in a way that is not open, or hardly open, to official organisations. On the other hand, their
1398
disadvantage lies in the insecurity of their funding. Funding is difficult at the best of times, but has become a major problem in difficult economic times, and I must tell your Lordships that many voluntary oganisations are finding it difficult to keep their collective heads above water. There is no magic solution to this problem, but there seem to me to be two things to avoid: the first is more and more reliance on the corporate sector, which is by nature commercial and not there for the purposes of charitable work; the second is that funds could easily be syphoned off by the National Lottery—and I was dismayed to read in the paper only this morning that research by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations shows an estimated net loss of £57 million in the first year as a consequence of the lottery.
In conclusion, I would only say that the noble Viscount's Motion is welcome and timely. There are problems, but let us hope that we can solve them. If we do not, then I must tell your Lordships that I believe we would be betraying the trust of those whose sacrifice we will be commemorating this coming week-end.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we in this country have a long, proud and outstanding tradition of volunteers and voluntary service. It is a tradition that has included a great many people throughout the centuries. They were often awkward characters who saw something which they believed to be wrong and were determined, in the teeth of fashionable view, to do something to put it right. There were awkward women as well as awkward men. When I think of awkward women I am thinking of women such as Elizabeth Fry who achieved rather more than some of the awkward men. But perhaps that is a partisan point of view.
In the pursuit of their chosen field, those people recruited other people—some of them were as awkward as themselves and that made for considerable difficulties—many of whom were prepared to serve under their leadership until the wrongs which they believed they had perceived were at least on the way to being righted. It would be to our great disadvantage if we put that spirit in peril. It is essential that it should be preserved. It was, of course, displayed to a remarkable extent during the years of the Second World War.
I have an advantage over the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in this matter. At that time I was living in a small town in Somerset and I remember the coming of the evacuees in the first week after war was declared. Everyone in that town from the richest to the poorest opened their homes to people they had never seen or heard of before and took them in as evacuees. There was a great feeling of community—although we would not have used that term at the time—and of mutual responsibility, one for another. There was a feeling of being—I have never found a better phrase for it—members one of another.
That exalted feeling was slightly tarnished 10 days later when it was discovered that the powers that be had sent us the wrong children. We had been sent children from the Isle of Dogs when we were supposed to have been sent children from Dagenham. All the Isle of Dogs children were turfed out and they sent us the Dagenham children. I recount that because it is a lesson in how important it is for the bureaucrats and those in power to get such things

1399
right. One woman said to me, "If I cannot keep Elsie"—that dates it, does it not?—"I will not have anyone else". That mistake did its utmost to undermine that sense of collaboration which had arisen so spontaneously and with such feeling throughout that small community.
This sense of voluntary effort and this commitment to voluntary effort is something that we must preserve. There was a moment in the 1960s when it looked as if it might be fading. It was as if there was a feeling that everything should be done by the state. I remember talking to a young news reporter when I was trying to get the carers' association established in a northern town. He said, "We all think this ought to be done by the state", while flaunting his red tic at me. However, I am making no party political points today. I am sure that that is not a point of view which would be supported in any of the parties in this country today. The belief today is in collaboration between the statutory, the private and the voluntary sectors.
We have volunteers and voluntary associations. They are both of the greatest importance if we are to foster and develop the sense of commitment, the use of volunteers and the volunteering spirit, which are very much part of our tradition. However, there are great difficulties confronting both the volunteers and the voluntary associations. I raise a specific point of which I have given notice to the Minister. I hope she received the message. One of the most outstanding and successful of the voluntary activities which we developed in this country is Voluntary Service Overseas. I am told that when someone on Voluntary Service Overseas returns to this country his or her right of residence is not established. If he or she needs support from the social services he has to apply, and the application be approved, because he has lost his right of residence. I am told that normally there will be no problem. When someone from this country has undertaken and completed Voluntary Service Overseas, and returns to this country, it is only right that he should be absolutely assured that he will have the same rights to social security support, if needed, as anyone has who has been living in this country all the time. It is not good enough to say that the officials will probably permit his application to be passed through as though he had been resident. If that is the position—and I checked it only this morning—would it not be a suitable gesture at this time to find some way in which that ruling could be altered? When people undertake Voluntary Service Overseas they would then know that on their return they would have exactly the same standing as any other person resident in this country throughout the time that they have been overseas.
Volunteering is not easy; it can be expensive. People need training and support for such work. My party believes—I believe that there is much support for this view outside my party—that in this country we need a community volunteer scheme under which sufficient resources could be made available for young people (although I do not exclusively refer to young people) to enable them to undertake voluntary work for a period of one year, or even two years.
Many of us were involved in community projects under the YTS scheme. Although such schemes have disadvantages, they had considerable merits. I must admit
1400
that we reached a point in which some of the churchyards in this country were so clean that it was impossible to find anything else to be done to them because of the proper determination that volunteers should not undertake tasks which took work away from regular workers. However, that is not an insuperable problem. So many youngsters are unemployed. So many youngsters, very often for lack of something better to do, become involved in crime. It is not suggested that there should be compulsion, but I believe that a volunteer scheme with sufficient inducements to make it just worth people's while, would be valuable.
It is a suggestion which the Millennium Fund might consider supporting. There are many proposals regarding the Millennium Fund. However, funds to enable such a scheme to start would be a worthwhile undertaking. It would begin to meet some of the most difficult problems that we have, not only with young people but with older people. As your Lordships' House demonstrates on all Benches, we are living an awfully long time; we go on and on. Your Lordships' House provides a very good, more or less voluntary, scheme for the aged! But a voluntary scheme to which people who do not have a House of Lords to attend could give their services would surely be worthwhile and need not entail the greatest expense.
The major purpose of such a scheme would not be training but service to the community. There is no reason why people should not acquire national vocational qualifications in the process. I do not refer exclusively to youngsters. Such a scheme would involve exactly the kind of work which would give people experience from which they could obtain national vocational qualifications. That would not be the purpose of the scheme but a valuable secondary outcome.
It is not only the volunteers who have difficulties; so, too, do the voluntary organisations. In our enthusiasm to collaborate between voluntary organisations and the statutory powers, a great many additional burdens and opportunities have been presented to the voluntary organisations. I suppose that almost every noble Lord takes part in one or other of such organisations. Your Lordships will be aware—the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has already mentioned the matter—that the financial problems of many organisations are extremely acute. It is very difficult indeed for them to keep their heads above water.
Perhaps I may make at least one plea regarding the financial help that the statutory bodies give. It would make a tremendous difference if the statutory bodies would make their grants on a three-year basis rather than one year. One simply cannot plan ahead on a one-year basis. After six months, those who ought to be involved in the work of the organisation find themselves spending all their time trying to raise money for the next 12 months. It is a ridiculous way to run those bodies. I beg the House to look at the possibility of extending core funding periods, once granted, to more than one year.
Core funding for voluntary organisations is a problem experienced by all of us. One can obtain money for projects but not for the essential overheads. No one wants expensive, luxurious administration, but there must be some expenses. The refusal to give money for core

1401
funding for voluntary organisations undermines those bodies and makes it impossible for that highly desirable collaboration to be continued in the years ahead.
4.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, I have no doubt that all the speakers in this welcome debate are familiar with the voluntary principle through personal experience, by being committed to it, or both. Taken together, the faith communities in our country form a considerable proportion of the voluntary sector. Perhaps I may take up a point which the noble Baroness made. So far as concerns faith communities, much of the core funding is in place already because the structure is there. Let us hope that the attention being focused on the financing of the Church's employees, and other problems, will not detract from the large number of volunteers to be found in the faith communities who exercise actual responsibilities. With regard to those responsibilities, one cannot draw a line as to whether they simply concern the faith community or extend to all citizens. In the Church of England alone 25,000 churchwardens, 25,000 other office holders, 8,000 readers, and, more significantly, innumerable persons carry responsibilities in parish church-based projects which have an emphasis on social action in the district. It is a notable feature which has grown in the past 50 years.
With faith communities, there must be well over 100,000 volunteers with actual responsibilities. There has been a tendency of late to regard faith communities as private organisations concerned only with their own business. Perhaps I may assure noble Lords that that is not a true picture overall. Most of those communities have a proper concern for the well-being of the citizens around, and construct programmes accordingly.
As an incumbent, I am acquainted with a back streets down town parish in a seaside town. I shall use it as an example to make a general point on the voluntary principle. My experience tells me that voluntary work can lead people to grow in confidence—I pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—and to realise that they have gifts which they did not believe they had. That in turn can lead to them going on to gain qualifications for which they thought they did not have the ability. They can then move into wider areas of service as happened to one of the mothers in a parent toddler group that my parish church pioneered. The groups are common now; they were not 25 years ago.
The mother concerned had character but no qualifications and little confidence in herself. When I came to leave my responsibilities in the parish, the organisation of the large mothers and toddlers group was left in her hands. Later I heard that as a mature student she had gone on to gain a social work qualification. That principle is worth bearing in mind. One of the uses of the voluntary experience is that it can be a stage in people's lives.
I wish to offer your Lordships my experience at the moment—the difficulty of evoking voluntary effort in deep rural areas. There are two reasons for that. First, the rural economy is less favoured than other parts of our economy and people are busy in the deep rural areas
1402
making ends meet. Secondly, the population is sparser. That makes it difficult to be self-effacing in voluntary work in the sparsely populated rural areas where everyone knows everyone else's business.
That leads me to another of the general points about the voluntary principle which I wish to offer. Self-effacement is an essential ingredient for voluntary work. Once the engines of publicity focus on individuals, forces and motivations are set up which can harm the integrity of the voluntary enterprise. So let the publicity be for the voluntary principle as a whole, as it is being commended in the valuable Motion before your Lordships' House.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that we would all like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, for introducing the debate this afternoon. I know that it has not been easy for him to be present today, and for that we are all the more grateful to him. I shall in a moment say something about the important issues which he has raised. However, before I do so, I must say how surprised I am, on looking at the speakers' list, to find that there is only one other speaker from the Opposition Benches apart from the two Front Bench spokesmen. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has put his name down to speak today. But one cannot help asking oneself what the reason is for the lack of speakers from the Opposition Benches. It is surely not a lack of interest in so important a subject.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I regret that there are not more speakers from our side, but it is a fact of life that over the past year or so Labour debates have been comprehensively boycotted by speakers from the Government Benches.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not wish to embark on a great argument at the start of the debate. But I have looked up the figures and can only say that I found it surprising that the Conservative debate on education held on 22nd February was exactly the same. I am not in any way trying to suggest that there is a sinister plot going on behind all this. I am just surprised that it should be the case. I hope that it does not mean that the Opposition feel that debates in your Lordships' House are hardly worth attending, let alone taking part in.
The Motion is most appropriate, coming as it does on the eve of the 50th Anniversary of VE Day. It is an opportunity for reflection about society and the great sacrifices made during the war that we might enjoy freedom and what we have done with the freedom we have gained. Two great facts stand out. The first is that we have enjoyed the longest period of peace in Europe, at any rate in Western Europe, this century. Those born since 1945 have enjoyed a peace unknown to former generations who lived through the horrors of both the First and the Second World Wars. All of us have also enjoyed a prosperity beyond the imagining of former generations. That too is greatly to be welcomed. But most of us have experienced and noticed very great social changes as well. I do not intend to go through all of them, only to single out one which has had an effect upon our society.

1403
That change is the development of what I shall broadly call the child centred philosophy which I think lies behind many of the changes which have occurred and which are relevant to the debate. When my first daughter was born in 1951, an American friend sent me a copy of Dr. Spock's famous book. I believe that he has subsequently recanted on absolutely everything that he originally said. Nevertheless, his theories of the importance of the happiness of the child at all times have had a profound effect not only on the way children are brought up but on standards of discipline, both in the home and out of it, and also, of course, on the education system. The faults of the child are the responsibility of the parents or the teachers and learning must at all times be an enjoyable occupation. The modern desire to blame someone else for anything that has gone wrong and to demand immediate compensation suggests that this is being carried into adult behaviour. The emphasis put on the rights of the individual to happiness at all times, above all else in human relationships, is another consequence.
The debate today comes as a counterweight to all that. Good news, we are always told, is no news. Yet living on a steady diet of bad news means that many young people, and, indeed, not so young people, believe that there is nothing good in today's society at all. Contrary to what we so often hear, we have already learnt of much good that is going on, and the strength and importance of the voluntary sector illustrates that. The value of voluntary work, the concept of service and frequently of sacrifice, certainly in terms of time and money, cannot be overemphasised. Its total value to society in cash terms is enormous.
Despite the predictions to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, that with the advent of the welfare state after the war we should no longer need voluntary organisations, they have grown in number to take up specialist causes to fill the gaps left by the statutory services and to complement their work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, they are an opportunity to experiment and try things out. It is a mistake, I believe, to think that help and compassion can be delegated to the state. To the voluntary organisation, voluntary work encourages individual responsibility. It makes us think about other people and their needs. It makes us ask what it is that we can contribute, rather than looking all the time at what our rights might be.
I therefore greatly welcome the fact that the Government have done much to encourage voluntary organisations and voluntary service over the past years. Millions of individuals are involved in voluntary work; and I am glad that the Government have amended the law to make it easier to make charitable donations and that the Charities Act 1992 creates a more effective legal framework under which charities can act. I am glad, too, that there have been increased direct grants to voluntary organisations. It is very valuable that there has been greater recognition of volunteers through the Honours List. If anybody ever deserved honours, it is those many people who have worked selflessly throughout their lives in voluntary organisations.
I sympathise a great deal with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about core funding. Obviously some is needed. Money-raising is invariably hard and
1404
difficult. Those of us who have been involved in it, as I am sure everyone here has, know how difficult it is. It is a measure of the interest and activity both of an organisation and the individuals it comprises.
Much could be said about the national lottery. We have all read reports of charities which believe that they will lose a lot of money. It is very early days to make such statements. We do not yet know how the lottery will work out. It is quite new. Nor do we know, as so often happens when something new comes about, whether the first reactions will necessarily be right when we have had more experience of it.
In the time remaining I should like to touch on three areas of voluntary organisations and work of which I have some experience. Much has been said about the youth of today. I should first like to mention the organisation known as GAP. I was introduced to it by the late Lord Shackleton, who I believe was a founder member. He asked me if I would become a patron. As its name suggests, the organisation exists to help young people undertake voluntary work overseas between school and university or higher education. Its special characteristic is that both the young people who undertake the voluntary work and some 80 people who organise the work that they do are volunteers. It views the "gap" year as a ideal opportunity for young people to improve themselves through the experience of living and working overseas while making a personal contribution to less privileged people. I so much agree with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter about the confidence-building that comes from voluntary work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who is also a patron, will have more to say on the subject of GAP.
I turn now to schools. It would be very difficult to overestimate the voluntary contribution that schools make to charitable causes. They involve their pupils in every imaginable kind of sponsored activity to raise money: walks, swims and cycle rides—in one case that I read about, from John o' Groats to Land's End. I can speak with more authority about the independent sector in my capacity as chairman of the Independent Schools Joint Council. But I know that it is equally true of the maintained sector. It is not at all unusual for a school of 400 children to raise £4,000 in the course of a year's charitable activities. It is not in the nature of school organisations to add up the amounts of money that their members raise. But if they were to do so, there is no doubt that the sums would run into millions. What is more important than the actual amount is the readiness of their response to good causes. Charities can rely on a degree of concern for others among young people that deserves to be acknowledged and celebrated.
The last area that I should like to touch upon is the corporate sector. I speak as a non-executive director of both the National Westminster Bank and Marks & Spencer. On inquiry at the bank, I found that nearly 900 Nat West staff are governors of schools and colleges. A further 1,200 are trustees and treasurers of charities and voluntary organisations. Many more are involved in voluntary activities such as counselling, advice work and fund-raising, both in the United Kingdom and beyond. In any one year, more than 30 Nat West staff are on full-time secondment to a charity. These people are able to make

1405
use of their talents and skills for good causes. But they also bring back some of the great benefits that they find in being outside their daily work to enhance their activities within the organisation itself.
The same is very largely true of Marks & Spencer. Thousands of employees are involved in some form of voluntary activity in the local community as school governors and in many voluntary organisations. The company has now developed an admirable scheme of part-time secondments. It has a policy of development through such secondments whereby an employee can work part-time for an organisation outside, gaining advantage from the outside world and giving to the outside organisation the advantage that comes from being trained and working within Marks & Spencer.
It would be a mistake to think that the corporate sector does not have a very large part to play. It is encouraging that it faces up to these responsibilities willingly. Both organisations give millions of pounds away each year to charitable causes. I believe that this is part of what they wish to do as part of their contribution to society at large.
In conclusion, I return to the starting point of the debate, the commemoration of VE Day. It is right to look back at the great sacrifices that were made by so many people and to draw attention at this time to the good work that is being done today. That good work needs encouragement from all of us, through money and donations, practical help and moral support—often volunteers are very lonely people. We do it because the voluntary sector is such an important part of our society and one that is invaluable.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, those among us who are old enough to have served in the Second World War will never forget the comradeship in arms and the pride in our regiment, ship or squadron. We remember the discipline which impelled us to give of our best so as not to let the side down. But that pride and discipline were just as evident in the whole population, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said in his opening speech. We remember, for example, the merchant seaman, those brave men who suffered heavy losses in bringing vital supplies to our shores. We remember the medical teams, the ARP men, the firemen and the police who did a vital job during and after air-raids. We remember, too, the women who in large numbers joined the Land Army and went into factories so that the men could be released for the Armed Forces. This spirit was just as evident in the Commonwealth, which without hesitation sent troops from near and far to fight alongside us. It is very clear that 50 years ago during the Second World War our resolve as a nation was loud and clear and our character showed at its best.
Are we all that different today? According to the "knockers" and doom merchants in the media and elsewhere, we have gone to the dogs. These people rejoice in the bad because they have no pride in themselves. They are a boil on a healthy society. Lance the boil, and the body is soon restored. We must not allow the doom merchants to destroy our institutions or undermine our morale. Today our character is as strong as ever. So is our
1406
spirit of service. We are rich in voluntary organisations, which help countless people each year and raise large sums of money. Without their efforts, the state services would be absolutely overwhelmed. Reference has been made to the national lottery and the possible adverse effect that it may be having on charities. I am sure that the Government and everybody else will keep a careful watch on developments in this field.
So the examples of voluntary service abound. They are found in the ex-service organisations, including the Royal British Legion, which keep in touch with old comrades and help widows and children in times of need and distress. There are thousands of volunteers who provide the human touch that state services, however good, cannot match. I think, too, of the Missions to Seamen, with which I have the honour to be associated. They are a splendid example of a worldwide service, which has its headquarters in London.
The missions were founded in 1856 in Bristol by an Anglican clergyman. They now have a presence in more than 350 ports around the world and have 100 seafarers' centres in the major ports. It is an Anglican organisation but it helps seamen of all religions and none. It defines its work as:
"The Anglican Church working to meet the practical and spiritual needs of seafarers of all races and creeds around the world".
I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, to whose impressive speech we have just listened, would approve of that definition.
The notion that seamen have a girl in every port is very far from the truth. They have immense problems in strange ports. They need and greatly value the friendship and practical help that are provided by the Missions to Seamen. According to the missions' annual report, last year their honorary chaplains and staff made over 56,000 ship visits and over 3,000 visits to seafarers in hospital. They welcomed over 890,000 seafarers to their centres. They held services for about 32,000 seafarers. They helped seafarers to make over 200,000 international calls home and assisted in 640 cases involving injustice. It is a magnificent record of selfless service at home and all around the world.
Mention was made of volunteers working overseas. Their work was referred to in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Thousands of British men and women volunteer to work overseas in what can only be described as "hellholes"—countries ravaged by civil war, famine and natural disasters: doctors, nurses, aid workers, Red Cross and St. John Ambulance staff, to mention just a few. Those people go because they have a sense of duty and compassion calls them. They have no regard for their own health, safety or comfort.
Nearer home, there are the special constables, those friendly faces that we see on duty at the weekends and on bank holidays, when most of us are enjoying our time off. There are the Neighbourhood Watch schemes which have sprung up all over the country with volunteers who help strengthen our defences against crime and disorder.
Young people have been mentioned. We hear all about those who go wrong; but, as my noble friend Lady Young asked, what about those in school projects who assist in helping in their local communities? I suspect

1407
that there are very few schools up and down the country now which do not undertake some project of that kind. What about the boys and girls who befriend lonely old people, do their gardens and shop for them and visit them on a regular basis to keep them in touch with what is going on in the outside world? There is certainly a spirit of service among many of our young people. It is practical. They do not talk; they do.
So there are many good things in Britain today. It is appropriate, in a debate of this kind and at such a time when we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of victory that we should remember those things. Those of us who are getting long in the tooth can hand on the baton in the sure knowledge that the rising generation has inherited the traditions and possesses the character to ensure that Britain continues to make a major contribution to prosperity and harmony in the world.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I consider it a great privilege to take part in this debate on service to this country, not least because it has been instituted by someone of whom it might well be said, as it was said of Othello, that he has:
"done some service to the state".
To put it in more modern idiom, he has given long and faithful service to Queen and country. The noble Viscount is to be congratulated on having instituted this discussion.
Those of us who can remember events of 50 years ago will recall that after nearly six years of war it was accepted that it was natural, right and proper for men and women to serve their country in the armed services or in any other way at home and abroad. If those men and women had not done so, we should not have been victorious. Today, that concept is not so obvious in this country. We hear much more about "looking after number one", "charity beginning at home", "the world owes me a living" and "I have a right to this, that and the other and no obligation to do anything in return".
The first point that I want to make is that the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy is absolutely not what the majority of young people believe, if they have been allowed to develop in a proper way. I speak with personal experience, as your Lordships may know, of one public school. But I know that what happens there happens not only in other schools in the private sector but also in practically all schools in the maintained sector.
Probably 60 per cent of a school's sixth form is actively involved in voluntary work. Those pupils give up their free time to serve others: to help old people and to work in the community. There are other young people who do not wish to have anything to do with that. However, I suspect that it is often because they have had family troubles or other events have occurred which have interfered with their upbringing. All I am saying is that it is the normal instinct of young people to want to serve others and indeed to sacrifice themselves in doing so. I too am involved with GAP and I know that we shall hear a great deal more about it from my noble
1408
friend Lord Greenhill. That is one example. When I was a trustee of the Rank Foundation we did a lot of work with young people.
At this stage of the commemoration it is appropriate that we should also reflect on what moved our opponents in the war on the matter of service. I should like to quote something written by the historian Sir Robert Birley, who was also a headmaster of Eton College. He was writing about the rise of three totalitarian states: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the Union of South Africa.
In dealing with the Nazis, he describes how, after Hitler had come to power but before the war, he visited Prague. At Prague University he discussed with the professor of moral philosophy the almost miraculous way in which Hitler had succeeded in pulling the country together. Then the professor added,
"Don't forget too that Hitler has offered these young men the greatest bribe he can put before them. He has asked them to sacrifice themselves".
The point is that that instinct towards service and sacrifice by young people is common to all races. In itself I think we can all say it is a thing of nobility; but it can be perverted by evil men for the pursuit of evil purposes. Hitler used it for evil purposes. In the war we used it for our salvation. I wonder whether nowadays we make enough use of it. Voluntary organisations make use of it, but do the Government? I do not know.
I confess here and now that in my view the best thing that could happen for the young people of this country, and for those trying to run our prison services, is the return of national service. I am sorry, but I am quite firm in that view and have no doubt that that is what my old friend and brother officer Lord Hunt was saying when he wrote to the noble Viscount. But I recognise that that is pie in the sky; it is politically impossible and unwelcome to the armed services for national service to be returned.
We are left with the problem of how to use that noble instinct in young people for their own good and for the good of the country. It is always easier to propound a question than it is to supply an answer to it. I do not know what the answer is. I hope that the lottery money will be used to increase voluntary services. All I ask—I do not know the answer but I hope the noble Baroness will give me some idea—is: are the Government doing enough?
5.24 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend draws attention to the role of voluntary organisations in the context of our commemoration of the end of the war 50 years ago. That war claimed a great many lives from all the armed services, and had those men not thrown their protection around these islands no amount of voluntary service could have saved us from defeat, let alone secured victory in that fierce and terrible struggle.
They secured, many of them with their lives, the arena in which the volunteers were free to operate, and many of the earliest casualties were themselves volunteers, serving in the RNVR, the Territorial Army and the RAFVR. But the debt was not all one way. Voluntary service contributed both to the ability of the forces to fight and to the ability of the nation as a whole to sustain their effort and the will to win.

1409
The national will to win was an almost tangible thing that underlay even the most acute difficulties and the sharpest griefs of the time. There was a quality of life then which, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, commented, we have since lost. There was a general recognition that we were one people sharing one danger and with one objective. At 15 I was just old enough to recognise and appreciate that spirit when the war ended and to observe its evaporation in the years that followed. If it was possible again to recapture that sense of purposeful unity without the stress of war, we should indeed be a happier nation than we are today.
We are talking about a national trait; a thread in our character that both swells and narrows, indeed, but which has been constant throughout our history. One therefore cannot point to its beginning but I remember clearly what seemed to me, at the age of nine, to be something exceedingly special and which seems to me now, at the age of 65, to have been the beginning at least of a new and vital phase. It was a Sunday in, I believe, May. We went, as we always did, as a family to church expecting to sit in our place somewhere around the fifth or sixth pew from the front where we usually had our place as incomers from a neighbouring parish. We started early to be sure of occupying it. But this was when the British expeditionary force was pinned down in a perimeter round Dunkirk; it was the Sunday on which the King had called the nation to a national day of prayer. We had great difficulty in squeezing into that rather large building at the back. To start with I was pressed up against the font and the porch was still full after the service had begun.
There was less doubt in the public mind then than there seems to be now of where the ultimate source of strength lies in this universe and who enacted the most stunning example of service of all time. In those days, when we were all to some extent "at risk", we talked more openly of our faith and it is no accident that the image of London's war which, above all, has stuck in the public's mind is the photograph all of us have seen of the dome of St. Paul's standing unmoved and crowned with a cross in a sea of smoke and flame.
It was on that night, or another like it, that the Luftwaffe put over 700 aircraft over this city and this building, carrying over 1,000 tons of high explosive and more than 4,000 incendiary bombs. That is what caused the fire and smoke; and in it, and under it, on that and countless other nights, toiled hundreds of civilians equipped with only tin hats and stirrup pumps—just part of the voluntary contribution to our war effort. In the six months between November 1940 and mid-May 1941, ARP personnel in London and other cities took delivery of over 80,000 incendiary cannisters. Those bombs and 20,000 tons of high explosives between them caused 42,000 deaths and 50,000 serious injuries.
Of those who coped with that onslaught at its height in 1940, over 90,000 were members of the joint British Red Cross and St. John's Ambulance Service serving in civil defence whose work, unlike that of the air raid wardens, continues in a different way to this day. Countless children survived simply because of the families who, nationwide, took them in from the target areas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. The role of the Red
1410
Cross was already wider than I realised before I prepared this speech. In the fortnight after D-Day it distributed over 5 million cigarettes, 53,500 razor blades, 29,000 handkerchiefs and 17,500 packets of stationery on the Continent. Today 25 per cent, of inquiries to their tracing service still relate to victims of World War II.
But the country was a web of volunteers and voluntary organisations. To a child certainly, and perhaps to adults too, the giving of much service seemed to them to be part of the natural fabric of life. The bi-weekly invasion of our dining room by knitters of balaclava helmets and sewers of blankets was certainly nothing out of the ordinary.
I mentioned the voluntary reserve forces, whose contribution to victory even the regulars came at last to acknowledge. They continue, and for 13 years I shared that continuity. That experience showed to me very clearly that the benefits of a trained, part-time volunteer reserve contributed more to this country than a small fraction of the credibility of its deterrent policy. It brought immense benefits to those who gave the service in the development of character, self discipline and an ability to work with, and for, others in a structured organisation. Those are characteristics of which there is a shortage today.
The 34 per cent. cut in the Territorial Army establishment achieved by Options for Change therefore had a real and noticeable impact outside the Army. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not allow the number to fall below the present 59,000. If they are able to find means of increasing it, it can only bring good. If—I am emboldened by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, to raise my whisper to a murmur—they were to reintroduce some form of national service, not necessarily military but involving the same introduction to ordered, disciplined and arduous work as peace-time military service can provide, I think I would not be the only noble Lord, or other, to support them. There would also be a notable effect, and a welcome one, on youth unemployment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested a half-way house to this, catering only for volunteers. I would certainly welcome that as a start, but with this reservation. In catering for volunteers, who already see the point of voluntary service and are already prepared to put aside their interests in favour of the interests of others, those people are likely already to understand and therefore to appreciate the value and also the pleasure of co-operative, disciplined, constructive activity. A compulsory scheme would extend that lesson further to those who most need it. That would have a good effect, and one that is unexpected, in the way that the right reverend Prelate has already pointed out it can be, on a society and on rates of offending at large. In the meantime I endorse the plea of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for cadet forces and add my own for charities, such as my own Divert Trust, that seek to give meaningful, constructive activities as an alternative to crime, which is at first petty, then serious and eventually ends in prison, which is a course so often followed by our young people.
I said earlier that we had lost a quality of life which, during the war, brought out the best in a very great many of our people, and how much happier we would be if we could get it back. That will not be easy because it had two

1411
main causes, and one of them we must at almost any cost avoid. It was the emergency of actual enemy assault and repeated loss of life, civilian as well as military, that threw us together. Bombs do not distinguish between rich and poor, English and Scots, men, women and children. We were forced to recognise our common humanity in the face of the common danger.
The danger we now face is less dramatic, more insidious and much less likely to provoke the same result, which is exactly why it is needed and must be recognised. You cannot compare any of the mass media of today with any of the mass media of 50 years ago without discovering a catastrophic decline in regard for the truth and regard for the capacity of individual human beings to suffer from public comments on their private affairs. You cannot compare today's press with the press of 50 years ago without discovering a dramatic change in public perceptions of the balance between the rights of an individual against society and the duties of an individual to society.
These are urgent matters and we must deal with them. If this debate serves to draw them once again to the notice of the public and of the Government, it will have served a crucially useful purpose. As we look for the answer to this threat, let us keep in mind that picture of St. Paul's in the blitz, with the cross immovable in the tempest—immovable as a memorial of the greatest act of service—with a strong and natural link to that basic instinct of service, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, in a most moving speech; and let us look to the spirit and tradition of service alive in the no fewer than 2,500 voluntary agencies listed today in the National Voluntary Agencies Directory as one means of defeating this new and dangerous enemy.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I add my very grateful thanks to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for initiating this debate. I am going to take this opportunity quite unashamedly to draw your Lordships' attention to the role of Indian soldiers during the last war. People have such short memories. When I was mayor of Windsor and Maidenhead I was asked at a Remembrance Day Service, "Does Remembrance Sunday mean anything to you?" I said, "How can you ask such a question of me? Soldiers from the Indian sub-continent made up the largest volunteer army in the Great War". My father was in Mesopotamia, living on bully beef. He had volunteered as a paramedic. They called them medical orderlies in those days. That is why I was saddened when I was asked, "Does Remembrance Sunday mean anything to you?" I fear very much that something similar is happening at this moment.
If I were to ask noble Lords, "Do you know of the contribution of Indian soldiers?", they would definitely answer in the affirmative. Some noble Lords at least would say, "Yes, we know from personal experience". I would accept that gratefully. But if I were to ask noble Lords, "Have you seen much talk about it in the media?", would they still be able to answer yes? I think not. I have been extremely disappointed by the coverage of the role of Indian soldiers during World War II.
1412
This is a historic moment and it is a moment to remind ourselves how much help was given in terms of human and other resources by that part of the Empire which was then called India. Is it likely that this country might not have survived until the Americans joined had there not been Indian help in the war. It is quite clear that the Indians were part of the Empire and they were expected to provide help. The soldiers were expected to fight. They did that unstintingly and with great dedication.
It is necessary to say something about the numbers involved. Although I do not like statistics as such, one needs to have some numbers to get the perspective right. At the end of 1945 there were 3 million fighting men from India in the armed services. There is a notion that most of them served in south east Asia. That is not true. In proportion they were a larger number in south east Asia—they numbered 700,000 out of 1 million—but the rest served in North Africa and Italy, and many of them were taken prisoner of war in Germany.
Perhaps I may give the composition of the Indian forces. This information does not mean a lot to me because I do not have much military experience. There were 19 infantry divisions; five armoured divisions; and 40 independent brigades. That made a total of nearly 3 million men. To be exact, the total was 2,920,000. The casualty figures should also be mentioned. Those killed, wounded, missing or taken prisoner amounted to 180,000.
India was a colony and was therefore expected to contribute men and resources but the bravery and dedication of the soldiers was well known. If there are noble Lords who served with the Indian forces, I am sure they will vouch for that. In World War II, 182 Victoria Crosses were awarded. Twenty-nine went to Indian soldiers.
At this point I must say that I miss the presence of Lord Pitt, because I am sure that on this occasion he would have liked to remind the House of the role played by West Indian servicemen in the last war. Therefore it falls to me to say a word about their role. There was a total of 20,000 volunteers from all the islands of the West Indies. Of that number, 6,000 went into the RAF and countless others served in various different capacities such as technicians and foresters. Many of them went to the United States to work in the munitions factories to help the war effort. That is something which is not generally known and was not known to me until I asked for information.
It is also important to make the connection with the present day from that point. The first ship to arrive here from the West Indies bringing immigrants was the SS "Empire Windrush". It carried to this country ex-servicemen from the West Indies who believed that they were coming to the Mother Country for which they had shed their blood in the last war.
Another interesting connection rooted in World War II is the migration to Southall. Southall has generally and pejoratively been called "Little India". There were two particularly noxious tyre factories in Southall managed by Indian Army officers. They found that they could not get labour for those factories so they went back to the villages of the regiment they served in and directly recruited men who had served with them. They brought them back to Southall. We must not forget the labour shortage in this country immediately after the war and the reason why

1413
people came here. We must not forget that many people were directly recruited and encouraged to come here. All that is so easily forgotten.
Perhaps I may also draw to the attention of the House something which I find very distasteful indeed. I hope that noble Lords will help me to lay it to rest. I find it very upsetting to see the National Front parading the Union Jack. They have a slogan saying, "We fought the war to keep people like you" (that is, me) "out of this country to keep Britain for the British". Surely, it was completely the other way round. We fought the war to keep people like them, the fascists, out of this country. I do not want the fascists to hijack the Union Jack and I hope that all noble Lords will say that whenever the opportunity arises.
Perhaps I may now quickly refer to the voluntary organisations, being someone whose background is totally involved with voluntary work. This country has a record better than all others that I know of as regards voluntary work. I do not believe that we realise how much more we do than, say, our European partners. I have had the good fortune both of being mayor of Windsor and Maidenhead and having had opportunities to travel to the countries we are twinned with. It has always been a surprise to me how little tradition there is of voluntary work and service in the countries of our European partners. Therefore, we must not run ourselves down. That has been said before. We must not become a nation of moaners and whingers.
There is one other factor I would like to bring to the notice of the House. Volunteering is extremely important. It contributes enormously to the welfare of the community. But one will not find people from voluntary work getting into positions of any importance anywhere. If I had stayed in voluntary work I would not have come to your Lordships' House. It is a great sadness that people do not recognise those who have worked in a voluntary capacity as being fit for public office. That is something we should be very conscious of: people who do the work at grassroots level should be the ones to move up the ladder. If I had not become involved in politics, no doubt I should still be happily doing voluntary work. I enjoyed my voluntary work and I did it because I wanted to. Nobody forced me to do it.
There is a very good example in Austria of a compulsory period spent either doing civilian service for one year or eight months in military service. It applies only to young men. Although it does not apply to women I understand that they are clamouring to join. It is absolutely free to a person either to opt for eight months of military service or 12 months of what is called "civil service", which is community work. It is not a bad example and one which is worth studying. I hope that the Minister will take note of it and perhaps get further information.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given us today by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to discuss both VE Day and the contribution made to this country by the voluntary sector. I am also delighted to
1414
follow the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I acknowledge the force of what she said about the contribution of Indian troops and the volunteers from the West Indies to our successful war effort.
However, I shall concentrate on voluntary organisations themselves. Perhaps I may declare an interest in that I am, and will be for a few more weeks, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, which is a medium-sized voluntary organisation. I also have links with a large number of other voluntary organisations. For example, I am a trustee of Action Aid. I believe that I have been chairman of at least five different voluntary bodies in my time. I also took the chair of a Labour Party policy group which developed Labour Party policy before the last election.
I found that an interesting experience because of the very clear response from the voluntary sector, which said to us, and to me, that it was the first time that any political party in this country had shown that level of interest in the voluntary sector and the way in which voluntary organisations operate.
I appreciate that as VE Day approaches we can commemorate not only victory but the indication of service to the community that so many people in this country gave during the war. It was a sign of the values we had at the time when we all agreed that a common aim should dominate everything we did. Perhaps noble Lords opposite will not agree with me, but I believe that it was those values which led directly to the election of a Labour Government in 1945.
We have now moved some way away from there. I noticed in speeches of other Members of the House this afternoon a regret that the wish to make oneself rich at the expense of one's fellow citizens dominates rather than the concept of service. I regret that, too. The history of the voluntary sector and the way in which it works today show that many people reject the "Let us go for money at all costs" philosophy and see the voluntary sector as an opportunity to give of their service to the benefit of their communities or the country.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, we are very lucky in this country that we have a voluntary sector which is more vital, larger and more committed than the equivalent in any other European country. Thousands of people work in the voluntary sector and thousands of people give their time voluntarily either working for voluntary organisations or serving on their management committees. An enormous level of commitment is given for little money in the case of staff and for no money at all in the case of volunteers.
We have already heard this afternoon that the Church is one of our largest voluntary organisations. Dare I add that political parties are also voluntary organisations? Perhaps I may make the partisan point—I say this with pride—that the Labour Party is therefore the fastest growing voluntary organisation in the country today.
Perhaps I may point out the other characteristics of the voluntary sector. The first is—this is perhaps at variance with what I said about political parties—that most of the voluntary sector is characterised by its independence of government and by the fact that those who serve on its management committees do so voluntarily. The voluntary sector is characterised by the social aims of service to

1415
community and country. It represents motives that are unrelated to profit, and it comprises organisations which are often of charitable status.
The voluntary sector encompasses a wide range of organisations, from those which can be described as "fashionable" to those that are perhaps less fashionable and more radical such as the Refugee Council, with which I am associated. I know that this is not an occasion for fund-raising speeches, but I make the plea to the corporate sector, on which voluntary organisations increasingly depend for financial support, that it should be as generous to charities and voluntary organisations which are perhaps more radical and campaigning as it is to those which are more traditional and longer established.
There are a number of respects in which voluntary organisations can do things better than any other body, statutory or private. Perhaps I may describe them briefly. Voluntary organisations can innovate and take risks in the services that they provide. Voluntary organisations can develop their work and gain strength from having better links with the communities that they serve. They can often involve the users or beneficiaries of their services in helping to plan and provide those services. Voluntary organisations can be extremely cost-effective because they can target their work. They are effective at promoting change. They often challenge vested interests, whatever they are, and they are able to campaign for improvements in services because they speak from knowledge and experience and therefore with authority.
I should like to pay tribute to a number of bodies. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations does an excellent job in representing the voluntary sector. Under Richard Fries, the Charity Commission has done a good job and has developed much more sympathy for the voluntary sector. I may not always agree with him, but he listens and has, I believe, made the Charity Commission much more accessible to voluntary organisations. If I am giving out medals, I must also give one to the Voluntary Service Unit of the Home Office. No Member of this House can have had more disagreements with the Home Office than I have had over the years, but that unit has developed a sensitivity towards and an understanding of the voluntary sector. I sometimes have bitter arguments with it, but it now understands and knows how the voluntary sector operates. I only wish that some other government departments would learn from the VSU.
I should like to refer briefly to the National Lottery Charities Board. I have with me the results of a survey—although I do not know of anybody who was interviewed. I hope that those results will not limit the charities that will benefit because a low priority has been given to overseas development, refugees, women's issues, ethnic and cultural minorities and other people affected by discrimination. I hope that the board will recognise wider responsibilities than those suggested by the survey, about which I know very little, although I question some of the results that have been published so far.
We are very lucky in this country in that we have in our voluntary sector an enormously high level of commitment from both staff and volunteers. That makes up for the fact that there is no financial incentive. I could give many examples of that—and not only from my own organisation, the Refugee Council. I have met people who
1416
work for Oxfam and for Action Aid in distant places overseas and in difficult conditions. I have met many people who work for voluntary organisations in this country and who show a high level of commitment for a low level of pay. Another feature of the voluntary sector is that those who work as professionals within it tend to do so for less pay than they could earn in local government or the private sector.
However, I do not believe that we should see the voluntary sector as a cheap option. If we do that, we belittle the voluntary sector. Furthermore, we should not see the voluntary sector as a means of coping with government-imposed cuts in national and local services.
The voluntary sector, which tries to raise money wherever it can, bears a heavy burden in terms of VAT. I know that this is an old argument, but it is still true: the VAT burden on the average charity is very heavy.
I refer briefly to political activities by charities. I used the word "campaigning" a moment ago and I dare say that the Charity Commission will say "Tut, tut" to that. The revised draft of the Charity Commission's guidelines is an enormous improvement. Charities are, of course, constrained by the present legislation and by legal precedent, and I believe that some further relaxation would be desirable. We could all live with charities which spoke out within their remit on behalf of the causes for which they are working.
I also believe that funders should accept that sometimes the charities that benefit from their funding may well be critical of them—whether they are local government or central government. I think that it is healthy and a sign of a pluralist society that the Home Office can accept that organisations such as mine can criticise it and that we still receive some funding from it. If we are to have an efficient voluntary sector, it needs the resources to be able to train its staff and to have proper professional management. That would represent and lead to good value for money.
I take to heart the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about funding and core funding. It is ridiculous to fund voluntary organisations on a one-year basis because they will not know how to plan. One of the reasons why I applaud the VSU is that it offers three-year funding. I do not believe that the Department of Employment has got its funding of training and enterprise councils right. The TECs tend to make decisions about the voluntary organisations that they fund just days before the beginning of a financial year. On one occasion, my organisation suffered a 48 per cent, cut—and we were only told about it by one of the TECs two days after the start of that financial year. One cannot manage on that basis. It is absolutely impossible. Please will the VSU talk to other government departments and exercise more influence on them?
Finally, voluntary organisations battle hard for their funds. Of course, we can raise money for particular projects whenever we are able, but core funding is vital. I ask the House to understand that if voluntary organisations

1417
are to operate effectively, efficiently and with professional standards of management, they need core funding. That would enable the voluntary sector to improve on the very good contribution that it is already making to life in this country.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, the pleasure that I felt listening to the speech of the noble Lord increased my sadness that I have not had the opportunity of hearing more speeches from the Benches behind him. I am sad also that I did not hear more about the distinguished achievements of my noble friend at the end of the war. He was correct to emphasise the very different challenge that we face now.
My noble friend Lord Dean spoke about some of the good things that came out of the war 50 years ago. However, despite all of those, there was a very great deal about the war which none of us (whether or not we played an active part) ever wants to see repeated. I am sure that noble Lords agree. Our universal prayer must be that we shall never see its like again.
The sad thing was that people not only suffered greatly while the fighting continued, but, as we have heard from a number of sources recently, there was a great deal of suffering in the reunion of families once the fighting had ended and when the men came back to this country. That might make the case for wiping it from our memory as quickly as possible, but I believe that would be foolish.
I may have been lucky to find, looking back, that the war taught me a great deal. Without that knowledge my life would have been infinitely poorer. More relevant, and no doubt much more interesting than the effect of war on my life, is the effect that it had on many others. I should like to take as examples two men who had but a small share of the good things of this world before the world began. One was a miner in South Wales, unemployed and suffering with his family all the deprivation that we can so easily imagine. He volunteered, served the whole war abroad and then moved to a skilled and responsible job in government service.
The other man came from an unhappy home. He had spent some time in a borstal. He was in danger of what I think we call becoming institutionalised. He also volunteered, served in the Middle East, was captured in Crete, came back, married, raised a family and obtained a good job. No doubt there were many people like those two men. After early years when nothing seemed to have gone right, they had the opportunity in their war service to do something for others, and in so doing found their own worth.
Some years after the war—I hardly dare say this in front of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, whom until now I have been proud to call my noble friend—I was involved in the arrangements to end national service. Many people were critical, including some like my noble friend with active brilliant minds, but on the whole I believe the decision was right in the circumstances that prevailed nearly 30 years ago.
1418
I have since been pleased—I am sure my noble friend will be pleased—by the thousands who over the years have served in the forces as volunteers to their benefit and that of the nation. Equally encouraging—a number of my noble friends have drawn attention to this—is the large number who have given and continue to give service of different kinds to meet a variety of needs. They are the old and the young. I look forward to hearing more—we have already heard about it from my noble friend Lady Young—about the excellent organisation called GAP: many people serve the needs of disabled people and those in the grip of drink and drugs. It is unnecessary to try to point out how endless are the needs.
Many of those who are doing voluntary work already have jobs to keep them busy, but the appeal that I think my noble friend has made is to a group far wider than that. It is an appeal to the whole nation. He is not appealing merely to those who have been lucky in life and have time and energy to spare, but also to those who have reason to feel that fate has dealt rather harshly with them. They may have been out of work for many months; they may have come out of prison and are unable to find a job; they may be trying, possibly alone, to bring up a family without having friends anywhere near them.
It is to me small wonder that such people think that society owes them a debt and that they owe little to society. Yet I believe they are wrong. The nation, of which we are all joint members, does not consider them of little consequence. Successive governments have recognised their obligation to them. Those whom the Government help in one way or another would be not just wise but very much happier if they recognised an obligation in return. That is not an attempt to make any crude suggestion of a direct repayment of any help the state provides, but I believe that those who have been helped in their need would find themselves more valuably helped if they themselves gave to others in comparable need.
The two wartime friends I mentioned might well have argued that their country thought them of little value, but the service they gave to Britain during the war had the important effect of making them aware of their own worth. Therefore I am convinced that the appeal which I think my noble friend is making for a great increase in voluntary service has a double purpose. It has the power, obviously, not just to lighten the load of those who have fallen on hard times, but equally, and possibly more importantly, service by the very people whom life has hit hard has the power, if they are prepared to acknowledge it, to give them a new respect and fresh confidence in their own value.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I have to confess to feeling rather as though I am making a maiden speech. When I made my original maiden speech, I was already lucky enough to be on the Front Bench and able to draw on the expertise of civil servants. This is my first solo flight. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if my take-off and landing are a bit bumpy.
I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate since I have filled some of my time since last July getting to know one or two parts of the voluntary sector. In

1419
particular, I have been honoured to succeed the late Lord Thurso as president of the Boys' Brigade, and perhaps I may take this opportunity to pay tribute to his contribution there, as in so many areas. Succeeding someone like him in a position like that, one gets a very clear, if humbling, sense of the tradition of public service in our national life. Perhaps I may add how deeply sorry I was to hear of his death only last Saturday. I am sure that the whole House feels a deep sense of loss.
My noble friend's Motion mentions the commemoration of VE Day. That is useful. For those of your Lordships who remember the war, the commemoration is one of personal experience, personal involvement and, in many cases, personal loss. For my generation, it is an example and a lesson. That lesson implicit in my noble friend's Motion and opening speech is that the war, terrible as it was, had this great virtue—that people pulled together, in many ways, not just at the command of the authorities, but in private ways, as they felt they could, for the good of all.
Peacetime is different, principally in the fact that there is not so pressing or so easily identifiable an enemy; but there remains just as great a need for everyone to work for the common good, here and overseas, and particularly in the voluntary sector.
I hope that your Lordships will not think me trite if I give a little anecdote which illustrates much of what I want to say. It is a true story. I know of a middle-aged woman who found herself at a point in her life depressed and isolated. The local rector was worried about her. He also had another problem. The village lollipop man had died, and the road crossing in the village, which was on a busy road, was a danger to the children in the local church school. He suggested—it was inspired—that the woman concerned might take on, if only for a short time, the role of lollipop lady. I suppose in these days of political correctness some people would say lollipop person, but it sounds terrible to me.
The lady did it and she enjoyed it. People chatted to her; she felt involved and useful—having felt useless—and her morale improved. The children were safer because of her. She was even paid a little by the local authority. But do not let us get romantic about it. It also meant dropping whatever she was doing, five days a week, a number of times a day, whatever the weather to go and stand i n a very unglamorous yellow coat, holding a large yellow sign, on or in the road. That was service to the nation—ridiculous in a way but necessary and admirable.
Voluntary work has many rewards but it also requires that great wartime virtue of discipline, and indeed self-discipline, putting oneself at the disposal of others and not letting them down, even when one could be doing something much more amusing or, indeed, profitable.
It seems to me that our debate today will be useful if we identify some practical considerations which are important in mobilising people. Voluntary work does not just happen; it needs organisation. It needs—to return to my anecdote —people such as the rector, who put two problems together and came up with two solutions. I like to believe that there are many such wise people in the Church; indeed, the presence of the right reverend Prelate
1420
the Bishop of Exeter this afternoon confirms that. It needs public involvement and sometimes expenditure, if only to provide yellow coats and lollypops.
There must be a balance between public provision and the work of the voluntary sector. Each needs the other. This is not a party political point, nor should it give rise to party political conflict even where those on the various sides differ about details of where the balance should be struck. I hope that we can all agree that those undertaking voluntary work need to believe that their efforts are additional to public policy and are underpinned by it.
In that context, I wish to mention one or two specific areas of policy. Many voluntary organisations are helped by small grants, either from central or local government, which allow them to employ a core of staff. This is certainly the case with the Boys' Brigade. In this way, for a small amount of public expenditure a great deal of work in the national interest—the vast majority of which is unpaid—is organised.
Any of your Lordships who are involved in voluntary work will recognise the difficulty of fundraising. It often feels like chasing one's tail; employing someone to raise money to pay someone to raise more money. Meanwhile, a lot of effort is going on fundraising and not on doing the work for which the funds are raised. Of course, raising money is a part of voluntary work and charitable giving is something to be encouraged. But a little public money here goes a very long way.
What has happened in recent years has been a move away from providing public money for core funding and towards what I believe is called project funding. However, project funding is year-on-year. Many of those who work in the voluntary sector, normally for very little money, do so with little certainty as to whether they will be employed next year. That is a poor reward for their commitment.
Again, government decisions cost voluntary organisations money. I know about that through the Boys' Brigade. We all agree that seatbelts in minibuses used by youth organisations are needed. But they have to be paid for. The Boys' Brigade has hundreds of minibuses. I know that Ministers are alive to the problem and have tried to phase in the new policy as sensitively as possible. But I will just sum up the problem by saying, "Help!".
Again, leaders of voluntary organisations need training. They give their time, and a little public money to pay for their training is a good investment. It is my information that grants for that purpose are far fewer than they used to be.
Perhaps I may give one more example. Many voluntary groups use local schools in the evenings. Many school governors have started charging up to £40 per night for the use of rooms. That can make a big difference to a small group; it can mean life or death. That is emphatically not a whinge about public spending. Public expenditure has, of course, to be carefully controlled, and I support that. I also know—before my noble friend on the Front Bench tells me at the end of the debate—that a good deal of public money is still spent in just this way. I simply wish to say, "Long may it be so". Can we keep a close eye on it? We get so much for so little.

1421
The value of voluntary service is not to be measured in cash terms. I am not a great quoter but the other day I came across the following:
"cash payment has become the sole nexus of man to man".
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations allows me to tell your Lordships that that was Thomas Carlyle speaking more than 100 years ago.
Nowhere is that more true than where service to the nation in the common good is concerned. What the voluntary sector gives to the nation as a whole is a sense of service; service which anyone can undertake in any walk of life. It ties us together. One gets to know people one would otherwise never meet, working for a common end.
The Boys' Brigade is more than 100 years old. It is founded on the belief that the values it exists in order to foster are absolutely necessary to us all. Academic excellence, business flair or entrepreneurial skills are all very necessary. But I cannot help believing that, if everybody felt a sense of value—perhaps the obligation— and even the pleasure of work in the service of the nation, many of the social problems that we face would be on the road to being solved.
People want to serve the nation, I believe. Sometimes they do not know how and need to be helped. I hope that this debate will give the voluntary service a real boost. My noble friend has, with his usual wisdom, picked a good target and a good moment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, for many of us, May 1945 was not quite the end of World War II but that does not diminish the thrust of the Motion that the noble Viscount has put before us. It is clear, and it is very satisfactory, that the majority of us in this House find ourselves in sympathy with the Motion. Much of our discussion can take place without party-political conflict.
Regrettably, we are often conscious that in many parts of the world there is diminished respect for this country. We are glad to know that there is continued respect for our Armed Forces, but in many other matters such respect is not shown.
Our personal obligation for service to the nation is still widely maintained. Perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning the Diplomatic Service in that respect. The contribution of voluntary organisations to our interests is remarkable and it could be increased if they were more properly supported.
Looking back, it is encouraging to remind ourselves from time to time of the virtues of the old Colonial Service both before and after the Empire was being dismantled. The sacrifices made by members of that service and their wives were at that time respected. We can be respected once again if the work of our voluntary organisations can be supported more effectively.
Many Members of your Lordships' House are active supporters of chosen voluntary organisations. Some noble Lords will no doubt refer to the objectives and needs of such organisations. Many are household names and one is proud to point them out. I wish to speak for a moment
1422
about two organisations which I and many others have tried to help over many years. One organisation is very large and the other is comparatively small.
The first organisation is the VSO, about which my noble friend Lord Cairns will speak today. The second is the GAP. Unlike the VSO, the GAP, which has been mentioned several times today, has no government subsidy. It is an entirely voluntary organisation. Its object is to fill the gap for young people between school and university. Although it was first started many years ago by a schoolmaster of a public school of which I was a governor, it now draws its volunteers from both state and independent schools in almost equal proportions. The programme for 1994–95 involves more than 1,000 UK volunteers, 33 projects and about 300 reciprocal volunteers. I will quickly give a list of the work undertaken by GAP volunteers in a large number of overseas countries: taking conversation classes and helping with the teaching of English as a foreign language; assisting with sports, boarding duties and other activities in English-speaking schools; caring for the young, old, handicapped or under-privileged in hospitals and charitable homes; and working on farms and conservation projects.
Young people readily find satisfaction, benefit and fascination in taking part in those activities which are manifestly to the advantage of all parties involved. It comes at the right time in their lives. But such voluntary organisations need more money, although a surprising number of GAP helpers and members undertake responsibilities without material reward. But the GAP certainly needs money. Where is it to come from?
Currently the press are enjoying argument about the use of lottery money. The noble Viscount brought encouraging news. It would be sensible and in the interests of all of us if some of the lottery money went to deserving voluntary organisations. I noticed that one citizen said in the press last week that he did not mind who it went to as long as some came to him. I hope that that is not a usual attitude. However, lottery money is unlikely to be significantly available. But some of the jackpot winners might give some thought to periodic unselfish gestures.
But is there not need today for more co-operation between voluntary organisations and government agencies? I have been told that there is less co-operation between voluntary organisations and government agencies than there was in the 1960s and 1970s. People who took part in co-operative meetings in those days assure me that this is so. I should be happy to show the evidence to others who might be interested. Does the Minister who will wind up these discussions think that there is room for further co-operation than is practised at present? If she does I trust she will look into the possibilities for some beneficial change.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, those of your Lordships who are old enough may remember a Johnny Mercer song which was popular towards the end of the war which ran:
"Accentuate the positive,
Eliminate the negative,

1423
Latch on to the affirmative,
Don't mess with Mister In-Between"
Looking back, looking at the present and looking forward, perhaps those words sum up as well as any what noble Lords have said about how people felt in this country during and immediately after the war. With all its terrors, anguish and suffering, most of our countrymen who lived through the war experienced and extraordinary unity of purpose and a determination not to be diverted from the cause which they felt was heart lifting.
It was a positive, and for many of us—we must admit—an exciting and formative experience which helped us, difficult though it was at the time, in our subsequent lives. Today I believe that most of us know in our bones that there is something a bit wrong about the negative atmosphere which we have created collectively. The media, as a means of competing for readers and viewers, vie with one another in accentuating bad, frightening and shocking news. Leaders and institutions in many spheres are presented, frequently without good reason, as cynical and corrupt. Parliament and politicians—at least what people see of them on television—seem to be about disagreements and divisiveness.
Somehow we know in our bones that the spirit of this country in wartime was in fact closer to what life is really about than is the frequently negative spirit of today. In our somewhat negative frame of mind, we are inclined to tell ourselves that there is not much that we can do about it.
I believe that it is quite right to use this weekend and this debate, as noble Lords are doing, to look around us in this United Kingdom and observe the immense number of good things that are happening, particularly among young people.
I wish to draw attention—and I am surprised that it has not been mentioned before—to just one area of activity in which in the past I worked as a volunteer for many years; that is, Guiding and Scouting. I believe that the scale and quality of what takes place today in those movements is not widely recognised. After all, it is good news, so it does not make the headlines. Nor is it known that the whole of the revenue funding of those movements is raised by the young people themselves.
The 1994 figures show that nowadays there are no fewer than 750,000 members of the Guide movement in the United Kingdom, of whom something like one in 10—75,000—is a volunteer adult leader who works week by week, year in year out with some 36,000 groups of girls which vary from groups of five and six year-olds, known as Rainbow Guides, to 17,600 Brownie packs, 10,600 Guide companies and 1,300 Ranger groups. Of course, Scouts and Venture Scouts now include girls. In Scouting, there are likewise more than half a million young people led by 110,000 adults.
We need to realise that across the country, through those organisations alone, quite apart from the other organisations which we have been discussing, something like 1.3 million of our young people, helped by 200,000 adults, are experiencing a movement which is permeated by the spirit of service and working together with a shared common purpose.
Every Brownie and Guide programme has ability and readiness to serve as one of its eight points. Brownies call it "lending a hand"; Guides talk about "Guide action"; and
1424
in their handbooks there are lots of practical ideas, embraced enthusiastically, for planning and carrying out service projects suitable for their age group.
For older members, there is a programme of reaching out into the community. Teams are working in a systematic way in the United Kingdom to extend guiding into areas where hitherto it has not existed and where it is needed greatly. There are lunch clubs for disabled people, holidays for needy single mothers and their children, hospital shops, trolley services, hospitality for overseas students and so on.
For 16 to 30 year-olds there is a scheme known as GOLD—Guiding and Overseas Development—under which people can apply to work on overseas voluntary projects, something like Voluntary Service Overseas, where the work will usually be shared with Guide people in the host countries. For individuals, the projects may be short, perhaps for three weeks, or longer ones of perhaps 18 months. They may be carried out from year to year. Guiders raise the money for their own costs. They undergo training beforehand and they are usually involved in the forward planning.
Recent projects have included teams teaching English, doing community development, teaching Guiding skills and the like in Thailand helped by Thai guides, in Sri Lanka, in Kenya, in Russia, in the Czech Republic, in Slovakia and Estonia. Many of those schemes continue and lead to Guide people from those countries coming here and undertaking similar projects in this country.
Likewise, Scouts are deeply involved in community projects both at home and abroad. Teams of their young men and women have recently been involved in fascinating schemes in Russia, Poland, Romania, the former Yugoslavia, Uganda, Rio de Janeiro, India and various countries of Africa. The story is an amazing one. Indeed, I believe that we really need a whole debate to discuss it.
What the Scouts and Guides are doing and what they have to tell us over this weekend is that the spirit of service, the experience of sharing, of working together and of sustaining one another even when times are hard, is burning brightly and being rekindled year by year even by people who are very young like Scouts and Guides. Those organisations and all who work through them need our encouragement and support. I believe that they especially need encouragement to innovate in order to reach out into communities where they are most needed in new ways.
As a result of this weekend in our United Kingdom, I hope that we shall, perhaps, be a little less negative and cynical, that we shall more frequently "accentuate the positive", and that we shall look to the young to give us a lead.
6.31 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Whitelaw on the masterly way in which he opened the debate. There are few in your Lordships' House with such a long record of service to our nation, given in so many varied spheres. It is a real pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to a debate on a subject on which our whole House can unite.

1425
As a number of noble Lords have observed, we are about to celebrate one of the most momentous events of this century. I can think of no more appropriate way of doing so than by examining practical ways in which we can offer service to our nation which is relevant to the peacetime conditions we have been fortunate enough to enjoy in recent years. For many of us, when we think about "service to the nation" our minds inevitably go to our own experience of National Service—that is, compulsory military conscription. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his letter to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw mentioned that, as did my noble friend Lord Elton, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and others.
For those of us who shared that experience—and I know that there are many Members in your Lordships' House who did so—it was a unifying experience: a time of common endeavour, shared opportunities and the comradeship of living and working together for two years with acquaintances, many of whom became friends, from different backgrounds, different parts of the country and different ways of life.
I believe that National Service was good for the country and good for the individual, and that it left the participants at the end of the experience with a broader outlook and better equipped to take a place in society. National Service served our country well, but time moves on. I would be the first to admit that there is no longer any operational requirement to conscript upwards of 350,000 young men every year into our Armed Forces. They do not want them and, being a professional body, they cannot use them.
How, then, can we learn from the value of that past experience as we look to the future and plan for what, it is hoped, will be a period of sustained and lasting peace? In recent years our society seems to have found it increasingly difficult to find an established place for our young people. Between the ages at which the family and the educational establishment cease to hold our young people and at the point at which they themselves start to build a family and establish themselves in a permanent job, there is a widening gap. In most cases, that gap occurs in the years between 16 and 20. Young people of that age are moving from dependency to independence, yet at that crucial time in their lives our society, in effect, seems to say that it does not really value them or care sufficiently to help them through that awkward transition.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, summed it up well in his preface to the extensive study in the field by Enrico Colombatto of the London School of Economics. He said:
"We send them into the wilderness of an anomic society and ask them to come back when they have settled down".
Numerous surveys confirm that young people in general have talents, energies, skills and enthusiasms which represent a valuable national resource. Almost all are highly impressionable and seek leadership to help them begin to realise their strong ideals and aspirations. It is noteworthy that many countries in the world and almost all the countries of western Europe, with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, recognise that by conscription of their youth in some form of military or community service.
1426
Is there something here from which we as a nation can learn? One characteristic of our country that I know your Lordships would be the first to recognise is our British nervousness about any form of conscription which might somehow be seen as an attack on the freedom of the individual. So let us examine whether some form of community service to the nation by our youth can be established on a purely voluntary basis.
The concept of voluntary work assumes that young people wish to contribute at least some of their time and energy to the benefit of others and of society. The motives of the volunteers may vary from being purely altruistic to gaining work experience, to widening horizons or just to meeting others and enjoying their companionship. We in Britain have a distinguished record of voluntary work. Much of it is long established and internationally respected. There has been mention of the St. John Ambulance service and Voluntary Service Overseas, founded in this country by Alec Dickson in 1958.
More recently, industrial and governmental sponsorship has been an important feature in the development of voluntary services. It is estimated that the youth service, an all-embracing term describing the separate and independent bodies which make up a partnership between statutory authorities and voluntary agencies, reaches over 6 million young people and involves about 500,000 full-time, part-time and volunteer workers.
It is widely acknowledged, so far as it is possible to generalise about such an amorphous body as the youth service, that it does an excellent job and provides an invaluable service, harnessing the energies and aspirations of its young volunteers. For those who volunteer, it provides a stimulus, a sense of belonging and achievement and a better understanding of citizenship in its broadest sense. However, by definition, it relies entirely on the volunteer spirit and therefore does not necessarily attract the growing number of alienated and apathetic under-achievers, nor, at the other end of the spectrum, the selfish, the self-indulgent or those who achieve without any regard or consideration for others. Much as idealists and wishful thinkers may hope otherwise, it is unrealistic to imagine that the volunteer ethos will attract more than a minority of young men and women. Furthermore, experience shows that those who would benefit most from undertaking full or part-time voluntary service are those who are least likely to volunteer for it. The conclusion I am forced to draw is that we are unlikely to inculcate into our young people the positive values I described earlier by voluntary means alone.
It seems to me therefore that some approach short of military conscription should be found to enlist young Britons into the service of their country on terms that they and the nation would find effective and acceptable. An approach I commend to your Lordships might be described as the title of this debate—service for the nation. I acknowledge a debt of gratitude to my friend General Sir John Wilsey for pioneering this idea and for first bringing it to my attention. His concept of "service for the nation" commends itself as a practical and

1427
acceptable method of harnessing the energy and the needs of young Britons, especially their need for job-related training, to the requirements of our country.
Under the proposed scheme every young person would be required to give 12 months' service to the nation between the age of leaving school and the age of 25. They would be permitted a great deal of flexibility and would have the choice of when, where and in what capacity they would make their contribution. I believe that there is more than enough worthwhile work to be done without jeopardising any existing job or undermining any current area of employment. Indeed, I believe that such a scheme would create and generate new opportunities and investment to the benefit of the workforce and the country as a whole.
I believe that such a scheme would also be economically viable. There is today a massive amount of waste in economic and human terms in funding the present high level of youth unemployment. These are wasted resources which could be redeployed to help fund the proposed scheme; to remunerate moderately the participants; and to pay for the additional training and support costs of identified national projects.
When better than at this historic moment when we remember the sacrifices which led to the victory in Europe exactly 50 years ago to look again at General Wilsey's idea? Uniquely at this stage of Britain's postwar history, a combination of factors makes the proposal not only viable but positively necessary. Soon the opportunity will pass from those of us who experienced the cohesion, self-discipline and national sense of purpose engendered during the Second World War and its aftermath as we pass into retirement and cease to exert an influence on opinion or events in our country. I leave you with the words of President Kennedy:
"Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country".
6.43 p.m.
Earl Cairns: My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Viscount's initiative in having this debate which I think will be a source of great encouragement to the voluntary sector as a whole. I would like to speak a little about VSO, with which I have been associated for over 20 years, as my noble friend Lord Greenhill indicated I would, and to try to draw from that experience perhaps one or two features which may have a broader application in other areas.
VSO has had more than 20,000 volunteers who spend two years overseas and is currently operating in some 58 different countries. I see volunteers when they apply to VSO and I wonder at their sense of idealism. I have seen volunteers in their posts, in conditions often of great hardship, and I wonder at their effectiveness. And I have seen the volunteers as they return and I admire the satisfaction they get from the service that they have given. I wonder whether we make as much use as we should of all those who wish to serve. VSO turns down, for various reasons, about half of those who apply. There must be other areas in which they could work.
I wonder, too, whether we take the right attitude to these people when they return. I often find that employers see returning volunteers rather as oddballs for
1428
having spent two years abroad. That is in sharp distinction to the almost hero-like reception that I see more regularly accorded to members of the Peace Corps in the United States when they return. VSO has a simple formula and it is organised, I believe, with considerable skill and sophistication. It provides something like 45 per cent. of the manpower aid programme of this country at about 15 per cent. of the cost. This is fully acknowledged by the ODA, which has been a tremendous supporter. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, whose personal support and eloquent speaking out for VSO have been a great encouragement.
We are also lucky in that when I step down as chairman we have been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to take on the role. His willingness to go to some uncomfortable parts of the world has had a great effect. I pay tribute also to the Foreign Office and to the Metropolitan Police, whose negotiating skills over the past six months resulted in the successful return of two volunteers who were held hostage in Sierra Leone for over six uncomfortable months.
VSO, like many other organisations that have been referred to today, is suffering great difficulty in raising private funding. The National Lottery is mentioned by many as being a reason for this. That may in part be true but I note that in nearly every OECD country this pattern is the same. I suspect that the root causes of that may be slightly more difficult to tackle. That is not to say that those who are concerned with the National Lottery and the distribution of charitable funds do not have a great role to play. I believe that they do and I hope that they show imagination in tackling an opportunity which is there for the taking.
In the aid world the voluntary organisations are being used at an increasing rate. In the Nordic countries about 30 to 35 per cent. of all official aid is distributed through the voluntary sector. In some cases in Sweden up to 85 per cent. of aid funding comes from official sources. In the United States and Canada the figure is more like two-thirds; and I am glad to say that the experience of VSO lies within that range, although official aid funded through the voluntary sector in this country is proportionately significantly less than in most other major donor countries. The World Bank, too, makes great use of NGOs. In the last reported year, some 50 per cent. of all bank-funded projects involved NGOs compared with only 8 per cent. for the period between 1973 and 1988.
The question of the effectiveness of the voluntary sector is difficult and complex. The objectives are hard to quantify and are interrelated. I am on the council of a research organisation, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), which is undertaking interesting work on this issue. However, at this stage I wish to confine myself to making this point. Most of the most sophisticated donors in the aid world appear to be using the voluntary sector at an increasing rate. That factor brings into question the relationship between the official donors and the agencies. Are the agencies sub-contractors—people who can undertake the task more cheaply? Sometimes they can. I believe that the VSO figures which I have given suggest that that is so.

1429
Alternatively, are the agencies able to participate in developing strategies towards aims which are common to both?
I believe that more could be done in this field. Studies which I have undertaken suggest that in this country we have a more restrictive official attitude towards a constructive dialogue between official donors and the voluntary sector. I do not know whether that is through fear of judgment with hindsight on the accountability which has to exist.
Clearly there is a need to agree the criteria for support to the voluntary sector. However, there is, too, a need to find the right ways to acclaim its success. I think, and hope, that the VSO is an object of pride. A number of noble Lords have referred to the VSO; I am delighted that that is so.
I believe that there is a lack of channels for volunteers. I have come across many people who would like to give service but who are unable to find the right ways to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the role of the private sector. She gave two good examples. I believe that the works of the companies she mentioned are exceptional. I do not believe that those companies are the rule; and I do not believe that the private sector in general shows the level of imagination that it should in creating the right environment.
We have to be careful that the voluntary sector is not seen by official donors as some kind of competitive threat. I believe that there is room for a more radical look at how the voluntary sector can play an even greater part in our lives today. I hope that this debate will start the process. We have to find ways to facilitate the full potential of individual willingness to serve. We have to take advantage of the ingenuity and the diversity of the voluntary sector in order to create a sense of individual and collective participation both for this nation and internationally.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, as we approach the forthcoming weekend and the festivities commemorating the end of World War II, I can think of no better issue to debate, and no better person to propose it, than the Motion proposed by my noble friend Lord White-law. Throughout his life my noble friend has served his country with distinction and has been an inspiration to many in my party. I thank him for bringing the matter before us today.
There are many forms of volunteering: for example, public service as a magistrate, a councillor, and service in the TA. Perhaps I may add here that my husband and I are immensely proud of our elder son who is commanding his regiment in the TA. There are countless voluntary organisations and, of course, small but highly significant helping hands, given sometimes on a daily basis, to those who are in need. It is that category to which I wish to speak today.
Voluntary service is, I believe, a very special British activity. It is a quality of which we can be justly proud. But I do not mean those who are in paid employment with a voluntary organisation. Those people give
1430
dedicated service and are most important as pump primers. Their role, however, must not be confused with that of a volunteer. They are professionals within the charity field. They have a career structure and should receive a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and not paid a pittance because they are employed by a charitable organisation. Volunteers, for me, are the millions of our people who spend their time with generosity of spirit working through an organisation or helping individuals directly.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I tell a short story. Someone I knew and respected retired when he was nearing 70. His wife was handicapped as a result of a motor accident. But despite his responsibility for looking after her, he decided that he should do some voluntary work for Meals on Wheels. Perhaps he was one of those early members of the WRVS! On one of his daily rounds, as usual he had to find the route, the road, the house and the person concerned. That probably took him longer than he realised. As he approached his last visit, he could see a man looking agitated and hanging over the gate. As he emerged from his car, my friend was accosted, "Where have you been? Do you realise what time it is? Do you know that I am an OAP and I am 66?" As he was several years younger than my friend, I can quite understand my friend's feelings when he replied, "I am an OAP too, several years older than you; and you can blooming well get your own lunch next time". I quote that story as I believe it is just as important to receive with love, grace and gratitude as it is to give; and perhaps that is something we can all learn.
It is often the volunteers who bridge the gap when demands for services in different fields, such as social services and healthcare, just cannot be met. Informal volunteering often results from a situation concerning a relative, a neighbour, or a friend, perhaps fetching shopping, taking someone to hospital for treatment or visiting them in hospital. I believe that it is the pleasure that can be gained from such gestures that encourages volunteering. It brings people together and develops true citizenship.
Voluntary work has been very much part of everyday life for over a century. I hope that it will not be seen as sexist if I say that probably the vast majority of such work in the past was done by women. That was caused probably by the long working week of men and the lifestyle of women, the majority of whom stayed at home after marriage, giving them the opportunity to contribute to life in the community.
In 1995, lifestyle for us all is very different. Men retire earlier and have more free time; and most women are in employment until the birth of their first child. More and more of them are well qualified and experienced in their chosen career. With the safe arrival of their baby, some have to return to work, some choose to do so, while others choose to be full-time mothers—an honourable and important role, particularly in the early years of a child's life.
This change in work patterns has caused an anomaly which I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention. Mothers at home often use this stage of their life to combine their role with voluntary work where the need

1431
is greatest: the WRVS, the NSPCC, the RNLI, and so on. One could go on for ever. Some may be involved in a minor way, while others may be responsible for projects involving millions of pounds. I am sure that many of your Lordships on all sides of the House have encountered such situations. However, at a later stage some of those women wish to return to their career or take other employment. It is then that they can encounter difficulties. Their counterparts who have continued working have a CV that charts their career development, whereas the women returners are told that theirs looks a bit thin. The problem is that most women are modest and do not blow their own trumpets. Their achievement in the voluntary field may be just as impressive and responsible as anything achieved in employment, yet because it was done for love and they were not paid for it, it is undersold and consequently undervalued. I should like to see some way of raising the profile of voluntary work on a CV so that its value can be appreciated and recognised as a significant plus on a job application.
Of course, many employers will already recognise the value of volunteering and helping to develop the skills of their own staff. An increasing number of companies allow employees time off for voluntary work or send staff on secondment to voluntary organisations. Over 5,000 companies subscribe to the payroll giving scheme. I hope that we will be able to create a culture in which more businesses recognise the true value of voluntary work.
I was delighted when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister decided to widen the scope of the Honours List and accept nominations from the public. As a result, many of us have seen local heroes and heroines honoured, bringing pleasure to countless people. I believe that it was a most imaginative initiative.
I was also pleased to read of the "Make a Difference" project. At the launch of the National Volunteering Helpline, my noble friend Lady Blatch said:
"Everyone has something to offer through volunteering … I believe there are many more people who want to be involved … Volunteering can be rewarding for the volunteer and can help to reinforce or rekindle community spirit by bringing people into contact with each other".
I support that wholeheartedly, particularly in urban areas which can be the loneliest places in the world if you are a new resident or just not involved in the community. About half the adult population is already involved and young people have a tremendous record, often being the inspiration to older members of their family.
The voluntary sector must be independent. It requires generous support from government in the form of help and guidance and, of course, assistance with funding. It will also benefit from the lottery to the tune of around £300 million per year for charities alone.
However, I feel that it would be wrong if that balance changed and the Government interfered in the running of voluntary organisations. It is, after all, the imaginative, immediate and enthusiastic response that volunteers can organise which inspires those who wish to serve. They do tremendous good and are rightly praised for their magnificent contribution.
1432
As we approach this historic weekend, it seems an opportune moment to remember all that the volunteers do in every aspect of life. Volunteers have, I am sure, many things in common, but without doubt they all have an abiding passion to create a better society for us today and for our heirs and successors tomorrow.
I get very tired of those who demonstrate, shouting about rights and not responsibilities. We have much to be proud of in this country and voluntary service comes near the top of my list. Like my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, I feel that we should always remember President Kennedy's words, and I repeat them because it emphasises them:
"Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country".
Millions of our people do just that. I hope that the special commemoration will inspire many millions more so to do.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Bird wood: My Lords, in the Chamber this afternoon we have enjoyed an almost pastoral warmth and unity. I do not know whether my feelings harmonise quite so entirely. Let me put it like this. The next sentence in my speech is going to be in a foreign language: honour, self-sacrifice, nobility, manliness, tolerance, self-control, humility. The questions I ask myself about these ideas—because every one of those words is an idea—are when, and how, and why did they drift away from our everyday lives.
These are virtues, not values, and they are the birthright of every human being. They have nothing to do with scholarship or background and everything to do with example. And like a steady light illuminating these qualities is the idea of service. We are living today in a time when power is draining away from the political class. New sources of power over ourselves and our society are more than ever global and personal. Where the government of nations was once seen as service, now it is perceived as self-advancement.
Only a little while ago, to hold one of the great offices of state was the point and purpose of the whole of a life and involved sacrifice. Today it is in danger of becoming a useful thing to have on a CV. In contrast, elected local council members are generally regarded as motivated by service. National political affiliations, of course, colour this, and sometimes obliterate it totally. Serving others becomes part of an answer to the question: "Who is my neighbour?". The parish, the ward, the town hall make the question real, immediate, almost domestic.
One of the tragedies at this time is that the ideals of leadership and service have split apart. I believe still that in the Armed Forces leadership and service to the ones who are being led and to the ones to be defended are fused together. But we demand proof that with leadership comes no privilege. So the cost of curtains in an officer's house is more real to us than our idea of service.
The Motion asks us to remember service in the context of a war. War gives to "service" the hard edge of death. War makes extraordinary demands, and it is to this country's credit that we link these sacrifices to an idea of

1433
service. But the Motion goes further by asking us to recognise the value of voluntary service. Governments in peacetime can have uneasy relationships with voluntary activities.
Because a successful voluntary movement taps into a strong sense of purpose, its aims often cut across or through the political objectives of the state. If one has a message for any government, it is that volunteer service shares the aspirations of authority but with the luxury of single-mindedness. But there is a message for voluntary organisations too, in that they do not have a monopoly of compassion.
Other noble Lords have remarked, and I shall add my own voice, that we are fortunate that in this House in the person of my noble friend Lady Chalker we have a Minister who has created new trust between the voice of government and the voice of service in other countries.
Because the media are now so powerful, it is fashionable in some circles to blame the press for the loss of virtue. The press is largely blameless in this respect. It shows us the pictures and writes the words about catastrophe and misery. It shows us things that trigger our caring response. If the tabloid headlines shout, they shout to good purpose. You can quarrel with the dignity of a headline such as "Little Miss Courage", but you cannot quarrel with the instinct behind it.
I have been reflecting on the role of service as a critical influence for a civilised society. Service in a wholly secular world has had part of its spiritual support knocked away. However, service still draws its deep strength from being one of the very few moral absolutes that we can look upon today.
People might wonder how the idea of service can survive in the world of industrial management. Perhaps some of the popular feeling that gathered in response to the salaries of some business leaders sprang from a perception that high material rewards were incompatible with service. I am not sure whether that is so. A king in his castle can serve with as much selfless integrity as the stretcher-bearer. It is all in the measure of the man.
Is service then in the gift of powerful individuals? Galsworthy described such people 60 years ago as,
"Always dining, always in the know, with frosty eyes".
No. Service is the gift of every individual, often bound up with ideas of citizenship and always with ideas of putting somebody else before yourself.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for bringing this Motion to the attention of the House today. I pay tribute to Her Majesty's Armed Forces, which now consist entirely of volunteers, for the service that they have provided to the nation and overseas during the past 50 years. At the same time, I should like to strike a note of caution to those in authority who may be tempted to tamper further with the Armed Forces of the Crown and their resources, thereby imperilling the security of the realm.
The Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force have served the nation and the United Nations with distinction, dedication, courage and loyalty in a highly
1434
professional and skilled manner. They have been impeccably led by senior officers who have dedicated their faith and trust to their subordinates and have welcomed the heavy burdens of responsibility. During the past 50 years, our Armed Forces have been faced with the Cold War and a possible attack on Western Europe by the former Warsaw Pact powers. Other difficult operations, some involving bloody battle, many involving the loss of servicemen's and servicewomen's lives in the course of carrying out their duty to the nation, have also been undertaken. Those that instantly come to mind are the Korean War; Suez; the withdrawal from Aden; the deployment of British forces to Kuwait in 1961; the Cyprus problem; Northern Ireland; the Falkland Islands; the Gulf; Bosnia; and the many other United Nations operations in which our Armed Forces have taken part in an attempt to make the world a safer place. There are many other areas in which our Armed Forces have been engaged; I have named only a few. And not to be forgotten are the many actions in which our Special Forces have been involved.
In all these conflicts and deployments our Armed Forces have carried out the instructions of Her Majesty's Government and have been entirely successful in their missions, upholding government policy and showing that the nation still leads the world in facing up to difficult situations. However, this very true and real statement of success and achievement begs the question as to how and why these volunteers in the Armed Forces have been so successful.
Success has not been achieved by merely having superior technical weaponry, nor through having greater numbers of men and women in uniform. It has been achieved by the careful selection of individuals and using a tested and realistic system of training. It is from early days of training that leadership qualities are enhanced and the fine examples shown by senior officers and warrant officers noted by more junior ranks. It is careful training, superb leadership and good pay and conditions of service that bring about the high morale for which our forces are so well known. That high morale is an essential ingredient to sustain their confidence, ability, expertise and knowledge, which in turn ensure the success and achievements in which the nation has been fortunate enough to share during the past 50 years. There is something very special about our Armed Forces, and that special quality must not be allowed to be taken away for the questionable benefit of some short-term financial saving.
The Armed Forces have gone through two major upheavals: Options for Change and the Defence Costs Study, and they are now very much concerned with the Bett Report, which with the best will in the world will inflict further changes and turbulence. I am not against making changes that lead to better systems and improvements. Indeed, it would be harmful to our Armed Services if changes were not implemented. But there is a time for change and equally a time for stability. Several years are now needed devoid of major new change, allowing stability in staff work at sea, land and air headquarters, and during which time the three services can take further stock, assess the Bett Report in their own time and implement the substantial changes that have

1435
been announced in the past few years. That is not to say that ships are to be kept in dock, regiments confined to barracks and aircraft grounded. The reverse is true. Our fighting units must continue to be well motivated. The sword must be kept finely honed and razor sharp, ready to be thrust immediately into any enemy who threatens our security.
Noble Lords are well aware that all three services have their own separate characters and apply different methods to achieve their aims. They recruit different people; they manage their assets, resources and personnel in a different way. But at the heart of all three services there must be an appealing career structure, with good pay and conditions of service and meaningful training, if the right sort of person is to be attracted to the Armed Forces in the future. It is essential that the three service Chiefs of Staff are now allowed to command, control and manage their own service, planning for the future without further disruptive policy statements from the Government.
However, there are some worrying matters concerning the future capability and effectiveness of our Armed Forces—Armed Forces which retain credibility and are so well respected throughout the world, and especially within the United Kingdom. It has been said on numerous occasions that we live in dangerous and uncertain times. The former Soviet Union is in a very critical state and is developing meaner and leaner armed forces concentrating on high-technological weaponry. Yet its military doctrine is unchanged, as was witnessed in the recent mass murder of Chechens by Ministry of the Interior troops. It was an operation taken straight out of their textbooks. Iran has purchased three Kilo Class Russian submarines and is generally rearming. The spread of the evil factions of fundamentalism from Morocco along the North African coast through the Middle East and into Iran and Central Asia gathers momentum daily.
The security of the United Kingdom is of considerable concern in these difficult times. What greater reasons are therefore needed to retain sufficiently large and well trained Armed Services, all coming from the voluntary sector, coupled with a highly efficient intelligence organisation—again coining from the voluntary sector—whereby we are able to continue to protect the shores of the United Kingdom?
The Armed Forces of the Crown may once again, sooner rather than later, be required to deploy in the interests of the security of the Realm. Unless manning levels are increased to realistic figures for future conflicts; unless the required sophisticated weaponry is produced now and issued into service as soon as possible; unless sufficient military hospitals are made available for training military medical staff and for care of the wounded from battle; and unless large enough field training areas are obtained to carry out all arms and inter-service training for high-intensity warfare, we shall be failing our own armed services. If we do not take urgent action to remedy those matters, it could be said that there might even be a risk of failing to achieve the customary success in a future conflict. If that should happen, it will not be the fault of our armed services. Those volunteers will always show the courage, determination, devotion, dedication, loyalty and service to the nation that we have come to expect.
1436
In this commemoration of VE Day, I pay great tribute to the Armed Forces of the Crown. The need for them in the future will be as great as it ever has been in the past. The nation is in debt to our volunteers—the servicemen and servicewomen who have protected the shores of Great Britain so diligently and retained freedom and liberty for our country for the past 50 years.
How fortunate we are to have such a professional and highly skilled Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, staffed and manned by volunteers and complemented by a uniquely efficient intelligence organisation. Long may they last!
7.22 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this subject for debate at this time. Many of your Lordships had to serve the nation at its time of greatest need and have very distinguished war records. The noble Viscount is no exception. Fortunately, we are enjoying a long period of relative peace. Certainly, there has been no conflict on the scale of World War II for 50 years. Thus, there has been little fear of the general deprivations caused by an all-out war.
We do not have an empire to look after. So what adventure or service can a young person expect to undertake? Our Armed Forces still provide adventure but in a very disciplined environment which is not suited to everyone. A further problem is that members of the armed services are trained, where necessary, to be aggressive, and that may not be desirable.
Many speakers have suggested that there is a need for national or adventure service. I suggest that there is a desperate need for that kind of opportunity. Much of the youth of today has been raised on a diet of television and screen violence. Such young people have little respect for their fellow men. However, they have never faced the reality of having a frank discussion with someone who is carrying an AK47. They might see themselves as holding the M.16. Frequently, our youngsters' behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. They expect to have everything on a plate and have no idea how lucky they are to live in our highly developed society. I am sure that all your Lordships understand the problem and many speakers have already addressed it.
We have heard the call "Bring back national service". That is a non-starter. The armed services are now highly professional and technical organisations with long and expensive training cycles. Members of the forces are all volunteers and highly committed. Not everyone is suited to service life and, outside of general war, I have some moral difficulties with conscription. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, referred to the change in society in these times, and I agree with him.
But there are many opportunities for "voluntary national service". For many years I have been involved in the TA. Many speakers have praised the TA, with justification. It does not have the disadvantages of regular service life and allows the individual to get on with a civilian career as well. It is very gratifying to see the improvements in the character and manners of a TA soldier as he or she progresses through training. But in the

1437
end the TA is a military organisation, designed to provide a reserve for the defence of the realm. Again, it will not suit everyone.
Perhaps we should consider expanding the VSO concept referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Earl, Lord Cairns. At the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, explained so well, it is aimed at reasonably well educated people rather than poorly qualified school-leavers who need to see how people live in the less developed world. The Overseas Development Administration also provides task forces, especially in Africa and Bosnia, but almost exclusively recruits very experienced ex-servicemen, not the youngsters who need to see the world.
I am heavily involved with an international NGO but it recruits only mature vehicle mechanics who are very skilled and experienced. I am advocating a task force of youngsters led by experienced and fully mature leaders who will go out into the developing world, do some good and get real experience of life. They would require basic training in the UK, covering matters such as first aid and, I suspect, cooking, along with basic hygiene and survival skills. Tasks in countries would frequently involve constructing roads, tracks and bridges or repairing infrastructure such as generators for hospitals, water schemes and the like.
The noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, referred to the Boys' Brigade. Its ethos would be a good model. As candidates, I suggest a mixture of genuine volunteers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, those youngsters who have attracted too much attention from the police. Careful selection from the latter youngsters is essential. There would be no point in sending out those who are already hardened criminals or thugs, however young they are. But a 16 or 17 year-old who has borrowed someone's car without permission and needs guidance with the development of his life might be ideal. Perhaps some connection with the requirement of "actively seeking work" for youngsters might be appropriate.
A few minutes ago the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said that those who would benefit most would be least likely to volunteer. How very true that is. It may be that some positive encouragement to undertake adventure service overseas may be required.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned the problem of funding. Clearly the scheme would require substantial funding. But we pay considerable amounts of unemployment benefit to youngsters, and the cost of living overseas in Africa is much less. The unavoidable costs are related to the air travel. The efforts of the Government with regard to overseas aid funding is very welcome. Demand will always exceed supply, but the Government's record is excellent.
Many speakers have advocated some form of national service, while recognising the limitations of conscripted military service. My recommendation is that we have adventure service overseas to show our youngsters what
1438
the rest of the world is really like. We can then expect them to be better members of our society when they return.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, there are very many in your Lordships' House who served in the last war—other ranks, like myself; leaders, such as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw; and others working in an enormous variety of occupations—to ensure a successful end to a terrible five-year conflict. Inevitably, many of us look back at this time. Memories are sharpened and emotions are stirred. But now we are 50 years on, during which time, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, we have lived in comparative peace. During this time the voluntary sector has expanded, involving, I believe, a much wider age group, people who give their time and effort to help in the numerous organisations which desperately need them.
Living as I do in a very rural area, I believe we have far more volunteers involved in social work than may be the case in towns. In our small town we have five charity shops and volunteers serve in those shops. They also visit the sick at home or transport patients to and from hospital. Perhaps that is more common in the country than in the cities.
Though it is not strictly a voluntary organisation, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has contributed in an outstanding way to bringing together so many countries over which the war was fought. Nothing but praise is due to it for the attention and care given by local gardners to the cemetery. Visiting such cemeteries leaves one with a feeling of deep gratitude for the love and understanding that has gone into ensuring a peaceful final resting place. In many instances volunteers look after those graves. I am sure that visits to the cemeteries will continue as future generations, either looking for their ancestors or studying history, will ensure that they are never neglected.
The sacrifices made in the last war will not be forgotten. But the future is in the hands of the young, as many noble Lords have said. We must never allow another global war to start. Hopefully, with more understanding between nations and the advance of ever more sophisticated communications, peace will be guaranteed. We have every reason to commemorate the end of the 1939–1945 conflict and I feel that today's debate is a perfect start to the celebrations we shall have over the next few days.
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for initiating this debate today. I shall confine my remarks to the works and aspirations, past and present, of the YMCA movement. I have an interest to declare in this regard in that I am president of the Stamford and District YMCA and chairman of the YMCA Movement Trust Fund. In the latter capacity I and my committee are charged with assessing applications for funding specific projects from YMCA organisations throughout the country. We are in the same position as most other grant or loan-giving charities and voluntary organisations in

1439
that the demand far outstrips supply. But we see at fairly close quarters the hopes and aspirations of many YMCA organisations.
Before expanding on the work done today I should like to spend a few moments reminiscing on the origins of the YMCA and its wartime activities. It was set up in 1844 by George Williams, a draper who sought to provide spiritual and moral welfare for young men in that trade. The link between the YMCA and the Armed Forces began in Britain in 1890 when Colonel Goldsmith, a YMCA president in Devonport, suggested that the association should provide activities and support at summer training camps for army volunteers. Over the next few years the YMCA became involved with the expanding Territorial Army.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the activities of the YMCA during World War I. When war broke out, the YMCA immediately put out an appeal for £25,000 to fund emergency war work. Such was the support that the money was raised within days. The main focus of the YMCA's work during the First World War was the YMCA hut. Built in cities, villages and railway stations in England and along the front lines and base lines of the French battlefields they provided a comfortable, relaxing retreat for soldiers and supplied food, a place to rest and stationery for letters home.
It was during that period that the red triangle was adopted as an easy-to-recognise emblem of the movement and through the war-time stationery it became well known. I am advised by the head office of the YMCA that it has on its records a letter from a mother written in gratitude to the YMCA and I should like to read a part of that to your Lordships. She wrote:
"I want to thank you for what your association has done for my boy. When the war broke out he went to the Crystal Palace for his training and found the YMCA there a boon. He was sent to Blandford to complete his training and the YMCA was there. He was drafted to Gallipoli and to his amazement he found the YMCA on the Peninsula. He was wounded and sent to Suez where once more the YMCA was a great help to him. And yesterday I received a letter from him from Alexandria to say he was convalescing and spending the whole of his spare time in the YMCA building".
I hope that I do not weary your Lordships with the YMCA. As I said, I am confining my remarks to that association and shall endeavour to move quickly on to the Second World War. As soon as that war broke out the YMCA stepped in with a new idea of bringing comfort to the troops. As we all know, there is nothing that keeps the British soldier together so much as a cup of tea, and the first tea car or mobile kitchen was fitted out, painted camouflage green and was in use on the streets of East London by 23rd September. By the end of 1940 there were 500 vans in use.
As well as visiting isolated army outposts along the British coastline, the vans followed the troops into France and Flanders. Following the evacuation of Dunkirk, the vans were on hand at Dover to serve 5,000 gallons of tea to the weary troops. During the Blitz the tea cars rushed to the aid of burning cities and by January 1941 there were 70 in use in London alone.
As the war went on the YMCA developed new services—library vans, entertainment vans and even cinema vans, and permanent centres for troops. In 1944, overshadowed by much vaster events, the YMCA
1440
celebrated its centenary. As hordes of British and American troops gathered in London to prepare for their return to France, YMCA members were congregating in the city for an anniversary service in St. Paul's Cathedral. The preacher was the then right reverend Primate William Temple, who had headed the YMCA's education work with troops during the First World War. One eye witness who was present at that service said that on coming out of the cathedral they found the sky black and filled with planes. Those planes were just going over to bomb the beaches in preparation for D-day and one-and-a-half months later the first YMCA tea car landed back in France to follow the troops on their trail through to final victory in Germany.
Coming back to today, I should like to say that this voluntary organisation, this charity organisation, now works for the physical and emotional well being of young people, particularly those in real need—the homeless, the unemployed and the drug abusers. It helps as many women as men and is one of the largest youth welfare charities in the country, coming into contact with around 1 million people a year and having 85,000 members.
Each local YMCA is autonomous and runs a mix of facilities tailored to the needs of its own community. Included in the five main areas of work is housing. The YMCA is the biggest provider of young people's housing in the country with 6,300 beds in 70 locations. Recently, several YMCAs have pioneered "Foyer" projects which provide homeless and unemployed young people with accommodation, help them to look for work or training and, eventually, fix them up with a permanent place to live. It is a most creative and valuable initiative because it sets out to break the vicious circle of no job, no home—no home, no job.
The YMCA is one of the biggest training organisations in the country, training 30,000 young people and unemployed adults every year through youth training programmes, Restart programmes for unemployed adults and job clubs. On the personal and social development side, the YMCA's main aim is to help individuals to develop as people and grow in confidence. It does that through youth work in youth clubs and on the streets, counselling for drug abusers and victims of abuse, children's day camps, Christian activities, drop-in advice centres for young people, providing advice on family and relationship problems, drugs, HIV and AIDS and a wide range of other social and educational activities.
The message I should like to leave your Lordships with is that the YMCA movement, if noble Lords have not already gathered it, is alive and well, that it has come a long way since its birth in 1844 and that there are many dedicated workers furthering its cause. But there is never enough money to fund all the work which we would like to do. If I had a wish it would be that when the YMCA movement trust fund committee comes to look at the numerous applications for pump-priming funding we will not have to attempt to use the wisdom of Solomon in dividing too small a cake among the many deserving initiatives. Perhaps I should look to my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I rather doubt that. Perhaps I should look to the Millennium Fund or even the National Lottery, in respect of which my noble friend Lord

1441
Whitelaw gave some encouraging news on a concise and readable book which I shall certainly endeavour to get at the earliest moment.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are really grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for moving this important Motion at this time, and for the powerful and evocative speech he made. It is an honour to speak, however badly, in a debate moved by my noble friend.
I was not quite old enough to serve my country at the sharp end during the war, though I shall not forget when I was in London in 1942 being bridesmaid to my brother in the old Guards Chapel and hearing the eerie sound of the siren going off and the noise of the ack-ack guns. I shall not forget either the steady drone of planes flying over us as we sat in the basement shelter of our school, Oxenfoord, listening to the unforgettable words of Churchill on the wireless while we knitted. I was not adept enough to knit socks, so I knitted orange wool helmets for merchant seamen which enabled them to be seen in the sea if their ship was torpedoed. My aunt was in the Merchant Navy, so I always prayed she would never need one. She would have noticed my dropped stitches.
If I had known that my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree was going to talk about seamen's missions I would of course have worn a silk dress made from material bought by my aunt in the seamen's mission in Shanghai in the early 1960s. The seamen's missions there and in our home ports were always places of refuge and comfort for merchant seamen.
My other aunts were voluntary air raid wardens in Lambeth. In daytime they worked. One worked as a draftsman in the Admiralty; the other ran the Queen Victoria Girls' Club for Deprived Girls. At night they donned their helmets and took up their stirrup pumps and went down to the post. Outside the backdoor of their house in Lambeth still hang their tin helmets and by the front door there is a notice from one of my Aunt Victoria's convoys, "Lights mean death".
I should like briefly to share with your Lordships my husband's memories of the end of the war. He was rather ahead of his artillery group in an armoured car which arrived on the quay of a small German town on the Baltic. As he was standing on the quay breathing the sea air a U-boat surfaced. He promptly stepped on board and knocked on the conning tower. When the commander emerged my husband said, "The war is over", which was a good guess, "and I have captured you". After some discussion and much schnapps drinking they had a small ceremony and handed over to my husband a large flag with a swastika on it and the commander's sword. Again, after more schnapps, they asked my husband what he thought they should do. He said, "The war is over. I think you should all go home". And so they did. That story shows much of the spirit of our festivities this weekend.
It is always important to bring good out of evil. I think one of the best things that came out of the war was the concept of service for others, willing and unstinted. What else can anyone ever do to repay the marvellous gift of life? The spirit of service has continued and is reflected in
1442
many of the voluntary services about which noble Lords have spoken so movingly. At this late hour not a noble Lord here would thank me for reiterating any one of them.
Before I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion, I wish to thank Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of the War Widows Association, for their restoration of pensions to war widows who have subsequently remarried and for whom the second marriage has ended in death, divorce or legal separation. This will bring physical comfort and spiritual recognition of their husband's brave sacrifice to so many courageous ladies whom I am proud to represent.
In paying tribute to the Royal British Legion in this year of all years, I make especial mention of its war pensions department which not only has 57,000 ongoing appeals but which helps over 13,500 new appeals each year. Three thousand representatives go out to all the major tribunals at London, Leeds, Manchester, Exeter, Chester, Cardiff and Newcastle, and of course to Edinburgh.
"We do what we can, when we can, for any of the people out there",
says Tom House of the war pensions department. And he—and they—do, too, bless them. They have a 50 per cent. success rate in entitlement tribunals and a 37 per cent. success rate in disability tribunals. The women's branch, among many imaginative and useful services, also sends out £5 and a birthday card on their birthdays to all service widows.
The Royal British Legion's present campaign, Disregard, is to encourage local government housing authorities to disregard war pensions when assessing housing benefits. Some do, some do not. They are trying to make them all do.
When my mother died, I found a small book open on the page "Happiness is playing cards with grandma". So it is. I gave it to my daughter. Happiness is also helping other people. My noble friend Lord Whitelaw's noble lady and I attended the same school. I am sure therefore that my noble friend is aware of our school prayer, as she of course is, which seems to me to sum up the spirit of this debate:
"Teach us good Lord to serve Thee as Thou deservest,
To give and not to count the cost.
To fight and not to heed the wounds,
To toil and not to seek for rest,
To labour and not to ask for any reward
Save that of knowing that we do Thy will".
7.49 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in opening a debate with such humanity and skill, as the noble Viscount always does on this subject, he tempts us into reminiscence and into a warm feeling that we are all on the same side. He tempts us into drawing what might well be wrong conclusions from the spirit of comradeship which did exist during the war. While taking part in the warm feelings and sharing them very strongly, in the time available to me I want to say something about the wrong conclusions that might be drawn from our feeling of unity and what has happened since.
Obviously, VE Day has different memories for all of us. For me it was going out with my parents on to Parliament Hill on Hampstead Heath and seeing the bonfires and fireworks all over London, and having Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Westminster pointed out to me. Somehow that brought me, as a 12 year-old, into the spirit of London as it was at the end of the war.
I have been reminded of it very much recently because I have been reading Philip Ziegler's London at War, which has a very large number of quotations from letters which my grandparents, a working-class family living in Walthamstow, wrote to their daughter in California. Of course, they could not write about the war as such because the censor would have cut out, and did, anything of that kind. They describe the feelings of ordinary people in London during the war. I have found immensely moving both re-reading those letters and the excerpts from them which Philip Ziegler uses.
We have been talking about the celebrations at the end of the war. I notice that my grandmother wrote after their street party in Walthamstow, which was early in June, that the trestle tables were set up, which were borrowed and none hired. They took out three Morrison shelters and they put them in the street to form a stage. A grand piano was found which was used for the dancing. My grandmother says that of course, in this plebeian part of London, the party had to be outside because none of us had a room big enough to hold a party.
It is the role of ordinary people in the war that we should be celebrating today. I am not the only one who thinks so. Our great leader during the war, Winston Churchill, in a speech in Westminster Hall in 1954, said,
"I have never accepted what many people have kindly said, namely that I inspired the nation. It was the nation, and the race dwelling all round the globe"—
He would not say "race" now, I hope—
"that had the lion's heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar".
That was the spirit of a wise man and, if I may say so, in great contrast to his grandson, of whom I am sure I should be asking for permission to use his copyright on that speech. Fundamentally, we are talking about ordinary working-class people when we celebrate the unity of spirit that existed during the war. That is the first lesson we should learn.
Surely, the second lesson should be—and the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, expressed it well—"never again". In Durham Cathedral there is a chapel for the Durham Light Infantry. In the chapel there are the flags of course
1444
and a reminder in stone that in the 1914–1918 war 37 battalions of that regiment were raised to fight what was for most of them a totally pointless and futile war. Durham miners formed themselves into 37 battalions of the Durham Light Infantry. Again, in the 1939–45 war, 18 battalions were formed to fight what we all believe was a necessary and worthwhile war.
Surely, the lesson from that is not, as we heard a couple of years ago in debates in this House, about the names of regiments and their survival, but "never again". The only honour that we can do to those who served and died in the Durham Light Infantry and other regiments is to say that there shall never be a need for even one Durham Light Infantry battalion, let alone 37 and 18 battalions in different wars in this century. If we carry that lesson to the end of this century and beyond we shall have performed a service.
I do not believe with von Moltke that,
"Without war the world would sink into materialism",
and that somehow we are bound to lose in peacetime the spirit that we had in wartime. I certainly do not believe that the voluntary sector, which is an essential part of the corporate life of our community, is in any way a party political issue.
I was taken aback by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who I can only assume got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. In effect she was accusing the Labour Party of not being interested in the voluntary sector. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is not just that the Labour Party has very firm policies about the funding and organisation of the voluntary sector. As my noble friend Lord Dubs rightly said, it is not just that we depend on and pay tribute to citizenship and community empowerment or that we are the fastest growing voluntary organisation in the country. Look at our history and that of the trade unions and the friendly societies. They are voluntary organisations. In the last century they were the origin of the spirit of ordinary people and far larger than anything today. Their objectives were to care for each other and their own communities. After all, trade unions and friendly societies were not only providing for their members but also for those who were not members of unions. And, as my noble friend Lord Graham rightly reminds me, there is also the Co-operative Movement.
It has been very valuable to have tributes to the organised voluntary sector, but how many more people are there who are unsung, unpaid carers for the elderly and disabled in their own homes? These people whom no one recognises or gives any thought to enormously outnumber the formal voluntary sector. There is no government policy to help and protect them. There is no tax relief for them of any significance. All these things are going on around us. It is not organised, but the spirit of British people is showing itself because we believe in family and community life.
It would wrong not to talk about the formal voluntary sector. Indeed, the NCVO is seeking a meeting with the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in the near future. I know that it has issues for discussion with her which are of great importance. If she is able to say anything about those issues it would be very helpful. The National Lottery is undoubtedly eating into the revenues of voluntary organisations. The noble

1445
Baroness, Lady Young, said that it was early days, but the NCVO knows, from a survey carried out in March of this year, that the proportion of people giving to charities, which used to be 81 per cent., is now down to 67 per cent. Charity donations have reduced in value by 4 per cent. The projection for the first 12 months of the National Lottery is a loss of over £200 million.
I remind your Lordships that 30 per cent. of charity income is from voluntary donations. There can be no doubt that the charities are losing out and that there are therefore huge financial problems for individual bodies. What Government help is there going to be for those charities in difficulty? What is the position as regards the distribution of the National Lottery? The charities are getting only 6 per cent. of that money now. Although it is a large amount of money, they need a great deal more, including perhaps money from the Treasury's 12 per cent., if there is to be a continuation of the work of the voluntary organisations. What are the Government doing about VAT for charities? My noble friend Lord Dubs and other noble Lords have mentioned that. What are the Government going to do about tax-effective individual donations? Above all, what are the Government going to do about monitoring the effect of the National Lottery on charities and voluntary organisations?
There has been somewhat of a diversion in the debate with talk about national service. I was sorry to hear noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Flather—in an otherwise marvellous speech—speaking about the possibilities of national service. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, express their opposition to that idea. I have no doubt that there is a role for a voluntary civilian service. Indeed, the Social Justice Commission has paid tribute to that. After all, it is in the tradition of Roosevelt's New Deal, but national service? National military service? Surely not in these days—
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I believe that all noble Lords who referred to that did so in terms of the Motion that we are debating—that is, in the context of service to the nation. National service was where it started; service to the nation is where it will go.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no reason to disagree with the noble Viscount on that point. It was the suggestion of military service that I found particularly objectionable. If the noble Viscount did not make that suggestion, I apologise to him profoundly.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what I said. I gave an example of another European partner country, Austria, and referred to what is happening there. I asked the Minister to look into the exact details. People are required to do eight months of military service or 12 months of civilian service. I did not say that we should adopt that lock, stock and barrel; I said that we should look at it because it is a good example.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I respect the noble Baroness profoundly. I heard what she said, but
1446
when she makes such a suggestion, I believe that she must be doing so with some measure of approval for it. Again, I may be wrong.
The fundamental point about voluntary service of all kinds is not only the extent to which we need it, but that we should not couple it with an abdication of public responsibility. There are so many things in this world which we have to do together and which we have to do through the medium of the state. I do not think that we can ever escape that. We shall all become involved with illness. We are all going to grow old—
Viscount Whitelaw: We are all growing old.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: At different rates. The noble Viscount is growing old more slowly and more elegantly than most other people of his age.
Above all, we must not regard voluntary organisations as a cheap option. We must not be tempted into moving from the very admirable support which parents can provide in terms of sports facilities in schools, for example, to what has been happening in the past year with parents and governors having to raise money for necessary teachers and text books. That is an example of an extension of voluntary effort which we, collectively, cannot accept.
If people criticise us for looking more at rights than at responsibilities, I must remind them that it was the previous Conservative Prime Minister who said:
"There is no such thing as Society".
Those of us who believe strongly in voluntary organisations, in conjunction with collective efforts to improve and extend the rights of individuals, do so on the basis that the society in which we live is a society supported by voluntary organisations and that it must be a fair society. That is the basis on which a Labour Government were elected in 1945. That is the basis on which we on these Benches continue our faith in "society" to this day.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend for initiating this important debate. In matters of voluntary commitment there can be no finer example than that of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, who has given so much time and so much energy to public service. We are indeed grateful to him for that.
This is a timely occasion to acknowledge the debt that we owe to that selfless band of men and women whose dedication and concern for others do so much to enrich the quality of all our lives. This has been an excellent and heartwarming debate, giving full recognition to volunteers and volunteering and expressing a desire that long may they continue and flourish. As always, time will be the enemy and it will be impossible to do justice to the debate or even to recognise adequately all that the voluntary sector and volunteers are doing.
However, I would like to add my tribute in support of those who have spoken in this debate about the invaluable and selfless service performed during the war by so many hundreds of thousands of men and women, working with such organisations as the Women's Royal Voluntary Service (or the WVS as it was then), St. John Ambulance,

1447
which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elton, and the YMCA, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Liverpool. These and many other voluntary organisations played such an important role in maintaining morale and inspiring community spirit.
We rightly look at the wartime period as one where the need to pull together for a common cause heightened everyone's sense of service. But we have a long and proud tradition of voluntary work both at home and abroad which predates the war and continues to flourish today. I might mention, for example, the British Red Cross Society, celebrating its 125th anniversary this year, or the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, now 110 years old.
Those organisations remain relevant and active today, side by side with newer bodies such as Help the Aged and ChildLine, which have developed in the last 50 years. One of the great strengths of voluntary organisations is that they spring up, grow and adapt according to the needs of the time. Voluntary organisations and volunteers have provided much of the impetus for modem movements, perhaps most notably protection of our environment. We are also blessed with more voluntary organisations today than ever before. There are about 170,000 registered charities and perhaps another 500,000 voluntary groups covering all manner of subjects.
There is also the work that is done for and in the community by our schools, involving hundreds of thousands of young people. My noble friend Lady Young spoke eloquently about that. Many young people are involved in the Guides, Scouts, Cubs and Brownies, to which groups my noble friend Lady Carnegy referred.
Individual volunteering is buoyant too: a growth of around 15 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. If translated into actual numbers, this would equal in total around 17 million volunteers. So, so much for the myth and the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that the hallmark of the 1980s was "Everyone for himself'.
Voluntary activity and voluntary giving have grown and continue to do so. Of course, numbers alone cannot reflect the huge variety of volunteering which takes place. Some people volunteer in a very structured way through a large organisation. Others help those around them and often do not classify it as volunteering; for example, helping a neighbour or visiting the sick. They are doing what comes naturally—and we must take care not to inhibit such spontaneity.
This Government recognise the great value and diversity of voluntary organisations. Our policies towards them are based on two key principles: first, to provide an enabling climate in which they can continue to flourish; and, secondly, to preserve their freedom so that their inherent qualities of flexibility, spontaneity and innovation are not lost. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister put it last summer:
"In all our policies, we must leave space for communities and voluntary organisations. We must not let big government undermine the vitality of neighbourhood or family—stronger, more adaptable organisms than any structure the State may try to put in their place".
Those are the Government principles, but how are we putting them into practice? First, by funding the voluntary sector—in 1992–93, direct funding of voluntary organisations totalled over £½ billion (£563 million to be
1448
exact), an 11 per cent. increase in real terms over the previous year. Once funding for housing associations is included, that increases to nearly £4 billion. Last year the Government contributed almost £160 million to non-governmental organisations working on overseas development projects and in emergency situations. Our overall support for their much valued work has more than doubled in the past four years.
Furthermore, recent research by the Rowntree Foundation shows an increase of public sector funding of the voluntary sector in 1993–94 of 26 per cent. in real terms. In addition, tax relief for charities in 1993–94 totalled £1.5 billion, contrary to what was said in an unusually gloomy presentation by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That tax relief is made up of direct tax relief, non-domestic tax relief and in some cases VAT relief. Charitable giving has been made easier and more tax efficient.
Much has been said about core funding, a point that has been well taken. It was mentioned first by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and then by my noble friend Lady Young. We do not reject the importance of core funding and the use of core funding on voluntary organisations where that can be shown to be the most effective way of supporting their work. We support also the trend towards more targeted funding through project grants and contracts for specific pieces of work. I noted what my noble friend Lord Liverpool said, but there are many organisations that are happy to do specific work which is funded directly by the Government.
We are not alone however in funding voluntary organisations. Local authorities, grant-making trusts and businesses also do much to help. I wish to pay a tribute and place on record that much of the business and commercial sector is playing a real part in funding voluntary organisations. We do them an injustice if we are critical of what I believe is a growing interest in the voluntary sector.
We recognise that, whoever is providing the money, it is important that voluntary organisations are properly involved in the funding process and have clear information on the terms of the support. In partnership with those other funding bodies we have produced new draft Guidelines for Funders of Voluntary Organisations. Those documents codify the existing good practice which should be followed by those who fund voluntary groups and offer the chance to improve overall standards.
The Government have also encouraged new methods of funding to maximise the value obtained from any grant or contract. One example is the single regeneration budget which combines 20 previously separate grant schemes into a single fund for regeneration. The SRB offers more local input into the allocation of money; encourages the public, private and voluntary sectors to pool their talents; challenges bidders to devise innovative projects; and levers in significant additional money. In the first round £4 was raised for every £1 of SRB funding. Voluntary organisations were involved in nearly half the successful first round applications and, as we embark upon the second round, I look forward to even greater success on their part.

1449
I should mention also, as some noble Lords have, the National Lottery. I know that many voluntary organisations have concerns about the impact of this major new enterprise. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to monitoring the levels of charitable giving following its introduction, and I am confident that charities will ultimately benefit greatly from the lottery.
I am aware that studies have suggested that the lottery may lead to a reduction in individual giving, but it is far too early, as my noble friend Lady Young said, to say whether that will be so and, more importantly, what effect the lottery will have on charities' total income, of which individual giving is just one element. Meaningful comparisons will need to consider a 12-month period. It is too simple merely to assume that fluctuations in charitable giving since November 1994, whether up or down, are due entirely to the lottery. Many other factors could be at work. We have made a commitment also to monitor the level of charitable income following the introduction of the lottery. The need to analyse charities' accounts and to consider a 12-month period means that the findings will not be available for some time. I can give the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, an assurance that I have not merely met the charitable organisations that he mentioned; I shall be meeting the NCVO next week.
The National Lottery Charities Board is now set to become a very big funder indeed. On present forecasts up to £280 million a year will be available to be distributed by the board, and I am pleased to say that the board was able to announce yesterday the start of its first round of applications and that it hopes to make its first grants within six months. That is good progress given that the charities board alone among the lottery distributors has had to start work from scratch and has been determined to consult the voluntary sector widely before beginning to make grants. I hope that the voluntary sector realises that that is painstaking and complex work.
Deregulation is another way in which the Government are helping voluntary organisations. They can benefit as much as business from the removal of unneccesary red tape. Last year we set up a task force to pursue deregulation issues affecting the charitable sector. That reported last July. Of the 189 proposals for deregulation contained in its report, 132 have been accepted or are under review.
One example is the proposed "light touch" accounting regime which will mean that charities with low annual incomes will be required to provide less detailed information in their accounts. We are currently consulting charities and voluntary bodies about those measures and hope to bring them into force on 1st December.
We attach particular importance to the input of individual volunteers who contribute enormously to the well-being of our communities. Those volunteers serve our country at many different levels, from local groups such as Neighbourhood Watch schemes, of which there are now 130,000, as we were reminded by my noble friend Lord Dean, right through to those volunteering overseas. VSO, for example, currently has over 1,700 volunteers serving in about 50 developing countries, and many have spoken of the work of that organisation. Their skills and
1450
experience make a huge difference to those countries and it is no surprise that their talents are increasingly in demand. Back at home volunteers provide invaluable support to the statutory sector, working in hospitals and as school governors, magistrates and special constables and they are the lifeblood of the vast majority of voluntary organisations.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as an aside that as a parent I was proud, and I believe it was an obligation on my part, to become involved in fundraising for the school. I wonder whether the noble Lord will do anything to prevent that healthy activity which supports young people and their work inside and outside school.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but before she leaves that point, I was explicit. I said clearly that I thought fundraising by parents and governors for such things as sports facilities was entirely admirable. Like her, I have been involved in it myself. What I thought was not acceptable was when we had to go to fundraising and voluntary contributions for essential parts of schooling such as paying teachers and buying schoolbooks.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all I can say is that the schools are being funded in real terms more generously than they were under the party of noble Lords opposite.
Voluntary collective action strengthens local communities and institutions and our sense of obligation to one another. It strengthens the civic bond—something we all want to see. Volunteering is a community activity and, with a developed sense of service, acts as a civilising influence on individuals and the receiving community.
Last March, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary launched a major new volunteering campaign, the Make a Difference initiative. We want to increase the number of volunteers. We want especially to involve people who have not previously been involved in the life of the community. We aim to do that by improving the information available on volunteering, by promoting good work that volunteers do and by encouraging the voluntary, public and private sectors to work together in support of voluntary activity.
People have many different motives for volunteering or choosing not to do so. Make a Difference reflects that diversity by building on the strong tradition of volunteering that we have in this country. The Make a Difference team, headed by Nicholas Ward and comprised of senior figures from the public, private and voluntary sectors, is considering a wide range of issues affecting volunteering. It will be publishing its report in the first week of June, and the Government will place a high priority on considering how the issues it raises can best be taken forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, asked whether there was room for improvement in the voluntary sector's involvement with the Government. As in a school report, I shall say that there is always room for improvement. As the Minister responsible, my door is open and I meet with people from the voluntary sector constantly. They are now structurally part of the Make a Difference team. There is a healthy relationship between

1451
the ministerial team in the Home Office and the Voluntary Services Unit, which has been praised during the course of the debate.
To help to improve the information available on volunteering, we set up two months ago the National Volunteering Helpline. That answers in part the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Cairns. This is a single nationwide number which anyone can call at the cost of a local call to find out more about volunteering opportunities in their area. The number is 0345 221133. Your Lordships may wish to make a note of it! Many people with an interest in volunteering can be discouraged by not knowing how to become involved. We hope that the helpline will provide one way of helping them over this hurdle.
There are two other elements of Make a Difference. The first is the Development Programme which has made available almost £½ million in support of 27 projects across the UK that are using innovative approaches to increase the number of volunteers. The other is the production of action plans by government departments. These have been produced under the direction of the Ministerial Group on the voluntary Sector, of which I am the chairman. The aim is to raise the profile of volunteering in Whitehall and to bring about a greater involvement of volunteers in the policies and programmes of each department and throughout the public sector.
I know that some people are calling for the introduction of national volunteering or community service schemes which are mainly aimed at young people. Recognising the many benefits that volunteering brings, I can see the attractions of such schemes. We must do all we can to spread the volunteering message and to make it easy and attractive for those who wish to do so to contribute to the community by voluntary activity. But this requires a light touch and we must be wary of anything that is over-organised or bureaucratic.
Nor should we overlook the multitude of schemes which already exist to support voluntary activity by young people such as those run by community service volunteers and the Prince's Trust volunteers. We welcome the diversity of all those schemes. While I recognise the potential benefits of a formal national volunteering scheme, we are determined not to impose new or costly bureaucratic structures. The benefits of such a programme can also be achieved through a more general development of volunteering.
As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of VE Day, I would also like to give a specific mention to the role of the armed services in supporting youth volunteering. The Ministry of Defence funds four cadet forces, all of which are community-based voluntary organisations attached to the Armed Forces and promoting the personal and social development of 13 to 20 year-olds. Between them they have some 132,000 cadets. These cadet forces provide training and teamwork skills and enable young people to acquire increased self-confidence and develop leadership skills. I welcome in particular the initiative that some local cadet forces are taking to provide opportunities for young people, often from deprived backgrounds or at risk of offending, to participate in cadet force activities. Such
1452
initiatives should be encouraged and applauded. None of that would be possible without the 23,000 adult volunteers who run the cadets.
I am delighted that young people today are maintaining the tradition of voluntary work. A survey in 1991 found that 55 per cent. of those aged 18 to 24 were volunteers, which is slightly higher than the national average or the population as a whole. This is not, of course, a reason to be complacent. The importance that we attach to Make a Difference is clear evidence of our commitment to increasing voluntary activity. But it does indicate that the flame of volunteering continues to burn brightly, and that bodes well for the future.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will forgive me because I wish to return to the point that she raised about the status of young people with the VSO when they return from abroad. The point that she made about national vocational qualifications is well taken. I know that there is activity to ascertain whether the skills which young people acquire through volunteering can be recognised through the NVQ system.
In a moving account of the contribution made by people in the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere during the war, my noble friend Lady Flather made the telling point about the hijacking of the Union flag. All I can say is that we must not allow Fascist-type groups to bring our great flag into disrepute.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in paying tribute to the voluntary sector generally and the NCVO in particular and the Charity Commission—Richard Fries and all his staff, who are doing a valiant job. They are becoming much more responsive to the voluntary sector. I also join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the VSU in my own department.
The point was made about training and enterprise councils and annual funding. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord's party the following question. The funding of the training and enterprise councils is part of PES. Is it now to be Labour policy that PES will not be annual funding but public expenditure will be on a three-year rolling programme? We have a rolling programme for expenditure, but every government will have to conduct an annual review of what the particular programme will be. I am afraid that training and enterprise councils are part of that funding—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that we are time limited but the noble Baroness is being most helpful on this matter. Surely she understands that the TECs are moving to rolling funding under the licensing system that is being introduced as from the beginning of this year.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that and I pay tribute to them. They are doing so in the framework of knowing their budgets year on year.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne on his truly maiden speech. He brought home to the House the value of voluntary service at any level—mundane or profound—and the practical way in which such work benefits both the community and the person giving his or her time.

1453
I am not sure whether I heard the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, correctly. I thought that he said that the VSO does not receive government funding. The VSO is a fine organisation and is greatly valued by Her Majesty's Government. In 1994–95 grant from the ODA to the VSO was £17 million. In 1995–96 the grant is likely to increase by 7 per cent. to £18.256 million. That is the largest block grant from the ODA' s budget for support to British non-governmental organisations. I welcome the comments on NGO funding made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his excellent speech.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for resorting to military language when I say to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, "We salute you". We salute you for initiating the debate. It really has been a privilege for me to reply. I reiterate the principles which guide our policies. We appreciate the enormous contribution which volunteers and voluntary organisations make and we recognise that independence is central to their strength. We want a relationship with them which acknowledges the mutual benefits that partnership and co-operation can bring. That is the way to ensure the vitality of our voluntary sector. It is the way to ensure that it can be retained for the next 50 years and beyond.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have always been wholly against wasting time at the end of a long debate and I shall not do so today. I wish to say only that we had a bad start, which was nothing to do with us. Many noble Lords then made sure that we had an extremely good debate.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch. It was good of her to wind up the debate and I greatly appreciate that. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for suggesting the idea of the Motion to me. I am grateful to all noble Lords who made sure that the debate went along well and I am grateful for what they said. If one takes part in a debate one is doing the debate good. Therefore all noble Lords did good and I thank them for that. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mustill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As its title demonstrates, the subject matter of the Bill is one aspect of the law relating to the sale of goods, which is partially codified in a series of enactments culminating in the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
The problem which the Bill is designed to remedy has long been recognised both by lawyers and those engaged in commerce as a potential source of injustice. Fortunately, the English and Scottish Law Commissions have been able to analyse the problem, suggest a solution, canvass opinions and propose a form of language by which a solution might be embodied in legislation.
I suggest that the Bill provides a very cogent illustration of the way in which, acting, as it were, in tandem, it is possible for the Law Commissions and your Lordships, if
1454
so minded, to examine in depth a legal problem and to make a valuable practical advance without excessive expenditure of parliamentary time.
It may be helpful to begin with the background and nature of the problem. This part of the law is concerned with the passing of property under an agreement for the sale of goods in circumstances where the buyer has paid the price in advance. The later in time that the property and the goods —that is, the ownership of them—is transferred to the buyer, the greater the risk to which he is exposed. If he has the property and the goods, he can in general deal with them as his own to the exclusion of the rights of others, even if they have not yet come physically into his possession.
That is of most particular importance when the seller of the goods becomes insolvent since, if the property and goods are not passed to the buyer, they form part of the seller's general assets and fall into the hands of the receiver or liquidator for distribution among the creditors as a whole. The buyer is left with no goods and no price, and nothing else but a dividend in the winding-up of the vendor, which may be useless.
Broadly speaking and trying to leave jargon and technicalities aside, there are three situations in which the property and the goods may pass. The first is where the goods are identified conclusively at the time of the contract. In that situation, the goods may be single items or several and may be separate or in bulk. For example, we may find a buyer saying, "I will buy that bottle of wine. I will buy the Ford motor car with registration no. XYZ 123. I will buy all the wine in your cellar. I will buy all the grain in the holds of the vessel 'Challenger'." In such cases, Section 17(1) of the Act prescribes that the property is transferred to the buyer when the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred and by virtue of Section 18, Rule 1 of the Act, that will very often be at the time when the contract of sale is made. Therefore, the pre-paying buyer is safe. Even though the goods have not been delivered, they belong to him, and he is protected against the seller's insolvency.
Secondly, at the other extreme, there is the case where the goods are not identified at all except by their description. For example, a buyer says, "I will buy from you 200 standards of good Lithuanian pitch pine", or, "I will buy from you 200 bottles of Beaujolais Villages 1992", and so on. The seller is free to deliver any goods from any source so long as they comply with the description. Here, it is a matter of common sense as well as law that the buyer cannot become the owner of the goods at once since nobody can own something when it is impossible to know what he owns and there is no means of finding out.
Under English law, it is not until identified goods are "appropriated" to the contract that property can pass under a contract of that kind. Until then the pre-paying buyer has no protection and it does not matter what the parties intend. They cannot achieve the impossible. That rule is embodied in Section 16 of the Act.
The third situation, with which this Bill is concerned, is midway between the two extremes. The goods are identified by the contract to the extent that they must come from a fixed and prescribed source—a group of items or a bulk of homogenous goods. The contract does not say

1455
which particular items or which part of the bulk is to be the subject matter of the sale. For example, a buyer says, "I will buy 200 of the bottles of 1992 Beaujolais Villages now in your cellar. I will buy 100 of your sheep now on your farm at Blackacre. I will buy 1,000 tonnes out of the cargo of grain in the holds of the ship 'Challenger'." The vendor's freedom of action is constrained to the extent that he cannot deliver goods from any other than the prescribed source and everyone can tell what that source will be.
But common sense once again dictates that the property in full cannot pass at once. You can look at the field full of sheep and know that among them are the 100 sheep which, when they have been separated, will belong to the buyer. So also will the bottles of wine in the cellar. But until the sheep or the bottles are separated, there is no means of knowing whether a particular sheep in the field or a particular bottle in the cellar has or has not been sold to the buyer. It is that last situation with which the Bill is solely concerned. The proposed legislation has nothing to do with the second situation where the goods are entirely unascertained at the time of the sale.
The Bill sets out to deal with the third situation in two ways. First, it gives statutory force to the existing doctrine of ascertainment by exhaustion. That is only a high-flown way of describing a situation where the stock from which the goods are to be drawn is depleted successively by withdrawals until no more is left than is needed to satisfy the contract of sale in question. So in the case of the 200 bottles of wine sold from the cellar, if the vendor separates and takes away, either for his own use or for delivery for someone else, so many bottles that there are only 200 left, at that moment it becomes possible to say that those bottles must be uniquely the subject matter of the sale.
The common law has long recognised that when that happens, there is no longer any reason why the ownership in them should not then pass to the buyer, if that is what the parties intend. One of the purposes of the Bill is simply to insert that existing piece of common law into the current statutory framework.
By contrast, the second function of the Bill is to introduce a wholly new concept; namely, that on the payment of the whole or part of the purchase price, the buyer becomes a co-owner with others having a claim upon the entire bulk. He still does not own any particular items or any particular part of the bulk but he is able to acquire an immediate undivided share.
That interest as co-owner will prevail in an insolvency and give protection to commercial and private buyers alike. Thus it happens often that persons dealing in commodities will contract to purchase a part of a bulk consignment of goods shipped from overseas. As the law at present stands —and it is a source of resentment to many of our trading partners—a buyer who has agreed to purchase 1,000 tonnes of grain shipped on board a particular vessel will not obtain any proprietary interest in them when the goods are shipped, or when the bill of lading for 1,0000 tonnes is delivered to him, or when he has paid for the goods. He will have to wait until the ship has arrived, the goods have been discharged into warehouse, and his particular portion has become identified, either by his taking physical delivery of it or by the process of exhaustion, which I described. That puts the
1456
buyer at an undesirable disadvantage, both in the case of insolvencies and where certain ancillary rights—such as the right to claim damages in respect of injury to the goods—depends upon his possessing a proprietary interest, The purpose of the new statutory provision is to give the buyer an immediate interest by way of co-ownership from the moment when the bulk of the goods can be identified. A similar benefit will accrue to a private individual who contracts to purchase one or more items out of an identified stock—the bottles out of the cellar—and makes full or partial payment in advance.
Those are the general purposes of the Bill. I can deal quite briefly with the individual provisions. Clause 1 introduces the principal reform. Clause 1(1) provides for the insertion of the words "Subject to section 20A below" at the beginning of Section 16, which, as I said, is the section which provides that the property cannot pass until the goods are ascertained. Apart from the amendment made by Clause 1(1), Section 16 remains in its present form since, for the reasons I gave, the passing of property in unascertained goods is impossible. Moreover, as the purpose of the Bill is to protect the buyer who has paid for the goods before delivery and who may lose both the goods and the price, it will not apply where there is no prepayment.
Clause 1(2) adds a new rule to those presently found in Section 18, recognising the doctrine of "ascertainment by exhaustion". The rule cannot, by its very nature, be applied in cases where the bulk from which the goods are to be taken is never agreed upon by the parties. If one looks at the wording, it can be seen that the new rule is separated into two paragraphs, numbered (3) and (4). Each achieves the same result but the latter paragraph deals with the position of the buyer who has entered into a number of contracts for specified quantities of goods from the identified bulk while the former deals with the buyer who has entered into only one contract. I would add that the new rule will only apply in cases where evidence of the different intention does not appear from the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties or the circumstances of the case.
Clause 1(3) introduces Sections 20A and 20B to the 1979 Act. It is Section 20A that will enable a buyer to acquire an undivided share in an identified bulk when he contracts to purchase and pay for a specified amount of unascertained goods which form part of the bulk. Section 20A(1) makes clear that the contract must be one for the sale of a specified quantity of unascertained goods. That does not include a contract for the sale of a fraction or percentage of goods. Paragraphs (a) and (b) make it clear that at least part of the goods supplied under the contract must form part of an identified bulk. Paragraph (b) also makes clear that the buyer must have paid at least part of the purchase price for the goods. As soon as the bulk is identified and part of the purchase price paid, Section 20A(2) provides that,
"an undivided share in the bulk is transferred to the buyer",
who becomes an "owner in common" of the bulk. Once again, it is made clear that the parties may contract out of the new rule or provide for property in an undivided share to pass at a later stage. The choice is their own.

1457
There are, subsequent to those provisions, certain technical matters of mechanism with which I think, at this late hour, I need not trouble your Lordships in detail. So much for Clause 1 of the main reform.
Clauses 2 and 3 are also concerned with mechanics. Clause 2 introduces a number of additional definitions; for example, a definition of "bulk" and of "delivery". I believe that they speak for themselves.
Then there is a provision concerning the situation where the contract relates to an unsevered share in identified goods, for example, a third share in a yacht. Clause 2 extends the definition of "goods" so as to ensure that a sale on those terms is a sale of goods for the purposes of the Act. As can be seen, Clause 3 contains the short title and commencement provisions of the Bill.
It may appear a dry, technical little piece of academic law reform; but it is not so at all. I respectfully submit to your Lordships that it achieves a valuable, although narrow, commercial purpose. I hope that I have said enough to explain the purpose of the Bill and the simple means adopted to achieve it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mustill.)
8.45 p.m.
Lord Steyn: My Lords, I ask for your indulgence for a few diffident remarks on the wider commercial context in which the proposed amendment to the Sale of Goods Act ought to be seen. The amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Mustill, if passed, will rationalise our trade law in one important area for the benefit of the trading community. I support the amendment. But I should like to go further. It is important that our trade law should in all respects be flexible, attuned to the needs of commerce and responsive to major developments in the international market place.
Our trade law ought to be structured so that our traders are at the very least at no disadvantage and, one hopes, in the best possible position to compete in international markets for sale of goods and services. I am conscious that for a Law Lord to invoke the real world may seem a little incongruous. Indeed, I am reminded of the Law Lord, sitting at a High Table in Oxford, who complained that the press said that he lived in an ivory tower. His response was: "That's nonsense; I go foxhunting every Sunday with ordinary people". Nevertheless, I will attempt to illustrate the broader theme by reference to two other important trade law projects, one very much on the rails and the other, apparently, in a long slumber.
The first project is the new Arbitration Bill. Our existing legislation is of poor quality. It is also inflexible and based on the false premise that arbitration should be modelled on court procedures. I mention three points. The orthodox view is still that arbitrators are bound by the technicalities of the hearsay rule, despite the fact that that rule is now utterly discredited even in civil legal proceedings. Secondly, the received wisdom is still that arbitrators must conduct arbitrations in the adversarial and time-consuming fashion of the courts. That is why arbitrations in this country last much longer than they do
1458
on the Continent. Relying on some experience at the coal face in the Commercial Court, I would say that it is in the public interest that arbitrators should be freed from such technical constraints.
Thirdly, I venture to suggest that, subject to considerations of public policy, businessmen should be allowed to resolve their differences by such procedures as they think fit—whether it be by conciliation, mediation, alternative dispute resolution, arbitration in accordance with the good conscience of the arbitrator or arbitration in accordance with the strict legal rights of the parties. Unfortunately, English law does not at present appear to permit parties to agree on arbitration in accordance with the sense of fairness of the arbitrator. I ask rhetorically, what justification is there for so restricting our businessmen in regard to dispute resolution?
International commercial arbitration is an important subject. It provides a neutral and effective means of dispute resolution. Without it, businessmen would often hesitate to embark on the commercial and political risks in international business transactions. International commercial arbitration facilitates trade. Such arbitrations are also a very significant contributor to the invisible earnings of the City of London.
London is still pre-eminent in that field. But there is no reason to be complacent. The competition for the work is intensifying. It is, therefore, essential that our arbitration law should be rationalised, rendered more flexible and be stated in a readily accessible form. Fortunately, the signs are propitious. A new Arbitration Bill is in an advanced state of preparation. It is being drafted under the supervision of the Department of Industry and Trade and the Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law, now headed by Lord Justice Saville. My understanding is that it might he possible to find parliamentary time for the Arbitration Bill later this year. As it ought to be an uncontroversial measure, I would hope that our trading community will not be disappointed by delay. There is a strong case for early legislation.
The second project is the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 1980, commonly called the Vienna Sales Convention. It was a project of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The convention has nothing to do with international politics: it has everything to do with the promotion of trade. The United Kingdom played a full and constructive role in the drafting sessions and final formulation of the convention. In 1980 the convention was adopted by 60 nations. In 1988 it came into force. Forty-four nations have so far ratified the convention. Those nations include almost all members of the European Community, many Commonwealth countries, including Australia and New Zealand, and the United States. An estimate from UNCITRAL suggests that already one-half of world trade is conducted on the terms of the Vienna Sales Convention. That role of the convention is bound to grow and grow.
What has the response of the United Kingdom been? In 1989 the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultative document on the Vienna Sales Convention. In response, the Law Commission recommended that the United Kingdom should ratify the convention. To date there has been no official announcement.

1459
Your Lordships may think that the right question to ask is: Is it in the best interests of the United Kingdom as a trading nation to ratify the Vienna Sales Convention? If Britannia still ruled the waves, and if our traders could regularly impose English law as the applicable law in international transactions, there would be no pressing need to ratify the convention. But the international marketplace for the sale of goods has changed. For every such transaction in respect of which an English trader is able to insist on English law as the applicable law, there will he one or more where the English trader has to concede the applicability of a foreign legal system. That is particularly the case with the great many foreign state trading corporations.
In many parts of the world national sales regimes are little more than embryonic or skeletal. Exposure to such systems is a substantial business hazard. The Vienna Sales Convention is usually an attractive alternative for both parties. It has the badge of neutrality. Even foreign state trading corporations readily contract subject to such terms. And, if we ratify, those traders who wish to insist on the applicability of English law will be entitled, of course, to contract out.
At present our traders are at a disadvantage in international transactions relating to the sale of goods. Our trade law has fallen behind. It is not sufficiently attuned to the needs of commerce. We have not responded swiftly enough to developments in the international marketplace. It seems to me that the case is made out for an official announcement that the United Kingdom will ratify the convention. In such matters an open mind is a good thing, but it must be capable of eventually shutting.
I have trespassed on your Lordships' time. I leave this subject by reminding your Lordships of what happened to another inept speaker. It was 70 years ago. The scene was a Law Society dinner in Liverpool. The principle guest was the great F. E. Smith. The president of the Law Society spoke. His speech was long; it was also boring. When the speaker sat down he said to F. E. Smith, "How would you have done it?" F. E. Smith replied, "Under an assumed name".
8.54 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in this short debate we have had the benefit tonight of hearing two distinguished lawyers. I will come to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, later in my remarks. First of all I want to say that I very much welcome the Bill. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, in taking up this important issue which is aimed at redressing a serious anomaly in the law, as set out in Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. He has delivered a powerful rationale for introducing this Bill and he has given a clear exposition of the detail as well as the purpose of the Bill. I think that not only we in this House but also those outside will in due course of time be grateful for that.
I do not think that any repetition from me of the arguments in favour of the Bill will improve the situation, notably at this fairly late hour. However, I should like to say that it is patently absurd in the circumstances that were described by the noble and learned Lord that a person may have paid for goods and received a document which seems to give him title to those goods and then finds
1460
himself in a position—I stress, in those particular circumstances—of having no title to those goods at all. That is an issue which is particularly germane as regards insolvency. Both the noble and learned Lords were right in saying that this is not an arcane proposition. It emerges from an anomaly in the law. It is something that is practical and important and I hope that this Bill will be given a good passage and will be enacted soon.
Of course it was the noble and learned Lord himself, I think, in the case of Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd. last year in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council who gave advice which effectively resulted in this Bill—apart from, of course, the work of the Law Commission—coming before your Lordships' House tonight. In that case he described the difficulty of dealing with the passing of property in unascertained goods which, of course, is the purpose that we are considering tonight.
The second merit of this debate has been that we have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, who has chosen the Second Reading of this Bill to make his maiden speech. I hope that he will make many speeches in this House on future occasions. He, of course, has had an extraordinarily distinguished legal career, not simply in this country but earlier in South Africa during times which were extremely sad in that then troubled country. He chose to settle in this country. He commenced practice at the Bar in 1973. He was elevated to Silk in 1979 and became a High Court judge in 1985, a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1992 and a Law Lord earlier this year. I venture to suggest that South Africa's loss has certainly been this country's great gain, He seemed to cast doubt upon whether it was possible for a Member of your Lordships' House who is a Law Lord to live in the real world, but I think he is proof that he very much does.
The comments that the noble and learned Lord made—they were stimulating comments, if I may say so—on wider reform proposals than specifically relating to this Bill, were welcome. He spoke of the need for ratification by the United Kingdom of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980. It was a powerful plea for ratification and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that tonight. Time marches on and it is important that we ratify at an early stage. He also spoke powerfully about the merits of commercial arbitration and welcomed the possibility—I rather gathered a probability—of an arbitration Bill later this year.
This country must never forget that it is a trading nation first and foremost. Its laws affecting trade must always be kept under close scrutiny. I believe that the Bill will take a small but valuable step to keep our law on sale of goods up-to-date and fair. But the Bill does not mean that our vigilance to maintain our laws fully in line with commercial expectation so as best to promote trade with our country can be relaxed. In my judgment, we shall be fortunate to have the benefit of the views of lawyers, and judges of the eminence of the

1461
noble and learned Lords, Lord Mustill and Lord Steyn, to help us on these topics. I give absolutely unqualified support for the Bill from these Benches.
9 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, for his accomplished introduction of the Bill. The ensuing debate has, of course, been embellished by the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn. Although as an undistinguished member of Lincoln's Inn I feel it a trifle incongruous, I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we much look forward to the noble and learned Lord's contributions in future.
The Government wholeheartedly welcome and support the Bill and hope for its early enactment. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, it represents the fruits of extensive work undertaken by the English and Scottish Law Commissions. The commissions have consulted widely on the issues which are dealt with by the Bill. They initially consulted generally on the law relating to the rights to goods in bulk and then undertook a subsequent consultation exercise with insolvency experts and other interested parties on the insolvency aspects of any scheme for the reform of Section 16.
The result of those extensive consultations has been the production of a most worthwhile piece of law reform which will remove what the Law Commissions called "the dangers of the existing law". Those dangers have been excellently explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, and there is little I wish to add.
As all speakers have pointed out, the amendments which the Bill will achieve will be welcomed by traders around the world and should enhance the position of English law, increasing its use as the law chosen to govern commercial contracts. It is, however, worth emphasising that the Bill will not only assist commercial traders. It will have implications for those consumers who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in the position of purchasing goods for a seller who becomes insolvent prior to the delivery of the goods. For example, to use an instance which may be close to the hearts of many noble Lords, an individual may agree to purchase a number of bottles of wine from a wine merchant. He may pay for that wine but delay collecting it or having it delivered, instead requesting the wine merchant to keep it for him in his cellar. If the wine merchant becomes insolvent before the wine's collection or delivery, the purchaser will under the present law lose both his wine and the money he has paid if his wine cannot be ascertained, which will be the case if the bottles are stored in the cellar with other bottles of the same wine. The Bill's provisions will mean that in such circumstances the buyer will in future have a proprietary interest which he can enforce.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, noted, there are two general points relating to the scope of the reform. First, the Bill does not deal with wholly unidentified goods. This includes goods which are part of a seller's general stock. In so far as such goods are concerned, the provisions of the Act as it presently stands will continue to apply. As the Law Commissions explain in their report, it is clearly necessary that the goods should
1462
form part of an identified bulk. Property cannot pass in wholly unascertained goods and the Bill strikes an acceptable balance in this area. Secondly, the reform is confined to a buyer who has paid for goods prior to delivery. Again, this is a sensible way to proceed. The amendment will be sufficient to remedy the injustice for a prepaying buyer who loses both his money and the goods for which he has paid. Where a buyer has not paid for goods prior to their delivery, the existing law will continue to apply. In such a case there is no injustice to be remedied in the present workings of the law.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, raised some points about the arbitration Bill. The Government certainly recognise the importance of improving the law on commercial arbitration to make it more user friendly and acceptable to the business community. User friendliness is of key importance for both domestic and international arbitrations governed by English law. Her Majesty's Government well appreciate that the future international competitiveness of the arbitration industry—a major earner of invisible exports—is at stake. The Department of Trade and Industry, assisted by its departmental advisory committee on arbitration law, is making good progress on a new Bill. Her Majesty's Government recognise the contribution which the noble and learned Lord made as the immediate past chairman of the committee taking this work forward. I can confirm that the Government are committed to introducing the Bill as soon as parliamentary time permits.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, I should like to challenge him about that. There is an overwhelming case on this issue. It is not a Bill which will he challenged, in my respectful submission. The noble and learned Lord made a powerful case, for pragmatic reasons, for early enactment of the legislation. Why do the Government wait? There is surely no problem about it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the case which has been made is one which the Department of Trade and Industry fully recognises. But it would be improper of me to identify to the House an issue which had not been finally determined. However, noble Lords can rest assured that this is a matter on which we are progressing with all the vigour that we can.
The noble and learned Lord also referred to the Vienna Sale of Goods Convention and possible ratification. I can confirm that Her Majesty's Government continue to take an active part in the business of the convention. We shall look most carefully at the reasons which the noble and learned Lord has advanced this evening and bear them in mind in forming our future plans.
Hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, explain the present implications of Section 16 of the 1979 Act, one may wonder why there have been no previous attempts to change the existing position. I think that the stumbling block has always been the vexed question of the division of assets in the event of an insolvency or liquidation. The solution which the Law Commissions propose is, however, one which has the support of interested parties and, it is agreed, strikes an acceptable balance between competing interests.

1463
This Bill is non-controversial. The policy and balance contained in it have obtained the support of commercial parties and I commend the work of the two Law Commissions which has resulted in the Bill which is now before us. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, and other noble Lords, for taking it forward. I trust that with your Lordships' agreement we shall be able to speed this Bill on its way to the statute book.
Lord Mustill: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for expressing the support of the Government for it. It is valuable work and the support of the Government is most heartening to our trading community. The gracious observations of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, are most welcome. The support which he happily gives to measures of law reform such as this—even if they are modest in scope and unspectacular in aspect—is a valuable contribution to the movement for practical law reform.
I am also glad to acknowledge the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, which come from a source of great authority. It is a particular pleasure to acknowledge his contribution because it takes the form of a maiden speech. That speech, if I may say so, manifests the depth of perspective, firmness of opinion and cogency of expression which one would anticipate from my noble and learned friend. In offering my sincere congratulations on his speech, I express not only the hope, which I am confident your Lordships will share, that this House will often hear from him again, but also that the opinions there expressed will attract the notice of the Government and stimulate consideration of further steps along the road beyond the single step which the House is being asked to take today. For the moment, however, I need do no more than commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Financial Services (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
9.9 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the amendment to the Financial Services Act 1986 is to allow the Secretary of State, at his discretion and if he thinks it is in the public interest, to publish any information or report he may receive after an investigation. The amendment would apply to Section 179 of the Act, which deals with investigations into insider dealing.
To a large extent, the right to appoint competent inspectors and the powers which the inspectors have were modelled on the Companies Act 1985, Sections 432 to 437. Those sections allow the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to investigate very serious matters dealing with company fraud, unlawful trading or misconduct towards shareholders. The only difference is that, after an investigation under the Companies Act, the
1464
Secretary of State may, at his discretion, publish all or part of the report. Under the Financial Services Act, he does not have that right.
Looking at the wording of Sections 177 and 178 of the Financial Services Act, it is obvious that they were to a large extent modelled on the wording of Sections 432 to 437 of the Companies Act. There seems to be no obvious reason why the results of an investigation into insider dealing under the Financial Services Act should be clothed in secrecy, whereas the results of investigations under the Companies Act can be published. The matters being investigated can be equally serious.
At this point, let me say that I consider insider dealing to be a very serious offence. It is not a "victimless" crime, as some have suggested. It is, however, a very difficult crime to prove because of its very nature and the secrecy with which it is surrounded by the perpetrators. Therefore, if there is a prima facie case, the Secretary of State is allowed to appoint inspectors who have extensive powers. Those powers are also contained in Sections 177 and 178 of the Financial Services Act 1986.
Of course, this omission could just be a simple error. Those sections of the Financial Services Act were not fully debated and the omission could have just passed unnoticed. If it is an omission, then the Bill will rectify it. If the omission is intentional, then it is mistaken. I believe it is mistaken because it leads to injustice, to trial by the media; it encourages people to try the same trick again and leaves the regulators in ignorance. It also hides the truth.
When the investigations are ordered, the intention is that they are carried out in secret. Evidence is taken under oath and witnesses are not told why they are being questioned. The investigators are usually eminent professionals. In theory, there should be total secrecy. In practice, news leaks out, particularly if those involved are newsworthy, as happened in the Lonrho case, the Maxwell case and the Archer case. Because there is meant to be secrecy, points of fact cannot be confirmed and facts can be invented. Let me give an example. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, and the Anglia Television shares, many people were convinced that there had been insider dealing because of the fact that a fax was sent by Anglia to the home of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, and Lady Archer with details of a board meeting. No such fax was ever sent. It was pure invention by a journalist and the newspaper printed a retraction some days later. As a matter of courtesy, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Archer, about the Bill and he replied that he hoped to get to your Lordships' House to support the Bill. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be here.
It seems that the only way to deal with the speculation and invention is for the Secretary of State to make a clear-cut statement. Just leaving the matter in limbo allows people to draw their own conclusions of guilt or innocence, just because the process of investigation has taken place. If the public then remain ignorant of the outcome of the investigation, there is a clear case of injustice, because surely the purpose of an investigation is to discover the truth. If the investigation becomes public, the Government's very reluctance to make a statement makes it impossible for those investigated to clear their name. Equally, those who have been the victims of insider

1465
dealing will feel left up in the air and only a statement will tell them if they have just cause to feel aggrieved or not. They need to know the truth.
As well as avoiding trial by media and public frustration and dissatisfaction, there is another reason for publishing. Often these investigations cover a grey area which was not anticipated by lawmakers or regulators. The bid for Northern Electric by Trafalgar House is an example. Publishing the results of an investigation will throw light into this grey area and clarify a possible area of sharp practice. At the very least the publicity will ensure that somebody else does not try the same trick again, and regulators will be alerted to watch out in future. These are the obvious advantages of openness and transparency. There will also be some benefits to the public for the costs incurred.
I believe in fairness in the regulation of financial services as in all other sectors of business and industry. There should also be public accountability and protection of the public interest. By having the right to publish a report, the Secretary of State can ensure that there is fairness both to those being investigated and to those who are victims of insider dealing. The right to publish also enables the Secretary of State to act in the public interest by opening the matter to scrutiny and inspection. Publishing is an act of natural justice; it is an act of being in touch with public opinion.
With the permission of the House, I wish to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has unavoidably been called away.
I commend this Bill as a small contribution to openness and fairness in the nation's business life. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a second time.— (Lord Haskel.)
9.16 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Haskel has done the House, and indeed the country, a service by identifying this particular area of the law which gives rise to a clear anomaly which requires rectification. As he explained, the Bill simply enables the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to publish a report under Section 179 of the Financial Services Act where, in effect, he deems it appropriate and in the public interest so to do. It places such reports on a comparable basis to those issued pursuant to the Companies Act 1985. It does not oblige the Secretary of State to publish; it simply gives him an opportunity to do so—an opportunity that is substantially denied to him under the Financial Services Act, save in the limited circumstances upon which I shall touch in a moment.
As my noble friend pointed out, minds were concentrated on this point as a result of the Government's extraordinary, confusing, inconsistent, self-defeating and somewhat discreditable behaviour, and indeed unclear conduct, in relation to the allegations of insider dealing in Anglia Television shares last July. It was not a moment when the DTI could claim that it had covered itself with glory. When I refer to the DTI, I mean Ministers at the DTI. After all, they themselves broke the law. I hope,
1466
therefore, that this evening we shall not hear too much about the Government's respect for the law. I shall refer to that point in recapitulating the position briefly.
On 8th July last year, a series of announcements were made concerning this case by the DTI's press office. That morning—I read it in the newspaper and I pursued it then —a press release was issued indicating that the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare had been involved in an inquiry into allegations of insider dealing. It was a preliminary inquiry, not a final report. Within hours, it was alleged by the department that Anglia Television had itself named the noble Lord, Lord Archer, as having been involved in the inquiry.
Following vehement denials by Anglia Television of having divulged any such information, the DTI retracted the charge. It then insisted that it had been impelled to issue the statement because a representative of a newspaper had telephoned the DTI's press office and said, "This is the information that we have received. Can you confirm that it is correct?" Instead of saying—as I and my services have done on not dissimilar occasions when I was responsible for company investigations during the Labour Government—that the law proscribes any such publication and that if the newspaper concerned chose to publish the information, it would face prosecution, the DTI simply capitulated; and it must have capitulated on the basis of ministerial decision.
So I now invite the House to consider the absurd reasons that were given for that decision. In answer to a Question that I raised in the House on 22nd July last, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"The simple fact of this case—and all these matters are deeply unpleasant"—
you can say that again—
"—is that representatives of the newspaper telephoned the press office and said, 'This is the information we have received. Can you confirm that it is correct" If we confirm it, it becomes unpleasant; if we equivocate, it is the equivalent of a cover-up, with all the row that ensues thereafter. That is the reason it was considered appropriate in the public interest to confirm the fact".—[Official Report, 22/7/94; col. 471.]
There is not a word there about saying that if the newspaper published, it could and would be subject to prosecution.
When I raised with the noble Earl that specific point, he replied that,
"it is not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and its press department to inform people whether or not they are committing a criminal offence".
What an extra ordinary proposition that is. The Government will say next that it is not the job of the police to warn a member of the public that in certain circumstances he might be committing a criminal offence. The Department of Trade and Industry is in a regulatory and supervisory role here. Of course it is its duty to say, if an offence appears likely to be committed, that the most stringent, draconian measures will be taken to uphold the law. I hope that tonight the Minister will not be put in the position of saying that this Government have regard for the law, because they do not. They were found out on that occasion.

1467
The truth is that the law does not permit names to be published. The Government themselves broke the law. No name should have been revealed. If the Government take issue with me on that point, I shall ask under what statutory authority they acted in revealing the noble Lord's name on that occasion.
The reason for the rule is that a preliminary inquiry, whether under the Financial Services Act or the Companies Act, makes no findings of impropriety. At that stage the persons involved have had no opportunity to put their case. So it follows that to divulge names is grossly unfair. In that case, the Government achieved the worst of all worlds.
There is power, as my noble friend pointed out, that under the Financial Services Act a report can be published following a full inquiry by inspectors in very limited circumstances; namely, by obtaining the consent of the parties to the inquiry. Yet, in this case, where the Government themselves had departed from the rules of confidentiality at the early stage to which I referred the DTI made no attempt to ascertain from the noble Lord, Lord Archer, whether he would have consented to publication. However, I have reason to believe that he would have had no objection to that course being followed. So why did the Secretary of State not make that simple inquiry? What did he have to hide?
The Government say that, taken in its generality, it would be wrong to depart from a precedent that they themselves had established. I believe it to be a doubtful precedent. My noble friend argued earlier that the question of publication of reports is not an issue which was debated in either House of Parliament. Perhaps that was an omission, but I do not believe it to be so. It casts strong doubts on the Government's claim that they welcome transparency. It is the very converse of transparency. Yet what has happened in this case, and no doubt in others, involves a leading politician in this country and a Member of this House. The public's anxieties about what happened will have no chance of being allayed if the Government stand where they have stood for months on this matter.
What arguments can be canvassed against the Bill? First, let me underline the point made by my noble friend that the issue of publication of reports under the Financial Services Act, as I said before, was not canvassed. I should like to know why the Government are so determined that it should not be canvassed now.
The Financial Services Act deals exclusively with insider dealing, which is a serious criminal offence, as my noble friend said. It is therefore different, some would say, from reports issued following Companies Act investigations. Is that really the case or is it not a misleading proposition? It is certainly a proposition that I have heard argued. Inquiries under the 1985 Companies Act can investigate aberrant behaviour of companies, directors and other officers of companies which may or may not be criminal. Obviously, if a report or interim report leads to prosecution it is usually the case, though not always, that publication would not precede prosecution.
1468
The second argument sometimes adduced is that Companies Act inquiries are also concerned with recommendations to fill gaps in the law revealed by the case and the report in question. Surely the same must apply to the Financial Services Act.
The third argument that I have heard used is that it is wrong to publish information pursuant to a Financial Services Act inquiry because it might assail the integrity of an individual when no prosecution follows. Of course, that is not consistent with what the Government permitted in the case concerning Anglia TV and, indeed, in another case in 1988. In any event, the argument does not hold water; exactly the same may be said of a report issued under the 1985 Companies Act.
As has been said before, the scope of the Bill is limited. It does not compel publication; it does not force the hand of the Secretary of State; it does not automatically remove confidentiality. It enables the Secretary of State to publish where he considers it appropriate and in the public interest so to do. That is fair; it is equitable. It accords with the public interest in a way that is ignored by the present law. If that is not done, what will happen is what happened in the case involving the noble Lord, Lord Archer; we will have a flurry of speculation, rumour and gossip which is really the enemy of a good political society.
Transparency is usually better than secrecy—though there may be circumstances, I concede entirely, where the Secretary of State may say that he cannot publish in certain circumstances. He would then be accountable to the House instead of the present situation where he hides behind this veil of secrecy and says, "I have no power to do it". In fact, the Prime Minister, in answer to Questions on this matter, did not even recognise that there was a power, in certain circumstances, to publish even under the inadequate provisions of the Financial Services Act.
I believe it to be in the interests of the City that we should remove this anomaly. It is in the interests of good government to do so. I conclude on this note: one of the matters that the Government insisted on, as I read out from the Official Report of 22nd July, is that they had to break the law themselves because they were afraid of allegations of a cover up. That is precisely the view the public will take about the Government's behaviour in this instance. Here we have an opportunity in this House and, I trust, in another place, to deal with the situation properly. I hope that the Minister will come forward with a positive response.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate that has taken place this evening. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on bringing the Bill forward and I thank the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House.
I must say at the outset that if the Bill were to become law it would, in the Government's view, hinder rather than assist the process of detection and prosecution of insider dealing offences.
I should like to begin with the existing law and procedures. Section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 provides that, if it appears to the Secretary of State

1469
that there are circumstances suggesting that an offence under the insider dealing legislation may have been committed, he may appoint inspectors,
"to carry out such investigations as are requisite to establish whether or not any such contravention has occurred".
The appointed inspectors have powers to require any person who they believe has relevant information to produce documents and to give evidence to them. The primary purpose of the reports such inspectors produce is to enable the Secretary of State to consider whether to institute a criminal investigation or to pass the information to those bodies responsible for considering regulatory action. Accordingly, they typically detail the facts as they have found them. They express opinions on such matters as the state of knowledge and possible motives of those investigated and they offer an opinion on whether offences have been committed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, himself pointed out, the wording of the Bill relies heavily on the wording of Section 437(3) of the Companies Act 1985 governing the disclosure and publication of reports of company inspections under Section 432. In fact the role of the Companies Act inspectors is quite different from that of Financial Services Act inspectors appointed to investigate possible insider dealing. Financial Services Act inspectors are charged with uncovering whether or not an offence may have been committed and by whom. By contrast the task of Companies Act inspectors is to investigate and report on "the affairs of a company" rather than the activities of particular individuals. The task of Companies Act inspectors is to uncover and report the facts in cases where there may have been considerable public and shareholder concern. Their primary function is thus to set out the relevant facts in a report which can be published. It is not their job specifically to consider whether criminal offences may have been committed. Indeed, where the work of Companies Act inspectors reveals possible offences, the legislation provides that the Secretary of State may pass information that they provide to him to an appropriate prosecution authority and direct the inspectors to take no further action.
There was no doubt in your Lordships' minds about the need for different disclosure regimes for insider dealing and Companies Act inspections when the Financial Services Bill was considered in the House in July 1986. I should particularly like to refer to the comments of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, reported in Hansard on 29th July 1986, where he specifically addressed himself to this matter. Talking about the inspector, he said that his reports would not be published. Indeed, concern was expressed then that the Bill might not contain sufficient safeguards for individuals who might be damaged by such reports. The House sought and received an assurance from the then Minister that the inspectors' task would be to establish facts in a straightforward way and that their reports would never be published.
There were good reasons for opposing publication of such reports then and those reasons still apply today. First, it would make it more difficult for the inspectors to obtain evidence that an offence had been committed.
1470
Although inspectors have compulsory powers to require co-operation from any person they consider may be able to give information concerning the case, witnesses would be less forthcoming in their responses to questions if they knew that publication of the report was an option. Secondly, it would delay the progress of inspections considerably.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why are they likely to be any less forthcoming in giving evidence on these issues than witnesses in Companies Act investigations? Precisely the same situation arises. They go through a very similar process. What is the essential difference in principle?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I have already explained, we are talking about two slightly separate things. In the context of these investigations, we believe for the reason I have given that on balance it is inappropriate to do so. It would delay the progress of inspections considerably.
Inspectors have a duty to act fairly. It is for the inspectors themselves, in the light of their knowledge of a particular case, to decide what is required of them in order that they act fairly. It is, however, inevitable that, if the results of their investigations were likely to be published, they would wish to engage in greater consultation than at present with those whom they were minded to criticise. Our experience is that fairness procedures of this sort in Companies Act inspections, when reports are usually published, typically extend the time an inspection takes to complete by as much as 12 months. In the case of the average insider dealing inspection, this would double, or more than double, the length of time spent on the investigation.
Thirdly, the prosecution of insider dealing offences—a difficult enough matter already—would become even more difficult. Potential defendants would be forewarned, long in advance of any trial, of the case likely to be made against them. Trials already delayed by inevitably protracted inspections would have to be delayed still further to ensure that potential jurors were not prejudiced by anything they might have seen on television or read in the newspapers concerning the contents of the report.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry, but this is an important issue. We are dealing with an important Bill and the Minister must be clear. If in fact there was to be a prosecution, then presumably the report would not be published. If there were no prosecution, a totally different circumstance arises. The Minister is saying here that the reason why they do not publish the report is that a prosecution will ensue and therefore it would all be very unfair. The Minister misses the point altogether.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, no, that is not the case. When the process begins, nobody can know where it will lead to. As the matter proceeds, things develop in turn. I do not believe that in this context the noble Lord's criticism is really appropriate.
Such delay might in turn lead to injustice as witnesses' memories faded. After all, these cases largely depend on recollections and the intention to commit an insider dealing offence is rarely committed to paper. In

1471
any event we would expect applications made by the defence concerning these issues to add to the length of trials.
Finally, in cases where inspectors' reports did not lead to proceedings, those named would inevitably suffer as a result —in some cases through "trial by press". I should like to take a moment to expand on this.
It is entirely proper that, when inspectors conclude that an offence has been committed and the lawyers in the Department of Trade and Industry and, where appropriate, independent counsel conclude that there is a realistic prospect of conviction in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the matter should proceed to a criminal investigation and be tried in court. It is in that forum that the facts will be exposed, tested and commented on by both prosecution and defence. Of course, they then go into the public domain.
If, on the other hand, the inspectors conclude that an offence was not committed or if the evidence is, in the opinion of the inspectors, department lawyers and independent counsel, insufficient to secure a conviction, then I invite your Lordships to conclude that it is unjust for the reputation of the individual concerned to be jeopardised by publication of the report.
Reference was made to the so-called Archer case. I should like to put on record and firmly refute the suggestion that any law was broken by the DTI. It is normal practice that the appointment of an inspector is not announced at the time when it is made. However, announcement is considered if it is in the public interest; for example, if public officials are thought to be involved or there has already been publicity for an investigation and it is judged appropriate in the circumstances that the existence of the investigation should be acknowledged. That is what happened in the case referred to.
For all the reasons I have given, the Government consider that legislation to provide for the publication of insider dealing reports would be unhelpful to the detection and prosecution of insider dealing offences. I should like to join with noble Lords opposite in saying that we too consider these to be very serious offences, let there be no doubt about that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry. The Minister has said that he refutes what I say and that all the Department of Trade and Industry did was to indicate that an inquiry had been set up. That is not simply what happened. What happened was that on the 8th July the noble Lord, Lord Archer, was specifically mentioned. That is why I say there was a breach of the law by the Government and the Minister must deal with that point. Why was the noble Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned and under what statutory authority was he mentioned specifically by name?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I merely reiterate that we do not believe that there was any breach of the law
1472
on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry at that time. I do not wish to go into the matter further at this point.
When prosecutions do not follow inspectors' reports, prosecution could be unfair to those on whom suspicion has fallen. Therefore, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that the Government will be unable to support the Bill, but I shall not oppose its Second Reading.
9.39 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for taking part in this short debate. Noble Lords, particularly on this side of the House, know that we are very short of assistance in these matters and those who work in the House are very hard pressed. We on this side of the House rely on voluntary help from outside the House, and I am most grateful for the assistance I have received, particularly from Lucy Moorman, who helped to draft the Bill and who did some of the background research.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis told us about the follies of secrecy. The purpose of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State flexibility. If there is to be a prosecution, he does not need to publish the report. The Act assumes that there will be secrecy. If the matter comes out and is reported in the press, the Minister is free to report what the investigators have said and, in that way, the whole matter is cleared up. Unless that happens, the whole thing is left in limbo.
By not supporting the Bill, the Minister is showing that he is out of touch with public opinion because I am sure that public opinion would like the Minister to have the flexibility to report the facts.
I also think that the Minister is making a basic error. The purpose of an investigation under the Finance Act is to discover the truth. The Minister's error is to confuse that with the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings, which is an entirely different matter. Sir Richard Scott made that very point last night when defending his inquiry into the arms to Iraq case. The same argument applies here. I beg the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

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

Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.