Lords Sitting of 17 December 1997

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act,
Supreme Court (Offices) Act,
Scottish Agricultural College Order Confirmation Act.

Student Loans
Lord Tope Lord Tope asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether students will be in receipt of loans before they are asked to pay tuition fees in the academic year beginning in October 1998.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, student loans are intended to help students meet their living costs, and not their tuition fees. In 1998–99 eligible students will be able to apply for loans from the first day they attend their course. The Student Loans Company pays over 99 per cent. of loans within 21 days of receiving an application form.
The amount which students and their families are expected to contribute towards tuition fees will be income-related. Where the assessed contribution is less than £1,000 the balance will be paid direct to the student's university or college by his or her local education authority.
Where the local authority is not meeting the full fee, the student or his or her parents or spouse will be expected to meet the balance. Additional loans for living costs are being provided so that the total contribution expected towards fees and living costs will not be any higher in real terms than the current contribution towards living costs. We have asked universities and colleges to be sensitive in collecting fees—for example, by allowing students to pay in instalments.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I am of course aware of the purpose of student loans. Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anxiety among many students that they will need a loan in order to pay the tuition fees, either because of some parental inability or unwillingness to do so or some other delay? What steps will the
618
Minister's department be able to take to reassure students who are anxious about the position they will face next autumn?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We are aware that there is anxiety. However, we feel that it is misplaced, since no parents will have to pay any more in combined maintenance support and tuition fees than they pay at present. We expect those parents who can afford to pay to do so, just as under the existing scheme we expect parents to maintain their children who are at university when they can afford to do so.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords. what provision is the department making for those students who apply and whose parents refuse to help them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I have just said. We expect parents who can afford to contribute towards the tuition costs of their children at university to do so, just as at present we expect them to contribute towards maintenance costs. No parents will have to pay any more than they do under the present scheme. We believe that it is right that parents should take their parental responsibilities seriously and support their children in higher education.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has not answered the question put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor? It is a very serious point. Unfortunately, some parents regard an 18 year-old as an adult and are not prepared to pay further contributions towards his or her education. That is not a view that I accept, but it is a fact of life. The noble Baroness has outlined very complicated arrangements. This is a very serious matter for students applying to university; it would be helpful if she would explain in more detail exactly what is to happen.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I took some time in my initial response to set out what will happen. I am trying to be as helpful as I can by explaining it in some detail, since I am perfectly aware that the matter is quite complex and there is some misunderstanding. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness—I am sure that she will remember this—that, under the Government in which she served as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science, as it then was, she expected parents to contribute to the maintenance of their children at university. We expect exactly the same. If parents refuse to contribute, their children will have to take out a loan through the banks, just as they do at present. The point I am trying to get across is that no parent will have to pay any more than under the existing scheme, so there should not be more parents who are not contributing. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in her Answer my noble friend explained that contributions will be

619
income related. Will she explain to the House what assessment will be made of income, and in what sense contributions will be related to that income?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, exactly the same scheme will be in place for the assessment of income as is currently in place. There will be no changes to that.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I wish to ask a simple question. Are the Government, and is the Minister, satisfied with a policy which is intended to increase student numbers but which results in falling applications, particularly from poorer families nationwide, to many universities? Is the Minister satisfied that the policy will enable poorer children to go to university without restriction?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. There is no evidence that young people from low income homes will not continue to apply for university places. We are making the new tuition fee means-tested; it is income-contingent. So 30 per cent. of young people from lower income homes will not pay the fee and another 30 per cent. will only have to make a contribution towards the fee.
We feel that it is right that we should all ensure that young people from backgrounds where there is no tradition of going to university or where the income is low have the means not to be in any way affected by the tuition fee.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the Minister acknowledged that there is widespread anxiety, even though she feels that it is misplaced. I ask her again what steps she or her department intend to take to reassure students, to convince them, their parents and others that the anxiety is misplaced, if it is.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have already issued literally thousands of leaflets which have gone to all potential university students in schools and colleges, all second year A-level students. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also sent a letter to all those students explaining the system and, I hope, dealing with misplaced fears about it. We have advertised on radio, but not on television; we have a hotline to the Department for Education and Employment; and we have received over 20,000 telephone calls on that hotline, for which we provided information. In addition, the CVCP and SCOP have provided further advice, as has UCAS.

Head Teachers: Professional Qualification
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements being made for the national professional qualification for headship.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, good leadership is essential to school success and our head teachers are
620
at the heart of delivering this Government's agenda for raising standards. We welcome the work done by the Teacher Training Agency in developing the national professional qualification for headship. Last Thursday I placed on the record that, subject to further development and continued positive feedback from the pilot, we expect the NPQH to be the required qualification for all first-time heads under the provisions in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill now before your Lordships' House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the quality of a head teacher is crucial to the success of a school? Can she therefore say in general terms what the training will cover? Will it include an assessment of personal qualities—although I accept that that can be a difficult task—the principles of management and a comprehensive knowledge of education administration? Will the scheme include provision for supply cover for any teachers who go on to head teacher training courses?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may start with the last point raised by my noble friend. We are currently considering the rules covering standards fund expenditure and reviewing the maximum of 20 per cent. of central funding that may at present be used for supply cover.
As regards the nature of the course, a great deal of it will be school-based, so that teachers who wish to obtain training for headship will not have to be released from their schools, apart from for the occasional day. There will be training on Saturdays and in school holidays.
All those who become candidates for the training will go through an initial needs assessment to look at which modules they will need to complete and to assess what kind of training they have already done. It will cover all the points which my noble friend raised, as well as something called "strategic accountability".
Lord Quirk: My Lords, has the Minister become aware of rumours that primary teachers will not get such easy access to headship training as teachers in secondary schools? If that is correct, could she ensure that primary teachers, who most certainly will be needed for headships, get every encouragement to go forward for training?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, raised an important issue. There are far more primary schools than secondary schools; therefore there are far more primary heads than secondary heads. It is absolutely vital that they should have equal access to training for headships. Because of the Government's new agenda for school standards, we are giving top priority to achieving our targets for literacy and numeracy in primary schools, so we need very well-trained primary heads. However, I shall ensure that

621
the noble Lord's concern is drawn to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for school standards. I have not heard the rumours.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the Minister able to say whether the national professional qualification includes any educational training in the area of spiritual and moral development?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I understand it, this is a training in management, administration and leadership rather than in those areas which specifically relate to curriculum matters. I am not aware that there is a specific module for the area, but I shall take the right reverend Prelate's concern back and find out whether any consideration is being given to it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the point the Minister made was that it would be obligatory for those wishing to be head teachers to go on the course. Perhaps she will confirm that. If that is the case, how will it be possible to determine who will go on it? There are the many teachers in primary schools referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and unless there are many places, they will not get on a course for a long time.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have no intention of making the course mandatory in the first instance. We shall be building it up over several years to avoid just the kind of problem to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred. Eventually we want it to be a mandatory qualification so that all head teachers are well prepared for the enormously challenging and difficult tasks that they face in our schools.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will those who are appointed as assessors possess adequate substantial, successful and relevant teaching experience?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. My noble friend raises an important question. A number of those who will be involved in providing the training will be high quality, successful, serving head teachers. Some of them will be LEA trainers and will have a great deal of experience in training people in local education authorities. But it is vital that those who are involved in what is sometimes called "teaching the teachers" are of good quality and have the relevant experience.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister state the Government's attitude to the cardinal principle raised by the right reverend Prelate?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But I can say without difficulty that the Government are absolutely committed to that aspect of the curriculum and believe
622
that all young people should be exposed to moral, social and spiritual training or education within their school experience.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us any more about "strategic responsibility"? For instance, how does that compare with tactical responsibility in a head teacher?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I did not quite pick up my noble friend's comparison with what is defined in the new training as "strategic accountability". It is important that head teachers are accountable to their governing bodies and to the mission and strategy that their governing bodies set down for their schools. It is important that they have a broad sense of the objectives that they seek to achieve.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness feels, as I do, that she has had some valuable contributions from her noble friends as well as my noble friends. In view of her answers, is she prepared to put more flesh on the skeletal Bill that she presented to the House so that we can consider the details of the head teachers' course rather than the vague recommendations contained in the Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is not appropriate, after 16 minutes of Starred Questions, for me to go into great detail about the Bill. That is difficult to do. However, later we will do our best to do so.
Lord Howell: My Lords, recognising the need for the management of a curriculum in most of our schools, and bearing in mind the importance of literacy and numeracy, will this course also have regard to the fact that some subjects which ought to be included, such as physical education, are not now finding their rightful place? Will this course ensure that they do?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, once again I should say that this is a course to prepare head teachers for their leadership responsibilities. Part of that responsibility is to make absolutely sure that the national curriculum, and other parts of the curriculum that are regarded as essential to the successful education of young people, are properly covered in their schools.

EU Financial Management: Scrutiny
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will recommend to the Council of Ministers concerning the Court of Auditors' refusal to provide a positive global assurance as to the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the payments out of European Community funds for the year ended 31st December 1996.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, improving financial management of the Community budget is a

623
priority area for the Government, as we made clear in our manifesto. The European Court of Auditors' report is a powerful tool in the fight to improve financial management and reduce fraud. The Government will use the opportunities which the UK presidency of the European Union will provide to carry forward this agenda. In particular, the Government will preside over the annual budget discharge procedure. That will give us the opportunity to ensure that discussion of the report in Council focuses on key issues and on achieving real improvements. In addition, the Government will continue to support the Commission's SEM (sound and efficient management) 2000 initiative on improving financial management. This has already produced a real output in the form of clarifications of what constitutes eligible expenditure.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that Article 188c of the Maastricht Treaty gave the Court of Auditors responsibility for the first time to report, among other things, on the legality and propriety of various items of expenditure in the Community budget. For the past two years—the coming year will be the third year—the Court of Auditors declined to provide that certificate, even though the original requirement for its provision was claimed as being part of the game, set and match win we achieved in Maastricht.
What are the Government going to do about that? The amount at issue is estimated by the Court of Auditors to be £2.81 billion—I repeat, "billion"—of which the United Kingdom's share would be £340 million. That is not peanuts. There is no point in the Government expostulating about this. What are they going to do about it? We are a member of the European Council which is a superior body to the Council of Ministers and can in fact do what it wishes. What is the noble Lord going to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in The Hunting of the Snark the Bellman had the principle that,
"What I tell you three times is true".
When my noble friend asks me the same question three times, it does not make it any more relevant and does not disqualify what I have already said. Not only Members of your Lordships' House but every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows that Article 188c of the Maastricht Treaty has the effect described by my noble friend.
I described in my original Answer the action which the Government intend to take in their role as UK president. That relates not only to fraud, which is one part of the problems which the Court of Auditors identified, but also to the other substantive errors which usually refer to differences of opinion between the Court and the Commission in relation to the interpretation of the rules on eligibility. Both of those issues will be attacked vigorously during the UK presidency. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already visited
624
the Court of Auditors to discuss what we are going to do. As far as I am aware, that is the first time in living memory that that has happened.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his desire to eliminate fraud in European Union affairs. He asks what should be done. Would not the better and more effective answer be to give greater power to the various authorities within the European Union to make it more of a federal authority dealing with these matters over and above the national governments which conceal many of the frauds?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an invitation to a much wider debate than I am prepared to undertake today. A large part of the 5.4 per cent.—£3 billion—to which my noble friend referred relates to failings in administration of the common agricultural policy. It is that in particular with which we are keen to deal. That is what the Agenda 2000 programme, which we shall be vigorously supporting, aims to attack.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a federal organisation would not make things better? It would make them worse because they would be far more difficult to control. Is he also aware that I am extremely encouraged by what he said in regard to the Government's attitude towards fraud. After all, we are the second largest contributor. Can he say what the Government will do to make sure that the Mafia does not move further into the financial affairs of the EC, particularly in relation to the common agricultural policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was right, I think, to refuse to go into the issue of a federal Europe in response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. As far as concerns the Mafia, I assume that my noble friend is referring to criminal elements more widely. A great change is taking place in the common agricultural policy. There is less reliance now on support for goods in transit and on export refunds, and more reliance, quite properly, on payments directly to farms. That means that some of the areas where criminal elements had an opportunity to pillage the common agricultural funds no longer exist.

Terrorism
3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What organisations and individuals based in the United Kingdom are known to be funding or otherwise aiding terrorism outside the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it would not be prudent to make specific allegations against individuals or organisations before there is

625
sufficient evidence to set in hand a criminal prosecution, deportation or exclusion. Countering the activities of those who may be seeking to assist terrorism outside the United Kingdom is a high priority for the police and the Security Service. Any credible information or intelligence is investigated. If this yields evidence that organisations or individuals are supporting terrorism, action is taken under the criminal law or under Immigration Act powers.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I recognise the sensitivity. However, this matter reflects badly on the United Kingdom. How extensive is the problem? Can the Minister say how many allegations have been received by his department or specialist agencies so far this year? Will the Government draw up a list of deemed terrorist organisations; and if so, how would inclusion be determined?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I absolutely reject the contention that anything to do with the fight against international terrorism reflects badly on this Government. The Home Secretary made an announcement in October that a consultation paper is being put out to deal with international terrorism. We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the most helpful report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd; and we propose to introduce anti-terrorism legislation. There is some virtue in having a list. The United States has a list. There are some deficiencies in that approach because as soon as one lists or denominates certain organisations, they re-form—sometimes under different names. That is something we are considering. It cannot be in doubt that the Government are determined, as were their predecessor, to fight international terrorism.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that certain governments—particularly the Egyptian Government—have made specific allegations about named individuals in this country who they claim are actively promoting terrorism of the type which concluded with the massacre of tourists in Luxor? Has he received any such representations, some of them in public?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, representations are made at different levels to Her Majesty's Government. If those representations are made, the law must take its course, as with all other allegations of criminal conduct. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, either the criminal law is engaged or the Home Secretary uses his powers of deportation or exclusion. That is the proper way to deal with these matters.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that there is anxiety about this matter. We certainly look forward to seeing the White Paper when it is published. As the nature of terrorism has certainly changed during the past 20 or 30 years, will he also look at our international obligations and
626
whether the laws in a number of countries can be harmonised a little, as indeed was the case a few years ago when hijacking was at its height and we harmonised practice between the G7 countries? Can the White Paper consider that aspect of the matter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is something we are presently considering and comes from a particularly informed source. What we are doing—as the Home Secretary said in the Statement which I repeated to your Lordships' House—is looking at our present anti-terrorism legislation. It is piecemeal. One of its deficiencies is that it is focused too closely on the threat from Irish terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, rightly says that terrorism changes. International crime changes. We are determined to co-operate with our international partners in this fight, which is of interest to all civilised regimes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that complaints have been made by embassies and high commissions regarding the diversion of moneys collected ostensibly for charitable purposes to the acquisition of weapons by terrorists abroad? Notwithstanding the fact that the Charity Commissioners have powers to investigate the diversion of funds for unlawful purposes overseas, does he not agree that those have been very sparingly used and that his department might encourage the Charity Commissioners to expand their efforts in this direction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that indication will be transmitted. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that the question of fundraising, under whatever umbrella, for acts of terrorism anywhere in the world is a matter specifically addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in paragraph 13.30 of his excellent report. It is something the Home Secretary is presently considering.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the problems here comes from people who abuse our asylum-seeking system? They get asylum here and then promptly use the hospitality of this country to direct terrorism via e-mail and so on back to their home countries. If the Minister is saying that the Government are looking to tighten up the procedures and rules surrounding the granting of asylum to people like that, I assure him that he will have the support of this side of the House in contrast to the lack of support we had when we were in government from the then Opposition.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what a shame! I was just about to commend the noble Lord for his statesmanlike approach. And then he went and spoilt it! The Home Secretary has made it plain that we intend to bring forward legislation to make it unlawful to conspire

627
in the United Kingdom to commit terrorist acts abroad. That remains the proper policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Welfare of Pigs (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the health and welfare of pigs. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Ceremony of Introduction: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Berkeley

L. Denham,

L. Elis-Thomas,

B. Hamwee,

B. Lockwood,

L. Marsh (Chairman),

B. Wilcox;

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out; and
That the committee do meet on Tuesday 13th January at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the third report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I draw attention to paragraph 3 of the report: the use of House of Lords' crested stationery. Noble Lords are entitled to use this stationery free of charge. However, as it comes at not inconsiderable cost to your Lordships' House, and so to the taxpayer, guidelines were drawn up in 1993 to encourage Peers to use
628
stationery sparingly. Those are set out in paragraph 3. Recently, the amount of this stationery supplied to Peers has been increasing at a notable rate, and the practice of using crested paper and envelopes for rough notes and speeches has become widespread. So I urge Members to bear in mind the expense of providing this paper and encourage noble Lords to restrict their use of it to the more formal purposes mentioned.
Moved, That the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 49).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Sub-Committee membership
Lord Burnham was appointed to the Refreshment Sub-Committee in the place of Lord Chesham.
2. Seating in the Chamber
The Committee agreed, for a trial period, that the Hansard reporters should be moved to the Peers' Married Daughters' Box to allow extra space to be created for disabled Peers. This arrangement will be reviewed before the 1998 summer recess.
3. Use of Stationery
The Committee draws the attention of the House to the following guidelines for the use of House of Lords' stationery which were agreed in 1993:

"House of Lords' stationery may be used for all correspondence relating to the work of the House, including the work of all-party committees;

House of Lords' stationery may be used for personal correspondence in modest quantities, but should not be used for circulars, correspondence of organisations (except those of an essentially parliamentary nature) or business letters."

The Committee also reminds Lords that red crested House of Lords' stationery should be used only for correspondence and not for speeches or rough notes, for which a range of other paper of lesser quality is available.
4. Palace of Westminster fire compartmentation
The Committee approved as part of the fire compartmentation programme a proposal to install near the top of the Peers' Staircase a door similar to those at the beginning of the West Front corridor and next to the Clerk of the Parliaments' Office.
5. Mail Service
The Committee agreed that from 1st January all unstamped mail left with the Attendants for posting, other than to destinations within the Parliamentary Estate or served by the Interdepartmental Despatch Service (IDS), should not he franked. In cases where the sender can be identified the letter will be returned to them; if the sender cannot be identified the letter will be placed in an open box in a prominent position in the Attendants' Mail Room in the Peers' Lobby.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may use this occasion to ask the Chairman of Committees whether something could be done to improve the quality of the gum on the envelopes.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for introducing the report. With reference to paragraph 2, I think we all accept that it will be a useful experiment to relocate the Hansard reporters to the Peers' Married Daughters' Box. That will provide extra accommodation for wheelchairs, which we all agree is very important. Can the Chairman of

629
Committees advise us where the Peers' married daughters will be seated should they wish to attend and listen to your Lordships' debates?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that unmarked paper is no longer available? Many people would look for it and use it if it were there.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may first try to deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about gum on envelopes. Not for the first time for someone appearing at the Dispatch Box, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asks a very sticky question.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the advantage of it is that the noble Lord proposes to use envelopes not for notes, but in the way in which they should be used. On that point I commend him most warmly. I do not know what can be done about it, but I shall certainly look into it and see whether I can seal the matter on his behalf. I have noticed that elsewhere some envelopes have a very pleasant taste. The noble Lord might feel that that is an aspect which could be beneficially looked into as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked about the temporary relocation of the Hansard reporters in the Peers' Married Daughters' Box. I stress that this is for an experimental period only in the first place, subject to review later on in the Session. While the Hansard reporters are occupying that place, Peers' married daughters will be accommodated in the area below Bar which is occupied by Peeresses or the spouses of noble Lords. Should there be any occasion when that area was completely full, then they would be located upstairs. But there is no doubt at all that a place will be found for any who require it.
As regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, I am told that rough paper is available. There is lined and unlined paper available and also continuation sheets. Although it is of the same quality as the crested paper, it is considerably less expensive than the printed paper. I can see the noble Lord shaking his head. He has much more doubt about the availability than I am given to understand exists. I shall certainly look into the matter and if there is a need to take action, I shall see that it is taken urgently.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rented Housing
3.13 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to the case for more rented housing in both the public and private sectors; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, people may ask why I have decided to opt for a debate on housing. I believe that it is two years since we had a debate of any
630
substance on housing. On that occasion I initiated the debate and our chief spokesman on the environment at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, replied.
I ask noble Lords to look at an article by Mr. Stewart Fleming which appears in the New Statesman this week. The article begins on page 30. The headline encapsulates the subject. It says,
"Will anyone talk about housing"
It is a subject that used to beguile politicians, but it has now dropped from view. That is because it is a problem which governments no longer know how to tackle. I would insert another word and say of the previous government that they did not want to tackle it, as is shown by the wreckage that they left after 18 years.
When I set out on a political career some 40 years ago, I had to choose what my interests would be. I chose housing and health as two subjects which mattered vitally to ordinary people. Health and education now have centre stage, and I do not quarrel with that. I have never been particularly involved with education. But unless we do something about housing, and the deterioration continues, there will be enormous pressures on the health service. When one considers the large areas where there is above average sickness and deprivation of any kind, they can be found in the poorer areas where the worst housing exists. Any statistics will show that.
One of the reasons why I have tabled this Motion is that we have had a new government for six months. They have taken some forward steps in housing, but I do not believe that people are aware of the enormity of the task before us. At the time of Faith in the City and the Duke of Edinburgh's report, about 15 years ago, people were coming forward with suggestions. In order to deal with the deteriorating situation that existed we needed 100,000 new completions a year. In fact, I believe we have topped 50,000 houses on only one or two occasions. If the last Government had carried on building houses and flats at the rate that they were built by the Labour Government under the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as he now is, there would have been available today in the housing stock over 2 million more properties to let. That is the sum of the disaster that the previous government inflicted on us.
Not only that, but they insisted on the mandatory selling of council houses in areas where housing was in great need. I took the view then, and I still take it, that the decisions for the respective areas should have been left to the local authorities. I was the chairman for housing in Manchester when we had a waiting list of 30,000. We started to reduce it. But now I find that the waiting list is back to that figure. That is disappointing for those people who have followed the subject of housing all their lives.
I spoke this morning to the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Glimmer. He commissioned a report which, I believe, was produced earlier this year. The report was prepared by bona fide people with the necessary credentials. The conclusion of the report was that for the 20-plus years from 1996 to 2016 it was envisaged that 4.4 million new lets would

631
have to be made available. That was looking into the crystal ball a little and foreseeing some of the future circumstances. I said, "That seems an awful lot, John". He said, "I can assure you that the conclusion errs on the conservative side and it is the minimum". That is 4.4 million houses by the year 2016.
It would take more than 100 years to reach that target of 4.4 million houses with the building programme achieved last year under the previous government. When I used to raise this matter at the Dispatch Box and ask why the Government behaved in such a manner, and why they were stopping councils building council houses, the Government said that they did not want to build them. Our new weapon was the Housing Corporation. That was a reference to my noble friend who has just taken over the chairmanship. I wish her every success because I believe the right type of person has been chosen for it. The Housing Corporation continually laboured the fact that its target was 60,000 houses a year—but it has never reached that target. I do not blame the Housing Corporation but the fact that the resources were not made available. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the most it ever achieved was 50,000 a year.
But what happened then? The Government cut their subsidy to the Housing Corporation from nearly £3 billion to £1 billion. If we are not careful, it will soon be down to zero. I suspect that the corporation is in serious trouble. How can one have an expanding, forward-looking building programme and let contracts so that they are beneficial in terms of price, if one is faced with such savage cuts? That aspect also needs further consideration.
I think that this Government—I support them wholeheartedly—have to start thinking about finding some money. They may say that the money is not there, but I advise them that if some money is not found and they start on the job the final cost will be absolutely appalling.
What can we do now? The first thing that I would do would be to look at the existing public sector housing stock. It is deteriorating at an alarmingly fast rate. As the money becomes available— the Government must make it available—I would use those initial resources to bring our estates up to standard, and in the same areas I would fund the local authorities to provide community buildings. As a former chairman of housing in Manchester, I know why we have some "deserts" there: it is because we were not allowed the money to develop community and social facilities in the area while we were building housing. All that we were allowed to do was build a huge number of houses, but nothing to go with them. Trouble has now overtaken us. So, that is one of the first things that I would do.
I turn now to a situation which has not been in the news lately, but the last time that I considered this—a few weeks ago—I was disappointed to note that about 600 families are still losing their home each month because of mortgage arrears. Where are those 600 families a month to be housed? They will not buy another house. Once your home has been repossessed
632
and you have been tipped out on to the street or have left of your own accord, pushing the keys through the letterbox, you cannot possibly buy another house or obtain another mortgage. What will happen to those people? Unless something is done, we will be deluged by the effects of this problem.
The Government should do something else quickly. One of the last Bills on which I worked at the Dispatch Box (with, I think, my noble friend Lord Williams) involved me complaining bitterly about the attitude of the then government, who imposed a ring fence on the housing revenue account. I pointed out that that meant that if I lived in a council house and paid my rent regularly but the fellow next door did not pay his rent, I would have to make up the deficit in the housing revenue account. I said at the time that that was a most disgraceful attack on respectable people and good tenants. However, the provisions went through. I believe that it is the job of this Government to take such provisions off the statute book as quickly as possible so that we can give honest people a chance.
I know that for quite some time local authorities have not been able to build many houses. Indeed, I believe that they built only 800 in the whole of England last year, yet we have waiting lists of over 30,000. That is the achievement of the last government. Was it intentional? If so, it was downright vicious. Indeed, if it was not intentional it was downright bad management. The previous government cannot have it both ways. In my opinion, they left rented housing in this country in its worst state since the war. When I finished my stint in local government and became a Member of Parliament, the policy was to widen the housing market and to make more options open to people. I never thought that I would have to stand here some years later to consider the wreckage that has been created.
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has established the new social exclusion unit, but I hope that we shall not have just two or three years of talk. I do not know whether any of its members will have dealt with this problem at first hand. I suspect that many of them will be academics, who may not be the best people for such a body. I hope that some of its members may have made mistakes in this sector in the past. I hope that they will at least know the mistakes that were made and how to put them right. We must never again experiment with working-class people and council housing, as has happened in this country since the end of the war.
Many post-war council properties are being, or have been, demolished. I refer to walk-up flats and to deck-access flats which local authorities were forced to build because of the method of financial assistance used by government. That happened under governments of both parties. The two men mainly responsible were the late Lord Joseph and Richard Crossman. They were the men who put the thumbscrews on local politicians and said, "If you do not build this type of property, you will not get the subsidy". That entire swathe of building has now been lost.
I know that the City of Manchester has an enormous charge on its housing revenue account for properties which have now been knocked down. The same is true

633
in the former constituency of my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. There is a huge charge in Leeds. Indeed, the last time that I checked, the debt charges alone were costing the Leeds housing revenue account over £1 million a year—and that is for a type of housing that should never have been built.
It is important that such things are explained so that we all know what happened. I hope that the Government will act quickly. There is enough evidence even without the new commission. Plenty of people who were involved in such operations can give advice. They know the mistakes that were made and can thus ensure that they do not occur again.
Finally, I say this—I have said it before—society is like a three-legged stool. Our main three social services are housing, health and education. Their order does not matter but if we let the "leg" of housing collapse, the deprivation will spread to the health service and our schools. One of the sad facts of life is that wherever kids are brought up in bad housing, they usually have the double penalty of having to go to a bad school. I represented such an area where the kids attended schools that were in worse condition than the local prison—and that is not an overstatement. We must involve local government once again. Where local authorities want to build, we must get them moving and started. We must make the necessary funding available to the Housing Corporation so that it can do its job. If we do not do that, we shall fail the nation and we shall not be able to put it right in my lifetime. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity to debate housing issues today. I must declare various interests. I am vice-president of the National Housing Federation and president of the National Housing Forum. I am also a member of the board of the Western Challenge Housing Association.
This country is almost unique, particularly in the western world, in that 70 per cent. of our population own their own homes, with only about 30 per cent. renting. Of that 30 per cent. the private rented sector represents only 10 per cent. The problems of the shortage of supply compared with demand for social housing have existed for many years. They do not seem to get better as time goes on. The collapse of the housing market exacerbated demand in a dwindling social housing sector. There were two main reasons for that. Falling investment in housing was accentuated by the number of homes lost to that sector because of the right to buy. The figures make pretty sorry reading. In 1996 we managed to build only 29,000 new houses for social renting. That is less than in any year since the war.
Despite the pressures, many imaginative schemes were put in place to try to improve supply in the private sector, particularly through schemes to bring properties not in use back into rent for people seeking social rented housing. All too often many government schemes involving some kind of financial help were short lived.
634
Despite that, a good deal of work was done and continues to be done by the Empty Homes Agency. That greatly encouraged many bodies, particularly local authorities, to develop good empty property strategies and thousands of empty properties were brought back into use for renting. It is a good example of partnership between the public and the private sectors. Very often local authorities and housing associations have managed these properties and put them into good order so that they can be let.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have launched a series of comprehensive spending reviews. It is hoped that they will report next spring. I trust that they will look at these kinds of schemes which not only bring empty properties back into use—we have about 700,000 in this country—but increase the supply of affordable rented housing. They help to improve neighbourhoods that have been blighted by rundown empty properties and enable private landlords to improve their properties and ensure that they are used and rented out.
The previous government estimated that there was need for about 60,000 new social rented units per year if demand was to be met. However, many organisations involved in the social rented sector, particularly Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, believe that that was a great underestimate. Both I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have long believed it, too. We estimate that if the demand is to be met about 100,000 properties need to be brought on stream each year. That compares with the 29,000 last year.
Investment is required not only in new homes but also in tackling the backlog of disrepair in both the public and private sectors. Shelter estimates that in the council sector alone there is a backlog of disrepair amounting to £20 million. The results of the Government's review will shape future plans for spending on housing from 1999 onwards. I suspect that that is what this debate is about today. I was relieved to know that the Government intended to involve both the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Social Security. The interaction between housing investment, housing benefit, affordability and taxation must be very thoroughly examined before changes are made. The noble Lord who introduced this debate explained clearly why that is so.
This is a short debate and I have time to highlight only a few of the problems that must be tackled. We all want a flexible workforce and we want people to move from welfare to work. However, unless we tackle the poverty trap for those in the housing benefit regime the moment they try to get back into work we will not get very far. The situation is particularly acute for young people. Shelter commissioned a report entitled Benefits Shortfall in the wake of the reduction of housing benefit for young people. It does not make for very happy reading. It is believed that the changes have led to greater homelessness and that that has undermined other initiatives like welfare to work. Shared accommodation is not suitable for many young people, particularly the

635
vulnerable. In many areas it is impossible for young people to find accommodation at the amount allowed for the single room rent.
Not only have organisations like Shelter looked into this; private landlords have themselves considered it. They find that tenants are not able to pay their rent. They admit to giving advice not to let to young people under 25. Although the housing benefit changes may reduce the housing benefit bill, they create more homelessness particularly among the young who have to live in unsuitable conditions and considerable instability. That does not help them to get back into employment. I hope very much that the Government will respond today to recent rumours in the newspapers about what will happen to housing benefit and flat rates of housing benefit and the suggestion that housing benefit will disappear altogether.
The problems that we create by not providing decent housing for people have knock-on spending effects in other areas, particularly in health and crime prevention. I shall spend a short time considering what are termed independent social landlords, usually housing associations. Since 1988 the system of funding for new houses has been based on the linking of public and private funds. Such landlords have been the principal providers of new homes. They have been able to do this because they operate outside the public sector borrowing requirement restriction and have been able to borrow private money. Although these landlords appear to be rather robust at the moment, I believe that it is due in part to the collapse of the private housing market. They have been able to buy land and get good deals on the building of homes. That is changing. Unit costs are going up, which means that rents will also go up. We know that in this sector rents are higher than in the council housing sector.
At the same time, expenditure on repairs by these organisations is growing. Tax changes have pushed up their costs. In addition, there has been extra pressure from the Government to keep down rents. I believe that in the short term housing associations will be able to comply. However, the prediction by the board of the housing association on which I sit, following a submission by the financial executive on future finances, is that the association will very quickly move into deficit if it begins to subsidise rents too much. The situation is even worse for council housing where money cannot be borrowed from the private sector. In the short term capital receipts will help but in the long term better solutions must be found.
This leads me to reiterate a view that I and my party have long held. There is an urgent need for the Government to look at the way they account for public borrowing. No business puts capital and revenue together for accounting purposes; no business takes the view that capital investment for long term benefit is bad. Most of our European Union partners accept that, and their financial regimes reflect it. I suggest to both the Prime Minister and the Government that it would be good for this country's internal financial future if they looked seriously at changing the way in which the public sector borrowing requirement is assessed. To
636
bring this area more into line with Europe would be a useful boost to the Prime Minister in his request to be at the table in Europe discussing the development of monetary union.
There are two other important areas upon which I shall not dwell because my noble friend Lord Ezra will do so. They are the state of repair in the private rented housing sector and energy efficiency in our housing. The tax regime does not favour that, a matter on which my noble friend will talk further.
Finally, I turn to tackling social exclusion. It is a shame that we do not call it "social inclusion". That is a much more positive way of looking at it. Nothing excludes anyone from society more than being unable to have a warm, safe home in which to live. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I studied the make-up of the board, or whatever it will be called, of the social exclusion unit. I am worried that although there is someone from the DoE who has been involved in housing, there is no one from outside government at the coal face on that board. That is a shame.
Today we have seen some of the worst cold weather for some time. I heard on the radio this morning that a government building has been opened up to house the homeless and indeed that our Deputy Prime Minister was cooking breakfast for them. The need for more rented housing is greater than it has ever been. I hope that all this talking will lead to some action to achieve affordable housing in a comprehensive way in the long term. If our citizens are to achieve their full potential, they all need to have a safe, warm and affordable home.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject, and to hear of his wealth of experience and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The Church of England has been worried about the lack of low cost rented accommodation since the Archbishop's report, to which the noble Lord referred, entitled Faith in the City, drew attention to the problem some 15 years ago.
Since then, through our own church housing associations, Church Urban Fund projects, and in co-operation with our ecumenical colleagues, we have been working actively to address the problems associated with poor housing. We have come to appreciate some of the principal issues involved. Rented housing is vital to give people some degree of flexibility in the housing market. That is especially true for unemployed people or those on low incomes. Unless real housing opportunities are open to people at a price which they can afford, they may face homelessness, overcrowding and being forced into home ownership when they cannot afford it. Then, importantly, we believe that without affordable housing, people often find that they are unable to take up work and are trapped on benefits.
The past two decades have witnessed a dramatic decline in investment in social housing. There has been a shift away of course from the provision of housing by local authorities towards housing associations, but the

637
total levels of investment are way below those of the mid-1970s or even the early 1980s. As a result, the number of new affordable homes has fallen dramatically: in England, from nearly 70,000 new starts in 1979 to 22,000 in 1996. Over the same period, there has been a rise in homelessness across the country from 76,000 households in 1980 to 131,000 in 1996.
The conclusion is inescapable: social housing helps to prevent homelessness. If people have a change in their housing situation—let us say that they lose their jobs and cannot continue to maintain their payments, or they marry and cannot continue to live with their parents—it is far better if they can move into council housing or a housing association home when they need it, rather than struggle on until they finally become homeless.
Where the supply of social rented housing decreases, people have to reach a crisis in their housing situation before it seems they can receive any help. Families, especially those with children, then face the stress of being uprooted and spending often long periods in temporary accommodation, removed from the supportive networks of family, friends and schools. In many cases, the trauma of homelessness results in long-term damage to educational prospects and health.
The lack of an adequate supply of social housing has also contributed to the kind of problems which noble Lords were discussing yesterday in the crime and disorder debate. When there is a shortage of social housing, only those who are most vulnerable and needy can gain access to it. Therefore estates get high concentrations of children, people who need support, former homeless families, and those who are unemployed.
A vicious circle is created whereby an estate has few economically active members. Shops and banks withdraw from the estate; other services, apart from the Church, are long gone; social problems increase; and the neighbourhood becomes labelled as a "sink" or "ghetto" estate. If there were a greater supply of affordable housing, a far wider range of people could have access to it, so making such estates more diverse and economically active.
Then there is the problem of housing association rents and the benefits trap, to which the noble Baroness referred. As noble Lords will be well aware, housing associations have been the preferred government vehicle for investment in social housing since the Housing Act 1988. This shift has been dramatic. In 1980 local authorities built 33,500 new homes. In 1996, that had fallen to just 472. In the same period the number of new houses built by housing associations rose from 13,000 to almost 22,000 per annum.
Those new homes, built by housing associations, are subsidised by the Government paying a percentage of the development costs. The rest is borrowed from private lenders, but the average portion which the Government pay has fallen from 80 per cent. in 1990 to 54 per cent. now. Before 1988, that government proportion was determined on a scheme-by-scheme basis, often rising to over 90 per cent. in high cost areas. The shift in the government proportion means that housing associations now have to borrow far more of
638
the money privately, which is of course much more expensive. As a consequence, rents have more than doubled over the past nine years, and are likely to increase further.
The rents of some housing association homes mean that tenants are caught in a poverty trap. The noble Baroness mentioned that poverty trap, and I shall give an example. A family with two children, paying £64 a week rent, which is about the average in England for a new housing association letting, would find that its net disposable income begins to increase perceptively only when its gross income rises above £280 a week. From the higher income, the family would have to pay for travel, clothes and other work-related costs, plus school meals, prescriptions, and other benefits previously met for it as an income support recipient.
Unless a household has housing which is affordable to those on average incomes, it is unlikely to be able to afford to take up work, thus threatening the Government's welfare-to-work initiative. So much for social housing—fewer and fewer local authority dwellings, problematic rents for new housing association lettings. But what of the private rented sector?
Over the past decade the private sector, after many years of decline, has seen a marginal increase in its market share of rented properties. As the noble Baroness said, it now stands at approximately one-tenth. I believe that there are two reasons for that increase which are worth highlighting. First, the slump in the housing market from the late 1980s meant that people who were unable to sell their homes sometimes chose to let them instead. Now that the housing market is beginning to pick up and people are beginning to float out of negative equity, owners are starting to withdraw their houses from the rented sector. That might lead to a further contraction in the private rented sector.
Secondly, the deregulation of the private rented sector in 1988 gave landlords a greater ability to evict tenants and charge higher market rents. This brought more private rented accommodation into the sector, but it also had massive consequences for public expenditure. When asked how people on low incomes would afford the new high rents, Sir George Young, the then Housing Minister, said:
"Housing benefits would take the strain".
Some strain! The level of housing benefit rose from £3.8 billion in 1988 to £11.5 billion last year, and is projected to rise further. In effect, there has been a massive transfer away from a bricks and mortar subsidy towards a personal housing subsidy.
The worry is that this huge amount of public money has not significantly increased the amount of affordable housing available. Nor has it increased the quality of the housing stock. Once again, the high rents of the private rented sector mean that people living there are caught in the benefit trap. Surely, better ways are needed to be found to ensure that public money spent in the private sector is recycled as an investment in quality and supply, otherwise we continue to try to run up a rapidly descending escalator.

639
The private rented sector traditionally has had a bad image. Sometimes standards of safety and management have left much to be desired, yet the shortage of social housing has meant that homeless people have been forced to live in sometimes totally inappropriate and insecure private rented housing. But I believe that the private sector in Britain, as on the continent, has a vital role to fulfil, particularly for people who need the mobility and flexibility that it can offer.
There is a need for an increase in good quality private rented accommodation which will be available particularly for young people working in our cities. Some of the repossession problems of the 1980s were a consequence of such young people, for whom home ownership was not a very appropriate solution, being forced into buying by a chronic shortage of any alternative.
We need more balance in our housing provision in this country. Of course, many people will want to own their own homes for at least a part of their lives. But a flexible economy is dependent upon mobility and at different stages in our lives rented accommodation might well be a far more attractive option. But here we return to the basic dilemma. Rented housing needs to be affordable to allow people flexibility in their working lives. It has to be in sufficient supply to ensure that families are spared the trauma of homelessness. Furthermore, there must be a variety of provision so that we can move away from any sense of "ghettoism" of social housing. How we as a society tackle this critical issue, which affects the lives and future of so many of our citizens, will be an important determinant of the health and social cohesion of the nation in the next millennium.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Dean for tabling the Motion. When I looked at the list of speakers I decided that, although it was not long, it contained a wealth of experience and commitment as regards housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and our Minister, my noble friend Lady Farrington worked in local authorities and have a great deal of experience of housing. I put my name down with a little diffidence.
I declare an interest in that five weeks ago I was appointed chairman of the Housing Corporation. I believe that I should share with your Lordships some of my experiences and the views that I have reached during that short time. I am still not used to the term "social housing". I suggest that it carries a kind of stigma, but I do not believe that anyone can come forward with a better term. The Housing Corporation was established in 1964 to provide such social housing throughout England and I am now its chairman.
In preparation for the debate and for my work as chairman, I visited the Library, which is the font of a great deal of knowledge, and asked for copies of Oral and Written Questions and debates on housing during the past two years. I expected to come away with a pile of papers, but they did not measure half an inch.
640
Housing is at the centre of so much that we want for our communities. It is at the centre of delivering better education for our children and of the health of our nation. It is no coincidence that our previous debate on housing was initiated by my noble friend Lord Dean. It is to his credit that we are having the debate today.
I welcomed in particular the Prime Minister's announcement last week of a social exclusion unit. He recognised the importance of housing, saying that among the unit's first priorities would be the development of policies to improve the worst council estates and to help people who are sleeping rough. Many thousands of our citizens face sleeping rough, particularly in our inner cities. I saw that launch as a clear recognition that good housing plays a key part in creating the right conditions for successful, thriving communities. Members of the Housing Corporation welcome that and wish to play a key part in a constructive manner to help those policies along. Housing is important, too, as regards welfare-to-work. We wish to be involved in that debate and have taken some initiatives to endeavour to do so. I will leave other speakers to deal with the private sector.
In pressing the case for more rented housing, I accept that the Government have many competing policy priorities. It is not a situation of their making, but was inherited by them. It certainly is a great challenge. Previous speakers highlighted the report, which was presented to the previous government and accepted by them, which stated that during the next 25 years there would be a need for 4.4 million homes. In other words, there would be a need for 180,000 new homes each year. If we assume that one-third, 60,000, are for people who cannot afford the marketable price to buy their own home, it points to a housing programme in that social sector of some 60,000.
The current situation faced by the Housing Corporation is that whereas in the financial year 1992–93 its budget was £2.3 billion, this year it is only £700 million. The £2.3 billion helped to fund the building of more than 62,000 social homes to let. Yet we have seen new lettings decline to around 40,000 per annum. I suggest that the balance needs to be addressed urgently. The Government inherited the situation and it cannot be changed overnight. However, additional resources are required and I am sure that the Minister will accept that.
My second point is that, in providing more homes for rent, we must recognise that it is not just a case of putting roofs over people's heads. We have seen that in some of the inner city deprivation which we are facing and paying the price for today. It is about building communities for people which have cohesion for the overall lives of the people living within them. That cannot be achieved by any single agency. I suggest that it cannot be achieved by the Housing Corporation on its own or by local authorities or any other agencies on their own; it must be a partnership in its broadest sense.
It is that partnership within the community that we wish to be part of, and are part of in a number of good practice areas throughout the country today; for example, local councils, the Employment Service, City

641
Challenge, where there is one, the development agencies, together with local business and alongside housing associations and the corporation itself. There are good examples of that; for example, the foyer schemes which have been talked about. A few days after the General Election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid a visit to such a scheme in a London inner city area. He was so impressed with the foyer that he saw that he said, "We must have one of these in every city in the country". We are a long way from that.
Perhaps I may give as an example the co-op foyer in Wigan, an area of high youth unemployment. There are 42 bed units for young people with 12 information technology training places. Young people are being trained and given confidence, probably for the first time in their lives. They are better able to enter the job market. Social services work alongside with a day drop-in centre which provides any help that may be needed.
The co-op within that development has an arrangement with the local training and enterprise council that once it has placed 25 young people into full-time employment, training or education, it receives funding for that. Therefore, it is proving what can be achieved. It is being paid for that and then recycling that money to use for the next lot of young people. It is a first-rate, value-for-money scheme for the wider community. Certainly within the local community we must ensure that young people have dignity and the opportunity of employment because that brings along with it a much better community in which to live.
I use that example because of the concerns of this Government in relation to youth unemployment. In the short time that I have been associated with the corporation, I have been struck by the diversity of the sector and diversity of the need among members of our community. In London, in Hackney, on what is known as the Holly Street Estate, £20 million was spent on a scheme where the people were moved out of run-down, crime-ridden tower blocks into family housing. A neighbourhood watch scheme was established and residents co-operated with five housing associations to develop and regenerate that area as a community and not simply as housing units.
What was the result? The result was that calls to the police fell by two-thirds. The experience of burglaries, fear of crime and fire and fear that came from just living in the neighbourhood fell dramatically. That is added value and has meant that there is a community which is living in an inner city again and not walking day by day in fear of their lives. Therefore, that is a better quality of life for our citizens.
My noble friend referred to the deck flats in Hume. I was there two weeks ago. As a Mancunian and using lay vernacular, it could almost have been described as a no-go area originally. What is happening now? The deck flats have been pulled down, and, indeed, I saw the area where the last flats had been pulled down. The area is now being visited by town councillors from Europe who wish to see what has taken place. Families are living there. The first set of houses which were built for sale in the area are now being resold. People are prepared to
642
buy there; to establish their families in the area; and to work within the community. It is the envy of the area. But it does not come cheap. You cannot just look at it in terms of the cost of putting a roof over someone's head. It must be looked at in terms of the cost of improving the whole community and the whole environment for the citizens who live within it.
It is also about repairing breakdown in our communities and people feeling safe, as I said. In some areas, because of the diversity, the answer is not necessarily just to build new units. It is about regeneration and getting hold of old stock and rebuilding the communities.
I believe—if I may be audacious enough to say so as a chairman of only five weeks—that there must be a local solution to a local problem. It is no good giving instructions from on high. Local authorities should decide their own priorities and strategies. The approach should be one of total tenure within the community. In that regard, the regional development agencies, as proposed by the Government, are a key factor. We should like to work with them within the regions.
Our investment in housing must fit in with those strategies. Through the Housing Corporation, since 1988 £11 billion has been raised from the private sector. As was said, it is true that some 20 per cent. of private sector money went into building houses. Today it is about 46 per cent. but that is variable throughout the country.
I cannot finish my contribution without referring to the tenant. We talk about investment of the taxpayer and the private sector. I suggest that the biggest investment is from the tenants and their families. It is about their lives and the quality of them. I welcome this debate and I shall use every opportunity that I can to promote the case for social housing and to raise the profile of that sector which is profoundly important for our people.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for choosing this important subject for debate today. I have no doubt that my noble friend is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable persons on the subject of housing in the Palace of Westminster, and that includes the other place. My association with him goes back many years when he was chairman of the AMC—the Association of Municipal Corporations—housing committee. At that time Manchester had one of the best council housing schemes in the country and without any doubt at all one of the best direct labour organisations. Therefore, I thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject.
Since the previous administration were elected in 1979, capital resources have reduced year by year. When I was chairman of the South Tyneside housing committee in 1979 under the government of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, our HIP allocation was about £32 million at 1996 prices. Last year, it had reduced to one-seventh of that. We were building 800 council houses a year. Last year we built none.

643
The present Government have, under the phased release of capital receipts, improved matters for this financial year and will undoubtedly increase investment opportunities in future years. Although there is a strong temptation to commence local authority new build, it is my view that we should exercise caution for reasons to which I shall come later in my remarks. We should use the additional resources to refurbish and upgrade existing stock.
For many years those authorities which had the most problematic estates were successful under the various bidding regimes of the last government—estate action, single regeneration and so on. The unfortunate part about it was that the resources earmarked for those programmes came out of the housing investment programme. Although local authorities which submitted winning bids have benefited from large-scale capital investment on problematic estates, that has been at the expense of a reduced level of investment in other local authority council stock. Many tenants of local authority housing felt somewhat resentful when they witnessed large-scale investment in what were seen as problem areas while their own homes and estates were bypassed.
I believe that local authorities should endeavour to provide some new build programmes where a demand is clearly identified as part of an employment-creating strategy. But the main emphasis of the next few years should be on utilising existing resources, upgrading existing houses and helping existing tenants.
The former government's policy was to remove from local authorities the role of providing new accommodation to persons on their housing waiting lists. The previous government enthusiastically gave that role to the housing associations. Public subsidies were made available through the Housing Corporation. The local authority's role became that of an enabler rather than a provider. Housing associations have utilised private funding to lower the public sector contribution on new developments. Many associations submitted bids to the Housing Corporation seeking a lower level of grant than was necessarily available. This shortfall was offset by a larger percentage of private finance or, alternatively, from housing associations' reserves. The Housing Corporation was understandably influenced by bids from associations that required only a low level of public subsidy and would probably give preference to such bids as opposed to a competing scheme from another association that required a higher level of subsidy. It is undoubtedly the case that a higher level of private finance results in higher rents for tenants. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester mentioned that.
In the Tyne and Wear area the average rent on housing association estates is in the region of £65 to £70 a week. A recent study showed that everyone on an estate in that area was on benefit. We then see examples of the poverty trap syndrome. Before the general election when I was a Member of Parliament I dealt often with the problem of people who lived in housing association property and then found jobs only to discover that they could not take those jobs as they would be worse off financially through losing the high
644
benefits they were receiving as a result of being housing association tenants. A family comprising two adults and two children paying such a rent would have to ensure that the household's breadwinner earned about £15,000 a year to be no worse off when working than when on benefit. As soon as such people find a job, they ask to be put in local authority housing as they cannot afford to pay the housing association rents.
In recent years one of the most worrying problems for local authorities has been the increase in anti-social behaviour on some estates. Areas which suffer from high levels of anti-social behaviour often suffer also from high levels of criminal behaviour. Many estates containing popular, traditional houses are becoming hard to let because of the fear factor. There is nothing worse than seeing an estate full of boarded up houses. That gives a terrible impression.
In my opening remarks I said that we should concentrate our efforts on utilising resources to upgrade existing houses. However, there is a problem. I speak from my experience of South Tyneside council. I refer to the way housing finance is managed. Although the Government have exercised some control over local authority capital programmes, in more recent years the former government introduced tight controls on revenue resources. The main revenue controls are exercised in respect of establishing an annual guideline increase for local authorities and the clawback arrangement in respect of housing benefit subsidy. Any increase above the guideline figure does not qualify for housing benefit subsidy.
Despite South Tyneside having the third lowest rents of all local authorities, the council is constrained by the annual guideline figure. As regards the clawback arrangement that exists in respect to the housing benefit subsidy for 1998-99, some £5.3 million will be taken from the council house revenue account to reduce the Government's housing benefit subsidies. That factor above all others prevents a local authority from reinvesting in its housing estate.
South Tyneside's notional housing revenue account—it is notional in that it is assessed by the Government—has an income of £37 million in rent. That is a higher figure than it actually receives but it is the notional figure assessed by the Government. The council has £19 million to spend on management and maintenance—again, a notional figure, as the council spends more than that—and £12 million to pay off loan charges and other such charges. According to the notional housing revenue account, there is a surplus of £5.3 million. That £5.3 million is taken from the housing benefit subsidies. Therefore council house tenants in the South Tyneside area who are not on benefit are subsidising those tenants who are on benefit. There is something wrong with the system of housing finance when that occurs. What is required in the short term is the abolition of the housing element of the housing subsidy; payment of a standard rate of rent rebate subsidy across the entire country; the preservation of the rent guideline, if desired, with any excess over the guideline being supported by a reduced percentage in the rent rebate system; and action taken to address the inequity of the benefit subsidy system.

645
The continued erosion year by year of deemed rent surpluses in South Tyneside's notional housing revenue account is stifling investment, reducing the impact of the capital receipts initiative, and, most importantly of all, forcing more of the burden of financing benefit payments on to council tenants who are not on benefit themselves and often in low paid employment. What is required is a fundamental review of the financing of housing benefits. Council tenants should be allowed the same subsidy on housing benefit that applies to private sector tenants and housing association tenants; namely, 95 per cent. of the subsidy paid. If that were to happen, councils such as South Tyneside would be able to tackle their housing stock, encourage people to move into council houses, and upgrade the conditions of existing tenants by reinvesting some of that money in the council estates.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare two interests which I think are relevant to the debate. First, I am the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Secondly, I am the owner of an agricultural estate in Suffolk which has some rented housing.
We owe a deep debt to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing a debate on this important subject. I am afraid that I did not agree with much of his analysis. I thought that at one point he was rather unfair to the Conservative Party. I hope that he will excuse me if I presume to put him right on that. He implied that in the early days after the war the Tories had not been real house builders. I hope I may remind him that in 1950 at the Tory Party conference Harold Macmillan pledged the Tory Party to build 300,000 houses a year. It was at once denounced by Mr. Aneurin Bevan as a cruel deception and a trick. However, the houses were built by Mr. Ernest Marples who was the engine behind Mr. Macmillan.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, takes that view. I am as well aware as anyone of the achievements of Mr. Macmillan who on the question of housing would, I believe, stand with me and not with the noble Lord in his criticisms of the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. It is worth having those remarks on the record in memory of both Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Marples.
However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that it is a terrible mistake to sell council houses. There are all sorts of good reasons for selling council houses. One reason was that at the time the sales started a great many people in this country wished to become home owners. That is laudable and desirable. The sale of council houses enabled many people to become home owners. Perhaps a more important reason, however, is one that has been echoed again and again in speeches made in this House this afternoon; namely, all too often council estates become ghettos. They become thoroughly undesirable places in which to live and they become deprived places. I am sorry that the right reverend
646
Prelate is no longer in his seat. I listened to his excellent speech yesterday afternoon when he spoke about a council estate in his diocese which is "too tough" to live in. What a sad picture that portrayed.
I vividly remember my first experience of such a place when I visited Ferguslea Park in Paisley. It was a terrible sight, with houses boarded up. Anyone could have walked into the housing office with a week's rent and obtained a house instantly. Many of those areas were ghettos. In some areas of London we constantly read about appalling crimes being committed. The criminal environment is such that no one is prepared to help the police to control them. I believe that the breaking up and the sale of council estates has been beneficial on the whole. I shall explain later why I am such a supporter of the noble Baroness's housing associations which in many cases have taken over from council estates.
A central aspect of our debate is affordable housing. It is crucial to subsidise the tenant and not the house. The reason is simple. First, if the house is subsidised, whether privately owned or owned by a local authority council, it will not be properly maintained because the rent will probably not be sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining it properly. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dean, knows, over the decades many council houses have not been properly maintained. Secondly, with the limited public funds available to any government, it is not possible to avoid focusing social help where it is needed. Subsidising tenants rather than houses focuses help where it is needed.
The big change came in 1988 when the present housing benefit scheme came into force, together with the Housing Act 1988 which introduced the assured shorthold tenancies and the assured tenancies. As a result, private sector landlords were prepared to offer housing for rent. Previously landlords had sold let housing as soon as the property became vacant. The property was then immediately lost to the rented sector. Associated with that earlier period were the wicked days of Rachmanism whereby people bought up rented housing in order to get rid of the tenants and then to make a profit from selling it.
The position has now changed considerably. The private sector is now able most usefully to add to the stock of affordable housing because the tenant is subsidised through the housing benefit. The landlord is not being required to charge a wholly uneconomic rent. I have experience as regards rural areas. It has been possible to convert a number of redundant farm buildings into useful dwellings, often for rent. The people who own the buildings on the farms often do not wish to sell them.
The useful Review of Housing Benefit was published in May 1995 by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It quotes the DoE as suggesting that the,
"typical pre tax return on capital for private rented sector landlords is between 5% and 8% after management costs".
The DoE says that this,
"can hardly be regarded as extravagant".

647
The fact is that in the remaining controlled tenancies under the Rent Act 1977, rent officers are still regularly fixing rents at well below that level. No doubt they believe that they are saving public money. I believe that they are keeping part of the privately rented sector at a lower standard than it should be, because landlords cannot afford to make desirable improvements. I ask the Minister to ensure that, whether rents come under the 1977 Act or the 1988 Act, they are fixed at a reasonable level.
I turn now to the most important housing association sector. The noble Baroness is now responsible for something like 1,000 housing associations. They have done and are doing a wonderful job. In a way they are the providers of the future. In some respects one can say that housing association housing is council housing under another name; but it is very much better than council housing for a variety of reasons. First, the housing is usually built to a higher standard; secondly, housing associations show more imagination in design and location, are often innovative, and add greatly to the quality of the area in which they are located; thirdly, they tend to build in smaller numbers than the old big scale council housing estates, and they build where the housing is really needed; fourthly, their housing is better maintained. I do not know of any housing association houses which are boarded up. Certainly the housing association in Suffolk has done an excellent job and. frankly, there are now many villages in Suffolk where there is not a shortage of affordable housing. In certain areas housing associations—for example Suffolk Heritage Housing Association—have taken over responsibility for council housing. That is a good thing. I believe that about 55 district councils in England have handed over their housing stock to housing associations. That is very desirable.
I am particularly concerned at the impact on the English countryside of the target of 4.4 million new dwellings—it is a target which the present Government inherited from the previous government—which they have undertaken to provide by the year 2016. I reject such a policy of predict and provide. It is like roads. If the Government were to build all the roads people wanted they would still not have built enough. But they propose to build houses at an unacceptable cost to the countryside. I believe that the priority should be affordable housing. The private sector, both as builders and landlords, has a significant part to play. Once the affordable housing is provided, market forces should determine the supply of owner-occupied housing, within the constraints of available land.
The trend towards owner occupation has changed as a result of the collapse in house prices during the late 1980s and early 1990s. That is no bad thing. With a more mobile society, and people moving from job to job, it is not always a good idea for young people in particular to have the debt of a house tied round their necks. The idea that bricks and mortar are the only things into which to put money is almost as bad as the old concept that gold under the bed was the only thing to put money into.
648
I said earlier that I believed the right to buy was a good idea. On the whole, it has achieved its objectives. I urge the Government to change the Voluntary Purchase Grant Scheme. They opposed it when it was introduced by the previous government. Under the Voluntary Purchase Grant Scheme, if housing associations have houses in an area with greater than 3,000 inhabitants, they are required to be prepared to sell the houses. I believe that that is a mistake. If affordable houses, which are built in an area where they can be built, are sold, further affordable housing has to be built. Often the land is not available except at an unacceptable cost to the local landscape.
We need a more careful assessment of real housing needs. Not nearly enough attention is given to the needs of the smaller households. Not everyone wants a three or two-bedroomed house. I hope that the noble Baroness will focus the attention of her housing associations on that point.
In their 18 years in power the previous government put in place the framework for a better housing policy. I am glad to know from their manifesto that the present Government do not intend to make radical changes to the current framework of housing policy. Indeed, I hope that they will build upon it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for opening the debate, I think I must straightaway disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the present Government are going to carry on the policies of the last government. I think that nothing could be further from the truth. At the start of my remarks I have to declare an interest as a residential landlord; I shall give some details of my experience in that capacity later.
I was particularly struck by the contribution of my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde when she questioned the use of the phrase "social housing". That was a very perspicacious remark. The Motion talks of the case for more rented housing in both the public and the private sectors. We need to recognise that there will be a need for rented housing, both public and private, for a number of different reasons. To start with, young people who are not yet settled in their future way of life may not want to commit themselves to buying a property; indeed, they may not be able to afford to buy one. People who move their jobs frequently may think it inconvenient to enter into the commitment of purchasing a house. Also, I would suggest that elderly people may not wish to have their capital tied up in a house as such. So there are a number of reasons why rented housing is necessary and important, and we need to recognise that it goes right across the scale from the bed sitter of the impecunious student at one end to the most grand tenant of the Duke of Westminster at the other.
It may be useful to relate some of my experiences and knowledge of the situation. I should like to take you back to the 1930s to the house that my lady wife grew up in after the war. It was in the council estate of West Derby in Liverpool. It is interesting to think that the

649
estate was not considered to be "social housing"—housing for the poor. This was housing for the middle classes and, dare one say it, for the upper-middle classes, because my wife's grandfather was a sea captain and in Liverpool that would have put him in the top bracket of society.
It is interesting to ponder the standard of housing that was built by municipal corporations at that time. I can relate the experience in the area in which I live in Manchester. There are two estates in the local ward. One is a council estate built by the city council of which my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick was such a distinguished member, the other a private speculative development. One estate is characterised by quality building standards, good materials, roomy interiors and well-sized gardens. You may think I am talking about the private development; I am not. This is the council estate. On the other hand, the private development goes under the name of Chorltonville and local knowledge has it that local builders used shoddy materials, scrimping all the way around, providing very small rooms and very small gardens. It is one of the unfortunate reflections of the market that houses in Chorltonville retail at over £100,000 whereas houses in the West Derby estate retail for about half that yet are of better quality.
It reminds me of the automobile magazine which asked, "What is the best car in the world, Jaguar or Rolls-Royce?" Having assiduously tested different models and reviewed their performance it concluded that the Jaguar was the better car even though it cost half as much as the other. Yet the public perception was that the Rolls-Royce was the better car. This is one of the difficulties we encounter in the market place in housing. I hope that the Government will think in terms of how we tackle the difference between perception and reality.
I mentioned at the beginning that I had a vested interest as a residential landlord. A couple of years ago I was looking for a house to buy in London. I saw one that was roughly in my price bracket. It was a four-bedroomed house in multiple occupation. Seven tenants were living in absolute squalor. Window frames were falling out and there were no decent facilities. There was a cold water tap in the kitchen and a gas stove that should have been on the tip rather than in a domestic residence. I was advised by the owner that he was netting 00,000 a year from the rents of those tenants. He had been served with notices for improvement by the local authority but seemed quite happy to go along to the court and pay the odd fine now and again. The serving of a notice of improvement was the rule a couple of years ago. It was a Conservative government, in the last dying throes of their administration, who took away the requirement that houses in multiple occupation should be improved by the landlord so that they were fit for people to live in. Not only that: even where legislation required improvement by landlords of houses in multiple occupation the government starved local government of the resources to implement that policy. A number of people have mentioned that when the Conservative government came to power in 1979 one of their first
650
actions was to cut investment in council house building. It seems that council housing and municipal housing were under sustained attack by the previous government all the way through.
The result is that people end up living in squalor. There was a case reported the other day of a young student who had died as a result of incompetent work by the landlord and the person he had employed to fit a gas fire and a gas cooker. I am very glad that those people were severely punished. When we talk about housing we need to recognise that it is a life and death issue. I accuse the previous government of abdicating their responsibility to look after the people of this country.
What prospects do we have now? First of all, the new Labour Government have already acted on the manifesto commitment of ensuring that capital receipts from the sale of council houses received but not spent by local councils are reinvested to help build new houses and rehabilitate old ones. It is interesting that this will be phased to match the capacity of the building industry and to meet the requirements of prudent economic management. I am reminded of the biography of Nye Bevan written by Michael Foot, which explained that even though Nye Bevan as Minister of Housing came under immense pressure to build more houses because of the desperate shortage and the need for housing that existed after the war, he said, "No, I am going to ensure that we build decent houses for decent people." That, in practice, meant building fewer houses because the materials, the skills and the workmen were not available. The resources had to be built up over time. That process of building up the necessary facilities was capitalised on by future Conservative Ministers.
The new Government will do more. Again I quote from our manifesto:
"We will provide protection where most needed: for tenants in houses in multiple occupation. There will be a proper system of licensing by local authorities which will benefit tenants and responsible landlords alike".
I am glad of that commitment.
We will also place local authorities under a new duty to protect those who are homeless through no fault of their own and in priority need. Effectively, the new Government are turning away from the policies of the previous government. I am very glad they are doing so.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the debate has been enlivened by the experience of so many who, although not at the sharp end—that is, desperate to find a decent place to live—have been involved as councillors or Members of Parliament and in other ways. The House therefore has an opportunity to listen to people such as my noble friend Lord Dean, whose experience in this field is unrivalled. I also extend a warm welcome to my noble friend Lady Dean, who comes with the unique qualification of her newly acquired post. Although she has occupied it for only five weeks, she could have fooled me. From the thoughts and experiences she related, it is quite clear that the platform that this House will provide for her to test her

651
own opinions and those of her colleagues in the Housing Corporation from time to time will be put to very good use.
I sense, as previously, that we are at the beginning of what will be seen in years to come as an opportunity for the people of this country to make a great contribution towards solving the housing problem. In fact, the problem will never be solved; it is gigantic, and will be with us for ever. I do not blame the previous government for their record. It would have been impossible, as it will be for this Government, to solve the housing problem. We can only do our best.
The National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing produced a document entitled, Making Partnership Work. I have no time to go into detail, but the document demonstrated that there are partnerships, collaborations and opportunities for groups and institutions to work together. I commend those three organisations for their endeavours.
We could spend time down memory lane, thinking about the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, even the 1990s, and we could castigate a particular government, council, individual or policy. But our concern should be not with what has gone before. By all means we should learn from what has gone before and remember it; but our concern should be with what the Government and the Housing Corporation can do now.
When I was Member of Parliament for Edmonton I confess that I went home from the House more than once having cried in my car, following a surgery during which I had listened to the misery that my constituents brought to me, invariably born out of problems to do with housing. Matters of health, education and employment were all vital; but the condition that brought the most misery was the quality or absence of housing. No one could forget that.
When I look back over my past 30 or 40 years as chairman of a housing committee, a council leader and Member of Parliament, I realise that there are good landlords and bad landlords, good councils and bad councils, good tenants and bad tenants. It is no use castigating a class of people. It is no good saying that private landlords are bad and ipso facto public landlords are good. They may approach the problem on a different level and try to achieve different things.
Looking back over the past few years, the problem that those involved in housing have had to recognise is the enormous change in household formation across the country. At one time the household would be a man, his wife and two or three children, who had modest aspirations. What they wanted was a well-built house with a small garden, access to shopping, and access to trains. Now, people live longer; they live as single units, following divorce; there is separation; and there has been the baby boom. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the break-up of the former council estates and the right to buy one's own house. That was one of the biggest bribes ever placed before the council tenant. Very few council tenants who had nothing would resist the opportunity to buy for £10,000 a house valued at
652
£30,000—and they took that opportunity. But in doing so, not only was the unity of the estates broken up—which is not a bad thing—but the local authorities were then saddled with the desperate problem of how to manage the remaining housing stock. I respect the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that it was a good thing. But out of that good thing came some very bad consequences which had to be dealt with.
The cost of putting right the quality of housing in both the public and private sector is a very real problem. I hope that this Government will demonstrate, more than the previous government did, that they want to solve the housing problem. I do not believe that they ever will solve it, but I believe that the will to solve the problem is there.
And there is the experience of the past few years in terms of different forms of tenure. My noble friend Lady Dean alluded slightly to the housing sector which I believe can provide the people of this country with opportunities; namely, the co-operative housing sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, while not eulogising, paid tribute to the housing associations. They are unelected and unaccountable, a small group of people who organise themselves and have the opportunity to do good. Nobody elects them; they are removed by themselves, and replaced by themselves. Most people in this place own their own house, and in so doing have a stake in what happens to that house. A tenant in privately rented accommodation does not have a stake, because there is no access to control. A council tenant or housing association tenant may very well enjoy good housing and pay the rent, but such tenants do not have access to control. Who controls the ownership of the premises, or the key to the future?
I should like to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has considerable experience in housing matters, and my noble friend Lady Dean—all I want her to do is to listen, but not necessarily to nod her head (I shall not look in her direction)—is that there is an opportunity for the Housing Corporation and the Government to examine again the possibilities for co-operative housing.
In 1991 the Department of the Environment commissioned Price Waterhouse to carry out an investigation into co-operative and related housing. I take the point about "social housing" made by my noble friend Lady Dean. Whether there was a stigma or not, people knew what was meant by council housing. For a long time it meant good, well-built, decently priced, affordable housing. If that has to be changed, so be it.
Price Waterhouse said, when it examined the co-operative sector:
"small-scale community-based TMOs [tenant management organisations] are able to deliver superior value for money; in the housing association sector PVCs are a flexible model capable of delivering housing services which compare with the very best mainstream providers; where appropriate PVCs should he encouraged to buy-in services from specialist support agencies; the development of TMCs [tenant management co-operatives] in the local authority sector is more likely to produce better results than forms of TMO where responsibility is diffused and roles are circumscribed."

653
There are 20,000 to 30,000 houses in co-operatives. The tenants are the owners and the tenant-owners are the managers. They have a stake. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if we are to pursue the concept of a stakeholder society we can do it best in the realm of housing. People are stakeholders and many people could, in my view, benefit from it.
Co-operative housing is cost efficient and effective. It gives people the opportunity, through the democracy of the co-operative, not only to have a say in who should come in and who should go out but in all the other ranges of activity. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that such housing will never be free of some form of subsidy. If we want good quality housing, we need to take account of the fact that many people, through no fault of their own, are unable to pay the market rate. There must be a mechanism. This is not the right debate in which to talk about housing finance. I simply say that co-operative housing can be one of the means—and only one—which will help to solve the problem of housing in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, has once again stimulated a debate about the quality of housing. When he, like me, came into local government—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, champing at the bit; she wants to get in her twopennyworth in the debate; she knows all about it—we all had housing experience. In those days housing had a much higher profile, it made people angry and desperate. I have told the House that it made me weep. With a commodity or sphere of public life capable of moving people in that way, we must recognise that the problem must be solved. It can be solved best by collaboration. Another word for "collaboration" is "co-operation". I believe that co-operation in housing, through co-operative housing, is one of the ways in which the problem will be solved.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, we have had a wide-ranging and well informed debate from all sides of the House. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for having introduced it and for having made such a powerful case for increased availability of rented property both in the public and the private sector. The point was vigorously taken up by my noble friend Lady Maddock with her great experience of housing matters. She referred specifically to the poverty trap in housing which was eloquently dealt with by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, from his experience.
One of the points I wish to take up was made throughout the debate: the question of the quality of housing. It is a matter in which I have been involved for many years as President of the National Home Improvement Council. Quite recently, on 28th July, I asked an Unstarred Question about the need to increase the rate of renovation of domestic properties, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, replied. So she will be aware of what I said on that occasion and will no doubt remember what she said in answer.
654
I reminded the House that, based on house condition surveys and other studies such as the Rowntree Report on the state of UK housing, 2.5 million homes are in need of substantial repair in Britain, representing something like 14 per cent. of all homes in the country. But as regards the private rented sector in particular, the position is even worse. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, gave us a graphic illustration of the conditions one can get at the lower end of the private rented market.
The Association of Residential Letting Agents recently stated that:
"the condition of over a fifth of the privately rented accommodation in this country is among the worst in Europe. Until every part of our sector is managed to reasonable minimum standards, we will never shake off our poor image".
This highly regrettable situation is confirmed in depth by the energy report of 1996, issued by the then Department of the Environment, arising out of the last English house condition survey. The report emphasised the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that cold homes are one of the worst health risks in this country, particularly for the elderly on low incomes who have to live in them.
These conditions tend to be worse in rented accommodation. While 10 per cent. of owner-occupied dwellings lack central heating, the proportion is 40 per cent. in the private rented sector. About 15 per cent. of all converted flats—the most common dwelling type—have no fixed heating of any kind. The elderly on low incomes in private rented accommodation are the part of our population that suffers most. Altogether about 1 million or 22 per cent. of all households with persons over 65 years of age live in homes with SAP ratings below 20 per cent. The SAP rating is a government rating for relative heating efficiency. That 20 per cent. is under half of what is required for normal heating standards.
The Rowntree Report takes a pretty gloomy view of the future, if things are left as they are. Its conclusion states:
"the abolition of mandatory renovation grants in England and Wales through the 1996 Housing Grant, Construction and Regeneration Act will [no doubt] relieve pressures on local authority budgets but may lead to a reduction in public spending if hard-pressed local authorities cut back on grant provision. In the absence of new measures to encourage private spending and to make it more effective, there is a strong prospect that housing conditions for low income homeowners and those in the private rented sector may deteriorate in the medium and long term,".
In other words, the present unsatisfactory situation could get even worse in the future. I do not believe that that is at all acceptable.
Thus I must ask the question which other noble Lords have posed in the debate: has the time not come for a total rethink of the situation, particularly for a rethink of the position relating to the disrepair of such a large proportion of our housing stock? Is there not a need for a national strategy to deal with the problem, as is being urged by the Chartered Institute of Housing?
It is clear, in my opinion, in present budgetary conditions, that the Government are most unlikely to increase renovation grants, however strong the case may

655
be. But could not the system be reshaped to attract private funding? Should there not be some form of registration of private rented accommodation, to ensure that the quality is reasonable and that the heating is adequate and safe? The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell referred to the worrying case of unsafe heating which we read about the other day.
My noble friend Lady Maddock referred to the need for fiscal incentives for the renovation and improvement of property. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to housing co-operatives. There are a large number of new ideas being put forward in this whole area. What we cannot afford to do is to allow things to go on as they are. House condition survey after house condition survey shows that the proportion of low quality domestic dwellings in this country is increasing; there is no reason to suppose that the next house condition survey will not once again reveal that situation.
The Government have limited resources at their disposal. However, they are making capital receipts available to local authorities and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, that the emphasis should be on improvement and renovation of existing stock. Out of all those new ideas a new strategy should emerge. If we are going to create a New Britain, which is the aim of the Government, surely a large proportion of decrepit housing cannot be part of it.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for initiating this debate. It is a subject of immense importance and raises our emotions, as we have seen today. I feel it is timely that we are discussing this issue today as we approach the Christmas festivities. If we were given a Christmas wish I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House would wish that families, particularly those with children, would share in happy, loving times in homes of a high quality in warmth and comfort. Sadly, life is not like that and we have to deal with the situation as it is.
I rise with humility. I listened, as we all have, to people with experience who have shown that they know their subject. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and hope that she will forgive me and not think me rude when I say that she is a fast learner.
We are not dealing with overall housing, but the specific matter of rented accommodation. The Conservative Party has always had home ownership high on its agenda. But at the same time, we always laid great stress on the quality and standards of the rented sector. My noble friend Lord Marlesford illustrated that earlier. We recognise the need for diversity and choice and when in government concentrated on that aim. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, explained, there has been a dramatic change in the way we live over the past 20 years. People are living longer and many elderly people are living alone. We have seen the breakdown of marriage, often leading to both parents claiming the need for suitable accommodation for their
656
children while on staying access. Many young people who would have remained in the family home until marriage or moved to another part of the country, now prefer to have, in current jargon, their own "pad".
For those and many other reasons a massive strain has been placed on resources and now we are told that we need 4 million new homes by 2016. We should keep in mind that we have no increase in population; it is demographic changes that have brought this about. There has been and always will be a real need for rented accommodation. Some people do not want the responsibility of owning a house and all that goes with it. Some may not be able to raise the deposit. Some, due to breakdown in relationships, move to other areas. And some need temporary accommodation.
There are two types of rented accommodation; namely, the private and the social subsidised accommodation. The private sector can provide for many in the groups I mentioned. Social housing can enable those on low incomes to have a decent home. But of course that type of housing does not have to be provided by central or local government. In Britain we have a long tradition of private trusts and charitable foundations providing accommodation for low income families.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. When his party was last in government between 1974 and 1979, 400,000 private homes were lost from the rental market. That was due to more and more regulation and constraints placed on landlords. The last government understood only too well the importance of the private sector and so, on assuming office, set about deregulation of that sector. Landlords were encouraged to rent out their property, allowing them to set market rents and, in agreement with their tenants, specify a fixed term after which the property could be repossessed.
At the same time, tenants were encouraged to rent property by providing them with extra protection against illegal eviction and harassment. The number of households in that sector increased from 1.7 million in 1988 to 2.1 million in 1996. I believe that that was a direct result of deregulation and other initiatives to sustain the revival of the rented sector.
I turn to social housing. As I said earlier, that does not have to be provided by local or central government. Perhaps the most exciting development in recent years has been the dramatic growth of housing associations. The last government welcomed that diversity and the end of local government monopoly. There are strong obligations to which the associations have to adhere. High standards and quality are required and the incomes of the tenants always have to be borne in mind. Those associations have been enormously successful in building affordable homes and attracting £6.4 billion of private investment.
Local government provision has been strengthened for tenants to ensure high standards of service. Under the council tenants' charter, tenants are now entitled to a lifetime of security; to have urgent repairs done quickly at no cost to themselves; to take in lodgers and sub-let part of their home; to exchange their home for

657
another one; and, most importantly, to be consulted on the management of their homes. Of course, there are many other measures.
Perhaps at this stage I can mention the difficult subject of housing homeless people, for whom I have great compassion. I know of one couple who acted responsibly throughout. They became engaged and applied for accommodation with the council. They waited a number of months before they married. But, on the night of their wedding, they each returned to their parents' home, neither parent being willing to have both of them living with them.
It was many months before a flat was offered. They did not start a family or try to jump the queue in any other way. But one can imagine their misery. In a village everyone knows when a flat becomes vacant; and the couple watched as people who they believed had acted irresponsibly leapfrogged over them. We must be aware and sensitive to the concerns of people in such situations, and I ask the Minister to keep that matter in mind.
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said, I am proud of my party's achievements in providing homes of an increasingly high standard. Of course, there are always new challenges and demands as time moves on and there is always much to do. But I cannot finish without reference to capital receipts, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I understand that instead of allowing councils to spend their set-aside capital receipts, as had been promised, the Government now intend to allow councils to borrow more. This can only result in higher public sector debt.
My Lords, I end where I began. We need to keep the housing agenda on the front burner. We should continue to search for imaginative initiatives so that in the not too distant future our wish to see most of our people in decent, warm, safe and affordable accommodation will be on the way to achievement.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this has been one of the most knowledgeable and wide-ranging debates that it has been my pleasure to listen to in the House. I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick on bringing to the attention of the House the important issue of the need for rented housing in the public and private rented sectors.
Housing is at the heart of this Government's wider social agenda to tackle disadvantage and all manifestations of social exclusion. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick asked about the membership of the social exclusion unit which has been set up within the Cabinet Office. It brings together senior government officials and representatives from local authorities, voluntary organisations and business. That is a good range of knowledge and expertise to cover the many aspects of social exclusion.
Making housing the central feature is integral to our aims of giving people a decent quality of life, involving them and giving them control over the way they live,
658
and supporting family life and healthy families. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick that health and housing are closely linked. In developing our housing policy, we also need to ensure that people are not excluded by benefit dependency from work and the social and economic support and opportunities that work brings.
We recognise that most families want to own their own homes. We are pursuing policies designed to limit instability in the housing market. We recognise that renting plays a vital role in meeting a large part of housing need. The private rented sector contributes to a more mobile and flexible labour market and is a stepping stone to home ownership for those who can afford it. Several noble Lords referred to mobility. If we look at those under 35, even those who are highly qualified and in professional jobs, it is a surprise to my age group and those older than myself to discover how few have permanent appointments and how many know that mobility is part of their future career.
Our objective for social housing is to encourage the provision of well managed housing, of good quality, securing value for money—value for individual and family money and value for public money. That requires a partnership approach, with everyone—government, local authorities, housing associations, communities, voluntary groups, private funders and tenants—working together.
Many speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, asked about the complex world of local and public funding policy, local authority housing finance rules, regulations and policy, and contributions from public expenditure towards housing. All government departments are engaged in comprehensive reviews of government expenditure. A review of spending on housing is being carried out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Social Security. This joint exercise recognises the interdependence of spending on housing and spending on housing benefit. Among other things, the review will consider future investment, the better targeting of that investment and how we estimate housing need. Both the definition of the PSBR and the whole issue of ring-fencing the housing revenue account—a complex area to tackle—are part of the wide-ranging review.
One issue—I refer here to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—is whether it is reasonable to take the view that, where there needs to be investment in renovation of older housing stock that is publicly owned, it should be a charge on all the people living in a community who own it or only on those people who happen to be tenants of the local authority housing. That is one of the issues to be considered during the review.
Behind the review there are a number of fundamentals: making certain that what comes out will work; that there should be no rigid compartments either within social housing or between social housing and other housing; that all the housing sectors should make a contribution to meeting need; that housing strategies should look across all sectors; and that we should look

659
for variations around the country so that local needs can be taken into account. Factors vary from one area to another and a solution in the centre of London may not work in the fells in Lancashire. My noble friend Lady Dean referred to the importance of looking at future housing developments as building and strengthening communities and not merely as bricks and mortar.
The capital receipts initiative was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and by my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Dixon. The previous government slashed capital investment in housing year on year. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, hoped that we would build on the previous government's policy. I hope that we will build a little faster, because the rate at which the previous government were building was making the waiting list grow. Under the previous government capital investment fell from £4.3 billion in 1992-93 to £1.7 billion this year. We cannot change that overnight but we have started with £800 million of additional resources.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked whether investment should be linked directly to the receipt of capital receipts by individual authorities. That kind of thinking can lead us into the difficulty of ending up with houses being built in an area where there is little demand and no capital receipts being available in local authority areas where there is great demand. It would fail to meet the needs of those who have the most acute problems to do anything other than follow the wise policy that has been pursued by our Government in the months since May.
The noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Dixon, said that a first priority was to tackle the years of neglect in terms of the basic stock. We must recognise that alongside building new housing is the need to renovate, restore and repair the fabric of buildings. Each local authority must identify the specific needs in its area. On current plans we expect about 200,000 additional social lettings to be provided for rent and shared ownership over the four years 1997-98 to 2000-01. Around 60 per cent. of those will be new build. It is important to recognise that the remaining 40 per cent. will be achieved through the restoration of other property.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was not alone in making a comparison between the relative merits and values of different types of provision. I started by serving on a borough council housing committee, and from my experience, comparisons are odious. To look at whether housing associations, local authorities, the private rented sector or home ownership are best and most ideal in order to solve any particular housing problem is a mistake. The housing associations movement has become increasingly adept at attracting private finance to complement public funding. So if local authorities provide new social housing, in partnership with housing associations, more homes may be provided than would be possible through public resources alone. Housing associations—or registered social landlords, to use their formal title—have skills as developers and managers of housing. They are in a good position to be partners in the wider regeneration of
660
communities with the most severe economic and social problems. Several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to this. It is all linked to the important issue of getting people back to work as part of developing a strategy to improve and develop the housing stock.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton is renowned for his knowledge of and support for housing co-operatives. He is outstandingly respected in the Co-operative movement. We are keen to see the development of tenant participation more generally. The development of housing co-operatives is seen as part of that wider approach. We are currently reviewing policies for tenant participation, looking at a range of issues including the raising of standards and implementing a more consistent approach to tenant participation across the whole of social housing. The Housing Corporation is currently undertaking a review of tenant participation and housing co-operative strategies.
We have also asked officials to discuss with the Housing Corporation a paper received from the all-party parliamentary group on housing co-operatives in the context of looking at tenant participation in the round. The words spoken by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton were extremely wise as regards the issue of ownership. It is not only ownership through holding the title deeds and the mortgage, but having ownership that stretches in a deeper and more fundamental way. The approach and philosophy of housing co-operatives can often develop that.
The Housing Corporation, which my noble friend Lady Dean has been appointed to chair, is obviously going to be an extremely important player in developing a housing strategy that is comprehensive and that will meet needs. It is always difficult to cope with someone of her ability, skill and knowledge who has been appointed as the first woman to the post. I know that she has been appointed on ability alone. I am delighted that the ability of women of her calibre is now being recognised in such posts.
My noble friend Lady Dean referred to the realism with which we must speak of the financial position. I fully agree with her, particularly as regards those features which she identified as critical: the importance of housing in tackling social exclusion; the relationship of housing to other social policies, illustrated by her reference to foyer schemes and their support for education and training. There is also the importance of good design and effective housing management in saving wider costs, for example, on policing.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the important and integral value of energy conservation both in terms of the quality of our lives and our approach to wider environmental issues. My ministerial colleagues will be looking to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and her board to guide the Housing Corporation. They also value the insight that they can give on social housing policies more generally.
The Housing Corporation has an approved development programme. My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has already asked the Housing Corporation to develop its

661
programme in a number of ways, ahead of the outcome of our review of spending, placing even greater emphasis on homes for rent, with 80 per cent. of the programme's expenditure, compared with 75 per cent. in previous years.
In this short debate many speakers have referred to the importance of estimating the level of need for the future. The private rented sector is part of the fabric of seeking to meet housing need. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to that. Over 10 per cent., which is 2.1 million households, now occupy that sector. We are seeing a growth in demand for privately rented accommodation. It is extremely important that we recognise that the demand will grow as an additional range of housing units become available.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Monkswell, referred in particular to being fair to good landlords. That is a point which is often forgotten in debates on housing. They stressed the importance of the quality of housing available in the private rented sector. In particular there is the need for a national licensing system for houses of multiple occupation, and that has been recognised by the Government. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, is right when she said that we should minimise unnecessary regulation and control. But there must be a legal duty to protect the health and safety of people living in such accommodation.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester also referred to the range of housing available for people and the need to ensure that it is all of good quality. There is much that can be said about those who will be our partners in the exciting new venture, which is seeking to meet housing needs, working in co-operation with local authorities and a range of agencies.
Many of those involved in this partnership such as the Housing Corporation, as my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde is fully aware, have all-party support. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to the Empty Homes Agency. That is another example of all-party support.
It is critical that we face the many challenges as we move towards the 21st century. Our aims are clear. We need housing which works and goes on working. The key point underlying our policies for investing in social housing is that we must create a framework which is sensitive to local requirements and which makes the best use of resources. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred to the impact on individuals of housing problems.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for concluding with a personal anecdote. While I was chairman of the education committee in Lancashire, we appointed a head teacher during that period of the 1980s when it was difficult to sell property. The head teacher ended up being homeless, unable to buy because he was unable to sell. For three months he lived in the homeless families accommodation that was available in that seaside area of Lancashire. He said that without that personal experience he would never have understood how much
662
a child's inability to perform well at school relates to the quality and experience of his home and home environment.
I finish where my noble friend began. Health, housing and education are linked together—and this Government are determined to have a strategy that works in all areas.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, when I first chose this subject for debate I was a little dubious about whether now was the right time or whether it might he a little too early and we might be expecting a bit too much. I wondered also whether the debate would attract enough speakers. However, this debate has been an outstanding success, and I hope that what has been said will be listened to by the Government at the other end of the corridor.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. All contributions have been excellent. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and I disagree slightly on some matters, but I believe that our objective is the same.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Dixon referred to my period in local government. In those days, housing policy was "hyperactive"; it was a different wicket. Under the leadership of a man called Bob Thomas—he became Sir Robert Thomas—Manchester cleared 85,000 slum houses in fewer than 20 years. Think of the enormity of that undertaking. I do not believe that that man was ever given sufficient credit for what he did. I played my part, at a pretty high level and, as my noble friend Lord Dixon said, I eventually became the last chairman of the old Association of Municipal Corporations, and was a founder member of its successor body, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
This has been a wonderful debate. I conclude by thanking my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton for the excellent way in which she replied in detail from the Dispatch Box to all the points made. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Nuclear Weapons: Papal Policy
5.32 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney rose to call attention to the speech of the Pope's Permanent Representative, Archbishop Renato Martino, at the United Nations on 15th October making the case for doing away with nuclear weapons; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the decision by the Vatican to come out for nuclear disarmament was hailed in many countries as one of world importance. It gained little attention here. I am not aware that it has been welcomed in another place, and in your Lordships' House it is left to me, a humanist, so I warmly welcome the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford among the speakers.
So what was the message? Here I can give only the outlines, but I have taken the precaution of making photocopies of the full speech available in the Library.

663
I believe that noble Lords and noble Baronesses, Catholic or not, religious or not, will find it thought-provoking to say the least.
The representative of the Holy See said:
"Nuclear weapons cannot be justified and deserve condemnation…Nuclear arms are incompatible with the peace we seek…If biological weapons, chemical weapons and now landmines can be done away with so too can nuclear weapons…No weapon threatens the longed-for peace of the 21st Century as the nuclear. Let not the immensity of this task dissuade us from the effort needed to free humanity from this scourge".
The Archbishop also said:
"Nuclear weapons can destroy all life on the planet. They imperil all that humanity has ever stood for and indeed, humanity itself…The international community cannot shield itself from the assault on life itself that nuclear weapons represent…The world must move to the abolition of nuclear weapons through a universal non-discriminatory ban with intensive inspection by a universal authority".
I could quote much more of that speech, but your Lordships may read it for yourselves in the Library.
I believe that the Prime Minister might say that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is in line with that now made with papal authority in that the elimination of the nuclear weapon is already the Government's aim.
That may be so, but it is not sufficiently clear. In this Chamber, for example, and perhaps in another place also, we hear two different voices from the Government Front Bench, bringing two different messages. One, with Foreign Office authority (which I am happy that we shall hear tonight) confirms what I understand to be the position that I have just ascribed to the Prime Minister—that is, that we seek to negotiate the universal elimination of the nuclear weapon. The other voice, in the accents of the defence department, never mentions the word "elimination". It concentrates on telling us that the Government intend to keep Trident. One might think that the wretched thing was immortal or at least permanent, for it is never suggested that we want a nuclear-free world—not in that voice—and that we are working to that end, an end which will entail the end of Trident with all the rest of the nuclear horrors.
I invite the Prime Minister to congratulate the Pope on the statement made on his behalf and to make it clear that this country will do its utmost in the cause of doing away with nuclear weapons on the basis of a universal, verified and enforced international agreement.
It has been suggested to me that since this Motion was drafted—and, indeed, last week—the United Kingdom has voted against nuclear disarmament at the United Nations. If that were so and if the Cabinet agreed that it were so, which it does not, I should certainly not now be taking the parliamentary Labour Party's Whip in this Chamber and the party itself might not be in one piece.
However, I have investigated the matter. It is true that, led by the United States, the nuclear powers, with the important exception of China, voted against a motion for nuclear disarmament moved by Malaysia. They were roundly defeated by 116 votes to 26 with 24 abstentions, so, as the General Assembly is the only parliament of the world that we have, it can be said that the peoples of our planet are massively opposed to
664
nuclear weapons. The Pope's representative forecast that decision. Therefore this is no time for nuclear disarmers to give up.
Furthermore, the Government's explanation for their action in voting against the Malaysian resolution begins,
"The United Kingdom is committed to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons".
It could hardly be clearer, could it? They go on to explain why they voted against the resolution, obviously taking the view, as the explanation makes clear, that this is not the way to go about it.
This is neither the time nor the place to pursue that particular matter further, complicated as it is. However, I believe that we are entitled to ask; if the nuclear powers will accept only paths to elimination designed by themselves, do they not have the duty to map it out in detail? Only then will the rest of the world begin to believe that they may be serious. The fate of our civilisation may depend upon it. Let the Foreign Secretary and his representative in the Chamber tonight draft a procedure to that end so that we may say that the world, as I believe to be the case, is gradually but certainly moving towards the cause of nuclear disarmament because it knows in its heart that it must be done. We hope to hear from my Front Bench tonight that we are on the way to achieving that. I beg to move for Papers.
5.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, this is an opportune time to have a debate on nuclear weapons. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for initiating it. I believe that on an issue like this it is important to be clear about and never forget the salient facts. They may or may not be palatable; but facts they are and unless they are taken into account and continually borne in mind the whole discussion can become unreal.
First, the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons can never be unlearnt. Even if all nuclear warheads in the world were destroyed and all missile systems dismantled the capacity to make nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them would remain. We have eaten the apple of nuclear know-how and can never get back into the garden of pre-nuclear innocence. The implication of this is that until the end of time there will always be some risk of nuclear weapons being used. Furthermore, if in the future there was a serious conflict between two major powers who had done away with their nuclear weapons but who still possessed the knowledge of how to make them—a knowledge that can never be eradicated—there could be a major push to nuclear re-armament with all the risks that such competitive re-armaments have carried in the past.
The second fact is that nuclear weapons are not just ordinary weapons on a large scale. They have the capacity to destroy whole civilisations in a few minutes. There is a difference of kind not just degree between them and all other means of destruction. It has been one of the strengths of the peace movement, of which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is a distinguished representative, that it has continually kept before the

665
mind of the public this horrific fact. Yet the implication of this has not always been grasped. It is quite simply that war between two powers who both possess a nuclear arsenal could never be rational. It could never conceivably be in the interests of a country to go to war against another nuclear power for, however quickly and decisively it struck, with the assured second strike retaliation available to the enemy totally unacceptable damage would always be inflicted on itself. This is what has been accurately described as the Copernican revolution in the use of armed force. It leads to the familiar nuclear paradox that these uniquely appalling weapons systems have a uniquely sobering effect on governments considering war as an instrument of policy. If the world's political system remains as it is now—a tempered anarchy of competing nation states—then, as Sir Michael Quinlan has put it, the abolition of nuclear weapons would purport to "re-rationalise warfare".
As a Christian I cannot resign myself to the world staying as it is for ever. I believe in the Kingdom of God and the coming of God's just and gentle rule when all will be transformed and human beings will live in communities of trustful mutuality. Furthermore, as a Christian I cannot simply wait for that Kingdom to come. I pray for it daily and believe that even now there are signs of that coming Kingdom, when suspicions are dispelled, barriers broken down and peace takes hold.
What I cannot do is kid myself that this Kingdom is here in its fullness. This Advent season reminds the Church that we live between times—between the time of Christ's life, death and resurrection when the power of evil and death was in some decisive sense broken and the flag of the Kingdom was planted on this earth, and the time of his coming again when his humility will be revealed in all its glory and all will be irradiated with the divine presence. Between the times, where we now live, there is an inescapable tension between what is necessary to achieve some kind of order in a recalcitrant world and the absolute ideal of the Kingdom. The Church has had to wrestle with this tension in every age, and Augustine, Luther and Reinhold Niebuhr have made their own distinctive contributions to how we can best live with it. It is, I believe, a tension that is inescapable. It means on the one hand that we have to face the world as it is and try to achieve some semblance of order in a system of competing nation states, some of them driven by considerations of aggrandisement and some led by foolish or wicked rulers. On the other hand, we can never rest content with that. The absolute ideal of the Kingdom continually beckons to transform what we have into what will be. That is why the concept of a nuclear free world which we are debating today remains a proper aspiration.
But a nuclear free world in which the present political system remained unchanged could be a more dangerous world than we have it at the moment. What is necessary is not just a nuclear free world but a radically changed political order. It means, in effect, having on the world stage what we have in democracies like our own; namely, a central authority which all acknowledge and which has the power to implement its decisions. We are, sadly, a long way from that. The world remains a loose system of nation states with different perspectives and
666
potentially conflicting interests. The United Nations exists but as yet has neither the authority nor the power to act as a universal policeman. It is not able to render powerless the major players in a conflict. In the world as we have it at the moment nuclear weapons, terrible as they are, still have a unique role in making parties to a conflict that possess them think again and again before taking the conflict further. This means that we have to proceed cautiously. But it does not mean that there is nothing we can do to make the world a safer place. There are a number of good suggestions around; for example; first, there is ample scope to reduce the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, bringing the former under direct control and verification, as many of the latter already are. It is already time to begin work on a START 3 programme. New agreements, particularly those which enable the number of warheads to be verified, would reinforce long-term confidence. It would also be highly desirable to bring into the discussion non-strategic components as well as strategic ones.
Secondly, it would be important to relax, wherever they still remain, tense and costly high alert operational systems. The concept of "launch on warning" which was fundamental to the policy of deterrence in the Cold War is full of perils. On 25th January 1995 President Yeltzin's nuclear suitcase sounded an alert in response to a meteorological rocket fired from Norway. He had four minutes to decide if it was an American attempt to disable Russia's defences. It is important. therefore, to de-alert—that is, increase the response time of nuclear weapons by taking them off "hair trigger alert". It is also important to de-target strategic missiles, re-directing them towards neutral points in the ocean. Much of that has already been done. But it would also be possible to de-mount the vast majority of nuclear weapons; that is, remove nuclear warheads from their delivery systems. Physical separation obviously increases reaction times and induces confidence that nuclear arsenals are not on hair-trigger alert.
Thirdly, reducing the spread of nuclear deployments. Some concentration of remaining nuclear weapons would be helpful to control and verification as well as cost saving. Fourthly, it is important to exchange information more frequently and openly about nuclear armouries, and, in particular, about the best practice and the safety of storage for their handling and management and perhaps design. In the world as it is at the moment, where there is no open conflict between the major powers but in which nuclear weapons continue to exist, transparency should be given a very high priority, and such transparency is possible. As Sir Hugh Beach has put it:
"The reductions in warheads already carried out unilaterally by Britain and France could be internationally entrenched, the remaining inventories declared and made subject to the same sort of verification as Russia and America are prepared to apply mutually under the START treatise. At a later stage Chinese holdings could also be brought into account… Britain could take the lead if it could but break out of its prevailing cult of secrecy."
Fifthly, entrenching still more durably the norm against any nuclear testing; sixthly, constraining further the production of nuclear weapon materials. At the

667
moment the Conference on Disarmament is deadlocked on that issue and it is very much hoped that progress can be made soon.
Seventhly, bringing under more assured account and control the nuclear systems of the former Soviet Union. It is clearly important to seal off any possible leakage of nuclear expertise to possible terrorists or proliferator states. Western aid has been given for this purpose and will continue to be needed. Eighthly, developing further on an international basis, the tools and systems of information collection related to nuclear weapons and their disposal. The example of Iraq underlines how difficult that task is, and obviously maximum international co-operation and sharing of expertise is important.
Ninthly, strengthening the various instruments which were put together to prevent or impede proliferation. Tenthly, easing any political friction by underscoring that remaining armouries are not directed against particular adversaries. If nuclear weapons are to be retained for the time being as a kind of low-key insurance, then the maximum political reassurance can and must be given that their presence does not imply adverse assumptions about any particular country.
Eleventhly, consolidating and perhaps further extending nuclear weapon-free zones. And, lastly, your Lordships will be pleased to hear, exploring more fully the contribution which military defence systems might be able to make to diminishing still further any residual nuclear risk. That is a contentious area, particularly in respect of any implication it might have for the ABM Treaty. But debate on that could at least be kept alive.
None of those suggestions is, of course, original. But they represent a consensus among some of those who have thought longest and hardest about those issues. It would be tragic if people so focused on the aspiration of a nuclear-free world that they were distracted from putting the necessary thought, energy and resources into those practical steps which would actually reduce the risk of a nuclear explosion in the real world in which we live now. Progress has been made in recent decades, most notably with the non-proliferation treaty and the containing of nuclear states to a much lesser number than was once predicted. Further steps can and must be taken to reduce risk, create political confidence and move towards a different kind of world.
Sir Michael Quinlan in his recently published RUSI Whitehall paper, Thinking about Nuclear Weapons, puts the position better than anyone I know. He wrote:
"The continued retention of nuclear armouries on a limited and transparent scale in the hands of a few internationally-ratified possessors helps to seal off any possibilities of armed conflict among advanced states; it reduces the incentive to clandestine acquirers, since it diminishes whatever leverage they might have hoped to seize; and it offers an overshadowing in-reserve discouragement to intolerable state behaviour of other extreme kinds. It is entirely possible to pursue the extensive and valuable agenda that is available for further reducing the scale, salience, costs and risk of nuclear weapons whilst still benefiting from the underlying contribution which they uniquely make to security in any world at all like today's. That is to align policy with the grain of reality".
668
A world in which all nuclear weapons had been disposed of, a world in which there was an international authority with the power to ensure that it remained free of such devices, would indeed be a better world than we have now. It remains a legitimate aspiration. But such a world implies a radical political transformation of the states system as we have it at the moment. In moving towards that world, governments have the awesome task of balancing one risk with another. As part of that process there are, I believe, good things going on, which need to be developed and strengthened; and other things, such as greater transparency, which could come about without risk and which would reinforce political confidence. I very much hope that the Government will be able to press forward on a whole range of those important issues.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate said, my noble friend chose the right time of year to raise a Question which touches on the very centre of the Christian concept of peace on earth and goodwill to all men. I was a little worried that he might be on the verge of conversion to the Catholic faith when he chose also to base his debate on a statement by the Pope's permanent representative at the United Nations.
The statement which my noble friend outlined to us was one with which all men of goodwill—that of course includes women of goodwill—of all faiths or none, can agree. During 15 years in your Lordships' House, I have discovered that it is possible for governments to shrug off difficult questions relatively easily if they are raised just once or twice. Results are achieved by those MPs and Peers who are prepared relentlessly to pursue their cause at the risk of becoming thought to be single-issue eccentrics. We can all think of a few of those among our ranks, but my noble friend is far from that, however many times he raises the issue. He acts as the conscience of the House by reminding us of the dangerous unfinished business that the continued existence of these weapons represents. Compared to him, and in the presence of the two noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, I feel ill-equipped to address the issue. When I listened to the right reverend Prelate, whose expertise on this subject is remarkable, I felt myself to be a small voice.
Archbishop Martino's statement raises the uncomfortable truth that mankind spends a truly colossal proportion of its productive capacity on weapons of all kinds. It is a sum sufficient to rid the world of serious poverty if it were diverted to human development. Although nuclear weapons have the capacity to destroy life on earth as we know it, they cost just a small proportion of that total expenditure. However, they remain the ultimate weapon. They have not been used for 52 years, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but are still present in large numbers in the USA and Russia and in smaller numbers in Britain, France, China, India and probably Israel and at one time South Africa. As the right reverend Prelate said, the number is probably smaller than we might have feared.

669
Several other countries are on the verge of developing their nuclear weapons capacity. We know how close Iraq came to making its nuclear weapon. When countries have civil nuclear power they have already passed the most difficult technical barrier on the road to developing the nuclear weapon. However, sophisticated verification techniques are able to detect the work carried out on the final stage. The fact that nuclear power can act as the basis for weapons technology is the strongest argument for at least temporarily halting the development of civil nuclear power. That is a pity because we all know that it could make a major difference to global warming if only it could be made safe.
Archbishop Martino said:
"During the acrimonious years of the cold war…the international community felt powerless to stop the relentless build-up of nuclear weapons. But now, in the post cold-war era, characterised by new partnerships, the international community cannot shield itself from the assault on life itself that nuclear weapons represent".
An indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was achieved two years ago, but, sadly, Pakistan, India and Israel were not among the signatories. However, the non-nuclear states hope for a stronger commitment by nuclear weapons states to Article 6 which hinds them to work towards reducing and eventually phasing out their own nuclear weapons.
Despite considerable progress by Russia and the United States in reducing the number of warheads and the partial implementation of START 2, can my noble friend tell us how far START 2 has progressed and whether we are thinking about START 3? It seems to be a laboriously slow process, although two weeks ago in a throw-away remark, President Yeltsin said that he would unilaterally eliminate one-third of his warheads. That remark was quickly denied by his spokesperson. Neither the United States nor Russia seem to have fully accepted that the Cold War is over or that the continued existence of these weapons is as much a danger to themselves as to possible adversaries.
It seems to me that there is still a hangover from the Cold War and the belief that a nation's international influence is strengthened by the possession of a nuclear deterrent. As the Archbishop's report points out, there has been useful progress in reducing the level of conventional forces in Europe. That must be a recognition of the fact that there is little likelihood of a major war in Europe. A useful chemical weapons treaty has been agreed, as has a comprehensive test ban treaty. More recently, there was the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines. If such progress can be achieved with less destructive previously "legal" weapons—though there is still a very long way to go, particularly with the international arms trade—it should be possible to speed up the countdown to elimination of the ultimate weapon.
What further initiatives are we taking through the United Nations or other channels to encourage the one remaining superpower, and the previous other superpower to move more swiftly? What progress is being achieved towards drawing up the terms of a binding nuclear weapons convention with targets for reductions and the eventual complete elimination to be
670
achieved by certain dates? I am aware, of course, that it is no longer the policy of the Labour Party or the Government unilaterally to give up our nuclear weapons. It is far better, if possible, to have effective multilateral agreements. But while accepting that that is the case, I suggest that there is still a very large body of opinion in this country and in the wider world which would like to see the United Kingdom in the forefront of nations working much more actively towards the goal of total elimination of nuclear weapons.
Although we have fallen behind in the international competition for the highest GDP per head, we still have a very influential international position—"punching above our weight", to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd—not only because we are a permanent member of the Security Council but because of the respect in which our spokesmen at the United Nations and at many international bodies are held. I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend in what way Her Majesty's Government are pushing the agenda forward.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I intervene in this short debate not because there is a great deal new to be said about the subject but because since the end of the Cold War there have been alarming signs of a resurgence in unilateralism. It is as though there is a new hankering after Greenham Common and the Aldermaston march and rituals of that kind which I hoped we had put behind us. It is also important to place this debate on the United Nations in a broad political and strategic context. Perhaps it is most important to ensure that the record on some of these issues is kept straight. There is sometimes a tendency to misquote or, to put it politely, to misunderstand the requirements of some of the international treaties concluded in the past 50 years.
I declare an interest of a kind. I was chairman of Vickers Shipbuilders during the whole of the manufacture of the four Trident submarines which now constitute our nuclear deterrent. However, I have no such connection now and noble Lords who know me will be aware that my views have not changed substantially on this matter for the past 30 years.
Those views prompt me to offer some comments. First, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, should single out as the basis for his speech the speech of the permanent observer for the Holy See. Perhaps I may point out as a small matter of accuracy that Archbishop Martino is not a representative or a delegate but an observer of the United Nations. He is an observer of the Holy See. His speech was made in the First Committee of the United Nations in October as part of the normal proceedings of the United Nations in disarmament matters. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that Archbishop Martino called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. But so, too, did the representatives of Myanmar—known better to some of us as Burma—Poland, Australia, Croatia, Uruguay, Bangladesh and South Africa. In one day all those representatives made virtually the same speech. None of them, including the representative of the Holy See—the Pope's observer whose speech I have studied with great

671
care—advanced any new arguments whatever to support their case. The arguments were those that have been put forward over and over again for generations.
Indeed, I was interested to note that the archbishop's speech contained a view which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, repeated tonight: nuclear weapons cannot be justified. I can only say to the noble Lord and, if he were here, to the archbishop that that is a view not by any means held unanimously in the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I have heard an archbishop explain to me the doctrine of conditional intent in which he pointed out that there would be some occasions when the threat to use nuclear weapons might be justified.
But there were no new arguments in New York, because there are no new arguments about this. The debate is depressingly familiar to anyone who has followed these matters, as I have, since I was the British Minister at the disarmament negotiations in the 1960s. There has always been a clear intellectual and ideological gulf between the nuclear powers, whose aim and policy has been to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the non-nuclear and non-aligned countries and their supporters in the West who pressed constantly for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the arsenals of the major powers. It has always been the case; we have been here before; there is nothing new.
It was against the background of that straightforward clash of interests and ideologies that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was signed in the 1960s. That treaty is so often misrepresented and misquoted in debates and discussion on arms control and disarmament. Indeed, in the First Committee debate to which we are addressing our minds this evening, there was an interesting example of that. In calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the representative of Western Australia told the committee that,
"the nuclear weapon states were obligated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime to reverse the Cold War accumulation of nuclear weapons, as a necessary prelude to their elimination".
I repeat that phrase,
"as a necessary prelude to their elimination".
That is simply not true. The relevant article of the non-proliferation treaty—and I hope that the House will indulge me if I quote it in extenso—states:
"Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control".
Your Lordships will note that that refers to nuclear disarmament. It makes no mention at all of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. There is a clear and important, if subtle, distinction between the two. It is an important distinction. I am especially anxious that it should be understood because I was largely responsible, with my British delegation in Geneva, for drafting Article 6. Yet that has now come to be prayed in aid by the anti-nuclear lobby and quoted as an undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to dispose completely of their nuclear weapons. That is not the position of the nuclear powers in the disarmament negotiations. Their position is and always has been that that can be achieved only
672
within the context of general and complete disarmament under international control. That state of affairs, as the right reverend Prelate said, is much to be desired. But I fear it is as remote from practical politics as it ever was.
It is worth pointing out that in pursuance of Article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, there has been very substantial nuclear disarmament. The major powers, especially the United States and the Soviet Union in their strategic arms reduction treaties, have substantially and, I should almost say from where I stand, drastically disarmed their nuclear stockpiles. It is important to place all that in a broad context, as the right reverend Prelate did, in what I thought was a remarkable and powerful speech. I conclude my intervention with a warning against the whole concept of what I shall call "single weapons disarmament"—the identification of some weapon or weapons system and seeking to eliminate it or remove it from the military scene. As the right reverend Prelate and Sir Michael Quinlan have said, that is in great danger of re-rationalising the whole concept of war as an instrument of policy.
But there is another matter to which the right reverend Prelate made reference. I would express it this way. The elimination of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or anti-personnel landmines is a process which, in the long-term strategic context, has no meaning whatever. It has been said before a thousand times, it will bear saying again, and the right reverend Prelate said it this evening: we cannot eliminate the knowledge of how to manufacture weapons, whether of mass destruction or of any kind. There is nothing to prevent any country or any group of people who wish to use those weapons manufacturing them secretly and using them against countries which have succumbed to the fallacy of single weapon disarmament.
In any event, as, again, I think Sir Michael Quinlan has said and as I say with great force and power, the removal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent—the so-called nuclear-free world—would place us all once again at the mercy of any aggressor with large and heavily-armed conventional forces.
Of course a case can be made for reductions in missiles and warheads. No one would deny that; indeed, it is going forward. However, I disagree in one respect with the right reverend Prelate on the matter of removing warheads from nuclear weapons as a matter of what he called "de-alerting." In my view, that would be a dangerous process. If warheads were removed from missiles and stored separately, when, in a state of emergency of some kind, a government sought to bring them together again—and that would be known immediately to any potential enemy with serious intelligence capabilities—it would be enormously destabilising and provocative. I warn very strongly against the seductive idea of de-alerting systems by taking the warheads away from the missiles.
Although I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and for the consistency and passion with which he has approached the subject of nuclear disarmament, I genuinely believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons and the idea of a nuclear-free world is based on an over-simplified

673
concept of international relations. I share entirely the view of the right reverend Prelate that until the whole nature of international relations has changed and the nation state ceases to be the fundamental building block of the international power structure and until we remove the possibility of war as an instrument of policy, to begin the business of single weapon disarmament, of tinkering with the panoply of weapons in the hope that that will in some way reduce the dangers, is manifestly over-simplified and unwise.
I am encouraged to note that in this country we appear to have a clear bipartisan policy in that respect. The present Government, in line with their manifesto, are firmly committed to the maintenance by this country of an effective nuclear deterrent. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government. That is a prudent, realistic policy and long may it continue.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. I must advise the House that I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, very interesting and erudite; but I am intrigued to think that he has not changed his views in the past 30 years. Bearing in mind a number of things which have happened over the past 30 years, I wonder whether it may be useful to the House to find out how my views have changed over the past 30 years.
My political life started in 1962 at the height of the Cuban missile crisis. At the tender age of 15 I decided that I would take some control over my life and try to prevent myself and my fellow human beings from being blown off the face of the earth. Therefore I joined CND. Having been an active member in that organisation for a number of years, I then became troubled because I realised that I was not a pacifist and it appeared to me that the whole raison d'être of CND was as a pacifist organisation. I left CND and to try to ease my troubled mind I started to study military history and the history of military campaigns. I was amazed at what I learnt. I am only self-taught and I have not engaged in any professional course of study of military history. But one of the things I learnt was that it was not the bombing campaign across Europe by the United States Air Force and the RAF that brought an end to the war in Europe; the end of the war in Europe started at the battle of Kursk and finished when the Red Army took Berlin.
I also learnt that in the war in the Far East the Japanese were brought to a halt at Imphal and Kohima and that the Allied forces, who were predominantly American, had taken Okinawa and were precipitately planning to launch an invasion of the Japanese mainland before the nuclear weapons were dropped at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There is a school of thought that claims that the Japanese would have surrendered anyway without the dropping of those nuclear devices. However, there is also a school of thought that has held sway among the establishment in the western world since the end of the war that claims that it was utterly necessary to drop those nuclear weapons.
Following the public campaigns of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which started in the 50s and have carried on to this day, it has become impossible for
674
political and military leaders around the world who had access to nuclear weapons, and were at times tempted to use them, to do so. My studies also revealed the terrible carnage that was wrought by poison gas during the First World War. That gas inflicted horrendous casualties. The effects of that gas lingered for many years afterwards not only in the bodies of those afflicted but also in the minds of their friends and relatives who suffered too. I discovered that there was a realisation on the part of military strategists that the use of poison gas conferred no military advantage. While most of the powers involved in the Second World War had the capacity to use poison gas, it was not used because it was of no military advantage.
I shall not go into a long explanation of various other reasons why I can stand here and declare myself not to be a pacifist but to be totally against nuclear weapons. If we look at what has happened over the past few years—not just the past 30 years—we see that the Cold War has ended. The fundamental justification of the Soviet Union, the United States of America, Britain and France, for having nuclear weapons disappeared almost overnight. It was reported just the other day that South Africa had the capacity to make nuclear weapons but decided not to do so. It effectively decided unilaterally to disarm itself of nuclear weapons.. That was the case with some other countries too, some of which were constituent parts of the former Soviet Union. It is interesting that that should happen because for years and years we have been told that we cannot disarm unilaterally on the nuclear front.
One of the things I learnt from the early experiences of the Thatcher government is that perceptions are vitally important in defence and military matters. The Argentinians invaded the Falklands because their perception of Britain's foreign and defence posture was such that they believed we were not concerned about what happened in that part of the world. They took as a signal our planning to decommission "Endurance". I hope that I have learnt from that—and I hope the current Government have learnt—that it is not possible in today's fraught and difficult world to take a unilateral step and say,"We as a major nuclear power will get rid of our nuclear weapons without any reference to what is happening among our allies in the rest of the world". Imagine the perception that everyone around the world would have if a new Labour government were to say that one of the first things they intended to do was to get rid unilaterally of their nuclear weapons. I believe that the Labour leadership of the past few years has learnt that lesson.
We now have a new Labour Government who are committed to saying to the rest of the world,"We are dedicated to having strong defence capabilities because we recognise that it is a prime duty of the government of this country to defend this country". However, we also have a manifesto commitment which states,
"When satisfied with verified progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations".
There has been a change in policy with the election of a new government on 1st May.

675
The previous government would never accept that it was even their far distant objective to get rid of nuclear weapons on a worldwide basis. Thanks to the good sense of the British people in electing a Labour government, we now have that as our ultimate objective. I am sure that that ultimate objective must be shared by the vast majority not only of the British people but peoples all around the world. I recognise that to get from here to there will be difficult. I shall not chide the Minister on the Front Bench to say what the Government will do about that now because I recognise that it will probably take a number of years of steady diplomacy. I hope also that our Government can learn from the important work that is being done by senior military figures in working out the mechanisms of how we can get from here to there, and that the Government will build on that work within the political arena and use our ethical foreign policy to form a basis on which we can achieve something that will make the name of Britain resound around the world as a decent and leading member of the world community.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, not only for giving us this opportunity to discuss this important subject in greater detail than we usually can in the margins of a defence or foreign affairs debate, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, for his persistence in ensuring that your Lordships did not forget that the issue exists.
My own position has long been that the only value that nuclear weapons have had since the Soviet Union developed them has been to deter a potential nuclear opponent from using his. To initiate the use of nuclear weapons against a nuclear opponent is to invite retaliation in kind which would be suicidal. If he strikes first, to retaliate would ensure further escalation. To use them against a non-nuclear opponent would, I believe, be morally and politically unacceptable.
We have lived with them so long that we are apt to forget what really horrible weapons they are—modern ones are much worse than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If that is so, and their only value is as a deterrent to their use by others, we should all be better off if they could be eliminated altogether.
The principal arguments against that, which we have heard today from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, are, first, that they remain a general deterrent to war and to the use of other so-called weapons of mass destruction, that is chemical and biological weapons; secondly, that their use even against a non-nuclear state could be justified in certain circumstances, particularly if a combination of target and yield selected minimised the collateral effect; and, finally, that it is impossible to develop a verification system which would ensure that they had been, and remained, eliminated. So we are stuck with them and, as it seems that more states may acquire them, it is prudent that those who have them should keep them. Those are the serious arguments against elimination.
676
Let us take the first argument, that if they were eliminated we might see a return of conventional wars between the major industrial nations, like the two world wars of this century, made worse by modern weapons; and that the overwhelming virtue of nuclear weapons is that that now seems inconceivable. I will admit that I myself used to hold that view. When I was asked to be a member of the Canberra Commission—I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate recite almost all the commission's recommendations—I was not certain at that time that I was entirely in favour of total elimination. What convinced me was the argument—it may not be a new argument to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but it was new to me—of comparative risk.
We should not be attempting—as we have done in the Chamber today—to compare the situation as it is today with one which might arise if, miraculously, all nuclear weapons were to disappear tomorrow. We should try and compare two future scenarios. The first scenario involves no serious attempt being made to eliminate nuclear weapons, with perhaps a reduction in US and Russian arsenals to about 1,000 each, and the other declared nuclear states staying much as they are. In that scenario, in, say, 25 to 50 years' time, what may have happened? May there not by then be several more declared, certainly more undeclared, nuclear states, some with less reliable and sophisticated methods of control than those hitherto exercised by existing nuclear weapon states? The risk of either the intentional or the accidental explosion of nuclear weapons in such a scenario will surely have increased. The chances of maintaining an effective non-proliferation regime will surely have been reduced.
Let us compare that with the scenario which the Canberra Commission recommended. Starting with a genuine commitment by the United States and Russia, based on a conviction that it was in their own interests to do so, they would have reduced their arsenals, stage by verified stage, to the point at which those two major nuclear powers decided that the risks of taking the final step to elimination would be less than the risks of retaining nuclear weapons. Of course the United States and Russia would not make that decision unless they had brought other nuclear weapon states, declared and undeclared, along with them and were satisfied that the verification system they had developed during the process of reduction—and they must develop it; no one else can do it for them—was valid and would remain so for the final step and beyond. The process of getting that far would itself be a formidable confidence-building measure.
Risks, of course, will be entailed in moving to and eventually establishing elimination, but whether those risks will be greater or smaller than not taking that step can only be judged at that time. If they are then judged greater, the step will not be taken. But remaining at a fairly low level of nuclear weapons for some time would undoubtedly be an unstable situation.
The Canberra Commission did not ask anyone to take that final decision now. What we were asking was that the United States and Russia, as the leading nuclear powers, should genuinely decide that because success in that quest could eventually lead to a safer world for

677
them and everyone else, while failure to make the attempt could lead to a more dangerous one, they should commit themselves to it while the relations between them are fairly relaxed. If they move in that direction and put anything like the effort into it that they have put into creating and maintaining their nuclear arsenals, including into establishment of the verification process (and that will need a lot of effort), others will be bound to follow.
The risks involved in elimination, and the move towards it, must be compared not only with the risks involved in the possible continued existence of nuclear weapons, but also with the risks of the things which nuclear weapons are expected to prevent: renewed wars between the major industrial nations and the use of chemical or biological weapons. Under the shadow of nuclear weapons, and one must admit that it was under that shadow, the idea of engaging in wars, to use Clausewitz's words, "as a continuation of state policy", political or economic, has undoubtedly been abandoned by states who had thought of it in that way earlier in the century. It would he rash to dismiss the possibility of it entirely, particularly in the Far East, where there are potentially serious causes of dispute between Russia, China and Japan. But the question to be answered is this. What is the risk of such wars occurring, and, if they do. of the suffering they might cause in comparison with the potential risks arising from the continued existence of and probable proliferation in the possession of nuclear weapons?
The same reasoning must be applied to deterrence against the use of chemical and biological weapons. There is no doubt that there is a serious risk of their being used, and that their use could cause great suffering. The Henry S. Stimson Center in the United States has recently published a comprehensive study of the subject by Dr. Victor Utgoff, which I commend to your Lordships. His conclusion is that it is unwise for the United States to rely on the threat of nuclear retaliation as a deterrent against the use of these weapons. First, it is uncertain. There will always be strong inhibitions against the actual use of nuclear weapons in retaliation, whether or not the perpetrator himself has nuclear weapons. Secondly, and connected with the first reason, is the difficulty in selecting targets. Those which might be connected with the opponent's chemical or biological warfare capability would inevitably involve collateral damage to the civilian population, while ammunition stocks and methods of delivery would be more appropriately dealt with by conventional weapons. Thirdly, it is possible, without great expense, to develop protective measures not only for armed forces but also for the civilian population of areas assumed to be threatened. A better and more convincing counter to the threat is a combination of developing effective verification and enforcement measures, open development of effective protective measures, and convincing determination to retaliate to any use by effective conventional attack. There should be no ambiguity about that as there is about nuclear retaliation.
678
My argument, therefore, is that the risks of not trying to eliminate nuclear weapons are greater than the risks of trying to do so. The difference between the Canberra Commission and the opponents of elimination is a difference in assessment of risk. The commission believed that a situation in which a few privileged states retain nuclear weapons, asserting that they are essential to their security while attempting to deny them to others, some of whom face much more real or potential threats from their neighbours, cannot indefinitely be sustained. It must lead to a dangerous proliferation.
Our opponents' case is that the danger of proliferation has consistently been exaggerated and that it is both possible and desirable to maintain the status quo, but with a reduction of Russian and American arsenals to about 1,000 warheads. The Government state that elimination is their aim but they show no more sign of trying to move in that direction than their predecessors, in spite of the attitude of several Ministers and supporters in the past. Let them demonstrate that they mean what they say by at least adopting the immediate steps which the Canberra Commission recommended: taking nuclear forces off alert, removing warheads from their delivery vehicles and trying to agree with other nuclear states an undertaking not to be the first to use them and not to use them against a non-nuclear state. Whether or not we in this country should keep our own nuclear warheads is a different question. Of course, if we succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons altogether, ours would go as part of the process. The Canberra Commission envisaged China and ourselves joining in the process when the United States and Russia had got down to about the 1,000 mark.
But I personally would like to see us getting rid of our nuclear weapons now because I believe them to he unnecessary and a waste of money which would be better spent elsewhere in the defence field. As the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert's, reply to my Question on the 9th December revealed, maintaining our nuclear weapon capability and the means to deliver it costs a lot more than most people realise and most government spokesmen have ever admitted to.
Even if you are a believer in the usefulness of nuclear weapons, we do not need them, as we are fully covered by the American nuclear umbrella. I cannot envisage a situation in which we were threatened with attack, either by nuclear or other means, and the threatening nation did not have to take into account the reaction of the United States. Nor can I envisage a scenario in which we would use a nuclear weapon when the Americans had decided not to use theirs. And if they had decided to do so there would be no advantage in us firing one off well. Justifications like "weapons of last resort", "second centre of decision" and "fundamental basis of our security" are meaningless when you begin to analyse them. What could be that "last resort" when it would make sense to use them? If the Russians had somehow reached Calais it would not be to our advantage to use them. It would be an act of suicide—like Hitler in his bunker but worse, because it would be committing the whole nation to destruction.

679
There is another good reason for giving them up. Our retention of them and all the reasons invented for doing so could be applied to any independent nation, and even more justifiably to those who have neighbours who are hostile or potentially so, which we are fortunate not to have. They are an encouragement to proliferation and not, as some suggest, a counter to it. Our nuclear weapons are useless to us as military weapons they cannot conceivably be used. We do not need them as a so-called deterrent, and I urge the Government to consider very carefully how to set about changing their policy which, like so many others, is inherited from their predecessors.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, perhaps I should make clear at the outset that I speak on this subject as someone who, in the light of a number of factors relating to the international scene and our own defence effort, has changed his mind. I therefore find myself largely in agreement with my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver and perhaps, and I hope unusually, at some odds with my noble friend Lord Chalfont, despite the powerful speech that he made.
In the past, as someone who over 50 years ago had in the space of a few months seen for myself the ruins of both Hamburg and Hiroshima and found the former, destroyed by conventional means, in some ways more disturbing, I long held the view that it was all wars, and not just nuclear wars, which had if humanly possible and with honour to be prevented or at least limited or curtailed at the earliest opportunity. That has been the basis of our defence policy over the years. So I accepted, like the right reverend Prelate, that the mere presence of nuclear weapons and even what came to be called "the balance of terror" did have a part to play during the Cold War era in the deterring of any aggression and indeed of any sort of military adventurism by signalling such a dire warning on what such things might lead to. I believed that these weapons made a contribution to achieving that matchless blessing of 50 years of peace in Europe since World War II. Although with hindsight I do not think it would have changed the course of history one iota if we in this country had not had our own independent so-called deterrent, bearing in mind that the chances of our being determined to use it or even threaten its use when the Americans were not prepared to do so were always remote to say the least, I could see the rationale and the argument, particularly in the political sense of international influence, for making some significant contribution to the overall NATO deterrent on which, as I know well as a divisional commander in Germany in the 1970s, the whole NATO defence plan would have ultimately had to be based.
I also believed that if you were going to make a contribution it ought to be a credible and viable one. I therefore supported the replacement of Polaris, which was vulnerable and past its shelf life, by the modern Trident, designed to compete with the most sophisticated and powerful air defences, although, since
680
Trident was so much more efficient than Polaris, I never saw the need for the fourth boat nor for the excessively short response time permanently demanded.
But now, looking at the world's scene, the authority and legitimacy of the Security Council, the world's correct preoccupation with the environment and what we are doing to our world, the economic and social problems of waging aggressive war, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear restraint, and the power of the media and of public and world opinion generally, I cannot see any situation in which this country would authorise the use of our own nuclear weapons on another country—not in the East, even post-Yeltsin, nor in the Middle East, nor anywhere. Against a strong country, people in glass houses do not throw stones and against a weak one it is, I hope, just not our style.
In a sense of course the weapons used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki—as my noble and gallant friend pointed out, weapons of tiny size compared with today—did make the point to an ignorant and innocent world and in that instance saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. But since then the weapons have been virtually unusable, except perhaps, as Winston Churchill said, as a "response from the grave", when it really would hardly matter. You may say—and indeed I have said it myself—that one of the reasons that Saddam Hussein did not put chemical weapons in his Scud missiles, of which he was capable, may have been a faint suspicion that the United States (not us, but the United States) might have used a nuclear weapon against him. This inhibiting, awesome retaliatory threat of nuclear weapons has now largely been overtaken by the accuracy and power of conventional cruise missiles which can take out key targets and installations without the inhibiting massive loss of civilian life.
So I would say to your Lordships, whatever way you look at it, even if you take a different view, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont does and as to a certain extent the right reverend Prelate does, on the value of some nuclear weapons being in the West's armoury in a still dangerous and uncertain world, or you are keener than I am on a belt-and-braces capability for a million to one chance, it must be admitted that we in this country are greatly over-nucleared in the context of our over-tight defence expenditure. It amazes me that this Government of all governments who in the past adopted, to say the least of it, a most suspicious attitude to these weapons should have accepted the whole nuclear deterrent philosophy—one might almost say theology—without demur or question. The Secretary of State for Defence constantly gives the impression that, although literally everything else in the Defence Vote will be looked at most critically in the coming review, the nuclear deterrent is ring-fenced, off limits and sacrosanct.
If the subject was ever raised in the Ministry of Defence, the line usually taken was that, now that the capital expenditure had been made on the four hulls and missiles, the running costs were so low that the political advantages of being part of the so-called "nuclear club" were well worth the cost. So "We're here, because we're here, because we're here" has become established policy not to be questioned, even though many were prepared

681
to admit in private that if we were taking the decision now we would probably not have an independent deterrent at all, and certainly not one of the current size. But if, as the Minister so honestly admitted in reply to a question from my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver, the cost of maintaining our nuclear capability, including the full running costs of the Trident force, are in the order of £1 billion this year, surely, in view of the manifest weaknesses of our conventional forces, whose utility is clear and consistent—weaknesses in terms of manning, infantry manpower, medical services and sustainability in general, all of which the Government have so rightly criticised in the strongest possible terms—there must be better ways to spend that money. It must be a matter of military priorities to bring the programme into proper balance.
Nor, if we are serious about nuclear proliferation, can we expect much response from those who wish to own their own nuclear weapons for exactly the same reason as we have for so long justified ours, unless we show some example. And if we do show some example, then I think we can, and should, insist on some reciprocal act on their part. I hope that that would be the start of a proper process on all sides.
I urge the Government to put our nuclear deterrent under the same microscope as everything else in the strategic review so that we can keep our whole defence programme in proper balance. Quite apart from the moral viewpoint, savings here may produce just the amount of extra resources that we require to put right so many other things in the conventional field that so badly need doing.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I had intended to rise and say that, sadly, I did not feel that I could repeat the conventional congratulations to a noble Lord on introducing this type of debate and giving us the opportunity of discussing this subject. I had intended to speak in that manner because I did not, and still do not, feel that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has succeeded in adding anything new. He has repeated the arguments that have been made against nuclear armaments for at least the past 40 years.
However, I have been very startled and saddened by the speeches of the two noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Carver. I feel that they have totally misunderstood the nature and importance of nuclear weapons for world peace. I am especially glad that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that he had changed his mind since the days when he was Chief of the Defence Staff. I am glad that he thought differently when he held that position. He referred to the "matchless blessing of our 50 years of peace".
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, talked about what would have happened and what steps could have been taken if the Russians had reached Calais. The point is that they did not reach Calais. They had no chance of reaching Calais because they knew of the overwhelming threat of nuclear retaliation, at a time when no country, not even America, would have been capable, in terms of conventional warfare, of retaliation in the face of an invasion of Germany and France as far as Calais.
682
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, used an old argument. We heard nothing new. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out that there was nothing new to be heard. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that he had not changed his views in 30 years. I am not in the least surprised, because the situation has not changed in the past 30 years. There is no longer a Cold War; but there are countries which may well have evil intent and which are in possession of nuclear weapons and sizeable conventional forces. They might well be persuaded to use them if the total threat of immediate retaliation did not exist. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said that that could never happen. I believe that, were the worst to happen, that could he wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, quoted Archbishop Martino. I thank the noble Lord for placing a copy of that speech in the Library; it was extremely difficult to get hold of. Archbishop Martino said that no weapon so threatens the peace of the 21st century as the nuclear weapon. He also says that,
"Nuclear weapons can destroy"—
I emphasise the word "can"—
"all life on the planet".
It is true, as noble and gallant Lords have said, that nuclear weapons are infinitely greater and more destructive than that used at Hiroshima. But there are also small "pocket" nuclear weapons which could be used and which would not destroy all life on the planet. I suggest to Archbishop Martino that there is no weapon that so achieves the peace of the second half of the 20th century, and will do in the 21st century, as the nuclear weapon.
Archbishop Martino was forced to admit the tragedy that more were killed by the use of short-range small weapons than by weapons of mass destruction. That he puts down to the continued growth of the arms trade. But he fails to recognise that nuclear weapons, which, because of the scale of destruction that they bring about, have never been used, are great contributors to the peace of the world.
The Archbishop uses much of his speech to condemn land-mines. That is a totally different question and not the subject of today's debate. But there can scarcely be modern weapons wider apart in concept than the nuclear bomb and the anti-personnel land-mine. In both cases, if the weapon concerned is to be wiped from the face of the earth, as many are trying to achieve, everybody will have to agree that it should happen, be prepared to set about it and get on with it unilaterally. All countries would have to be prepared to give up the advantages that they have gained, by having both the necessary material and the circumstances in which it can be used.
How are inspections to be carried out? The noble and gallant Lord said that verification was impossible. The advantages to a potential evil-doer are such that the temptations to have, maintain and hide a nuclear weapon are almost irresistible. A degree of goodwill is needed among all nations if what is sought by nuclear disarmers is to come about.
In the Cold War, the possession of nuclear weapons was vital to prevent those countries with massive conventional forces from attacking those who had not

683
got them. Today they are vital so that those smaller countries which have a nuclear potential or an aggressively minded conventional force know that they will be instantly destroyed if they use it.
It is sad that worthy and genuine seekers for peace, like the noble Lord and the Archbishop, continue to ignore the practicalities, or rather the impracticalities, of eliminating certain types of weapons, and nuclear weapons in particular.
Before the first world war in which he was killed, the novelist Saki wrote a short story in which two parents, being dedicated pacifists, gave their children models of J S Mill and Lord Shaftesbury so that they could play peace games and develop their social responsibilities. Of course, it did not work. The children instantly painted them red and renamed them Marshal Saxe and Napoleon and converted the workhouses into barracks. The noble Lord represents the worthy pacifist parents. The children, sadly, represent the nations of the world.
As the only speaker in this debate from these Benches, perhaps I should reiterate the views of this party on the possession of nuclear weapons. We have heard different views from the two noble and gallant Lords, and views much in concert with the views of both the main political parties from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The Benches opposite have confirmed their belief in the retention of nuclear weapons. Daniel has indeed come to judgment! It is scarcely necessary for me to add anything to my views and the Government's policy.
Although deeply concerned at the prospect of cost-cutting in the strategic defence review, the Conservatives have a defence policy underpinned by nuclear weapons which provide the ultimate guarantee of security. Anyone who believes, as the noble and gallant Lords seem to believe, that if we totally abandon our nuclear policy the Treasury will allow the Ministry of Defence to have all the money it costs for conventional weapons, is very sadly misleading himself.
Nuclear weapons uniquely ensure that aggression is not a national option for any country. It can reasonably be said that in the days of the Cold War it was those weapons alone which preserved peace in Europe. Now we have no Cold War, we no longer need the number of weapons which previously existed. This is recognised by all the political parties. By the end of 1998 we shall have 21 per cent. fewer warheads and nearly 60 per cent. less explosive power than we had in the Cold War. While we should not revive the infamous pre-war "10-year rule", we do not need the resources of 15 years ago.
The 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which was reviewed and extended indefinitely in 1995, was one of the main goals of Conservative defence policy. We vigorously support the comprehensive test ban treaty.
The Government put a commitment in their manifesto to retain Trident. In the past, Labour spokesmen have spoken of the need to preserve a minimum nuclear deterrent and I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that today, because anything less would be disastrous. I believe it unlikely that she will find time to
684
confirm the Government's commitment to a four-boat Trident fleet, but I can hope for it. I can also hope that she will confirm the last government's commitment in terms of the number of nuclear warheads and missile bodies.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I ask why the noble Lord chose to feature the speech of the papal representative in the title for the debate. It is dangerous to quote Stalin, but he had something when he said:
"The Pope: How many divisions has he?"
Stalin, like other dictators of whom there are still sadly many around the world, also knew what he would do with his nuclear weapons if he did get the opportunity of using them. It is by keeping our own weapons that the free countries ensure that they continue free and that relative peace is maintained. If it were the case that the countries of the world could only retain nuclear bombs or land-mines, it would be infinitely preferable to keep the bombs.
CND, Archbishop Martino, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and their friends are worthy but unrealistic. Sadly, we have heard their case many times before and there is little new in it. However, I have to say that there is a good deal new in what we heard from the mouths of the noble and gallant Lords and I am saddened and startled by it. No doubt we shall get it all again in some further debate and again there will really be nothing new. We should keep nuclear weapons. It is the policy of this Government and of the Conservative Party to continue to work for the best interests and the peace of the world.
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for introducing the debate this evening. As ever, the noble Lord is indefatigable in ensuring that nuclear disarmament is kept at the forefront of our minds. However, even without his efforts, this is a matter which is very much a concern of the Government. We recognise that it is also a question in which there is a high level of public interest. In the Gallup Poll which was conducted in October this year, 87 per cent. of those questioned supported negotiations to prohibit nuclear weapons. We pay close attention to that. My honourable friend the Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for disarmament, Tony Lloyd, recently held a meeting with a large number of non-governmental organisations to hear their views on these and related issues.
The speech by Archbishop Martino to the United Nations' First Committee called for the world to move to the abolition of nuclear weapons through a universal, non-discriminatory ban with intensive inspection by a universal authority. It is a call which noble Lords will find mirrored in the Government's manifesto commitment to mutual, balanced and verifiable nuclear disarmament.
We fully agree with the Archbishop on the desirability of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, but I must say that not all the Archbishop's

685
arguments support his case equally. Nuclear weapons account for a tiny proportion of global military spending. They are not a factor at all in the spending of the vast majority of nations. They constitute a relatively small part of even the declining defence budgets of the nuclear weapon states.
In answer to one of the points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in our case 90 per cent. of the £12 billion estimated procurement cost of the Trident programme has already been spent. Average running costs have been estimated at £200 million per annum over a 30-year in-service life. This forms only a very small percentage of the defence budget.
The abolition of nuclear weapons therefore offers no financial panacea, as the noble and gallant Lord suggested. The Government wish to see their global elimination because it is desirable in itself and not on the grounds of cost.
We are committed to arms control in all forms. The Archbishop referred to the Ottawa convention banning landmines. This Government are proud to have played their full part in the process that led to that agreement. We have now signed it and we hope to ratify it soon. We are also party to the chemical and biological weapons conventions he mentioned, and have been leading international efforts in Geneva to strengthen the latter. On 28th July we introduced new arms export criteria which made good our pledge to press for responsible arms trading.
As one of the five nuclear weapon states, Britain has a key role to play in the process of nuclear disarmament. As I have already made clear to noble Lords on a number of occasions, we intend to use our position to work for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. To achieve that, we will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions. Once satisfied with verified progress towards our goal, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in the multilateral negotiations. It will involve, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reminded us, steady diplomacy and painstaking negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked what we were doing to make good our commitments at the moment and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked what effective progress the Government are making. At a global level much progress has already been made towards nuclear disarmament especially through bilateral strategic arms reduction talks, or START. That has led to the United States and Russia agreeing significant reductions of their nuclear arsenals which are the world's largest numbering many thousands of warheads. Though outside these talks, Britain has played its full part in working for nuclear disarmament. We have unilaterally promised to withdraw our free-fall nuclear bomb by the end of March 1998. I draw that particularly to the attention of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who suggested that Britain ought to be doing more to set an example. We are setting that example. We have unilaterally promised to withdraw our free-fall nuclear bomb, but that will leave us with a single nuclear deterrent system. We have also taken a leading role in the negotiations of essential precursors
686
of global nuclear disarmament, such as the comprehensive test ban treaty. This treaty, which ends nuclear weapons test explosions for all time, has been the major global advance of recent years. It has been signed by over 140 states, including all the nuclear weapon states. We hope to ratify in the new year, becoming the first of the nuclear weapons states to do so. It has created a strong moral and political norm against testing. The international monitoring system, to be set up under it, will in due course provide an additional practical deterrent to nuclear testing, ensuring that any breaches will be detected. We and the international community will continue to work to persuade those states which have not signed, to do so as soon as possible.
Another success story of recent years has been the development of nuclear weapon free zones, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. We believe that such zones, freely arrived at by all the states of the region concerned, can make a valuable contribution to global and regional peace and security. The UK has already ratified the protocols to the treaties establishing zones in Latin America and the Caribbean, and in the South Pacific. Last year we signed the protocols to the African nuclear weapon free zone and are working towards ratification. We are also trying (with other nuclear weapon states) to find a solution that will enable us to sign the protocol to the treaty creating a zone in south east Asia. We continue to consider proposals for new zones, such as the initiative to establish a zone in central Asia.
Through the protocols to nuclear weapon free zone treaties, we and other nuclear weapon states give the parties to those treaties negative security assurances, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, reminded us. These commit us not to use nuclear weapons against these states, unless they attack us in alliance or association with a nuclear weapon state. We have also made a unilateral statement extending such an assurance to all non-nuclear-weapon state parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Several further steps towards disarmament have been suggested during this debate—particularly by the right reverend Prelate in a number of different ways—and by such bodies as the Canberra Commission. Many of these are being examined in the strategic defence review and elsewhere.
This examination will cover all aspects of our nuclear policy including warhead numbers, greater transparency and de-alerting measures, in the way that the right reverend Prelate suggested it should. If we conclude that circumstances allow us to make changes in any of these areas we will be prepared to do so, while ensuring that we retain an effective deterrent.
One of the most common suggestions is that a timetable be agreed with a date by which nuclear weapons will be eliminated, although I know that Archbishop Martino did not call for this in his recent speech. Bearing in mind the complexities of disposal and verification, we remain to be convinced of the wisdom of a pre-set timetable.

687
I should repeat our commitment to a fissile material cut-off treaty. We believe it would be an important step towards eventual nuclear disarmament, as well as strengthening the non-proliferation regime. And we will work hard to bring about the start of negotiations on this issue in the conference on disarmament.
This Government welcome the International Court of Justice's recognition, repeated by the Archbishop, of the importance of obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which includes a commitment to nuclear disarmament by all states parties.
The court was unable to conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake. We have always maintained that the use of nuclear weapons would be subject to the requirements of international law applicable in armed conflict, but that the legality of any specific use or threat of use would depend on all the circumstances at the time. The United Kingdom's nuclear deterrence policy remains entirely defensive: we would only ever consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence, which includes the defence of our NATO allies.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked why the United Kingdom voted against the Malaysian resolution at the UN on the International Court of Justice advisory opinion. We voted against the resolution because of its selective quotation of the advisory opinion and its unrealistic call for time-bound multilateral negotiations. However, we remain committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament and continue to hold the International Court of Justice in high regard.
I add that we supported resolutions tabled by Japan on the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons and by the United States of America and Russian on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations. We also supported resolutions on nuclear weapon free zones in central and southern Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance. I was a little perplexed by his notion that there were differences in the policy between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence on those issues. The noble Lord raised this question specifically in an oral Question on 10th December. I hope that I was unequivocal in assuring him at that time that there was no withdrawing from the Government's policy as stated in our manifesto and as supported by many people in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about President Yeltsin's remarks in Stockholm. President Yeltsin's statement has since been clarified by a spokesman who stated that no reductions were imminent. We would of course welcome any further reduction in Russia's nuclear stockpile in particular to implement the pledge to reduce their tactical nuclear weapons made by President Yeltsin in 1992.
I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about START 2. START 2 is not yet in force because it has not yet been ratified by Russia. President Yeltsin
688
introduced the treaty to the Duma and Russia and the US agreed revisions of the timetable for its implementation and demarcation under the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Those are expected to resolve the doubts expressed by opponents of the treaty in Russia and to smooth the way for verification.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, expressed doubts about the Government's policies in this area, in particular in relation to implementation of the Canberra Commission's goals. This Government strongly support the Canberra Commission's goals of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Some of the recommendations of the Canberra Commission have already been achieved; for example, the comprehensive test ban treaty which created such a strong norm against nuclear testing. The United Kingdom will have only one single nuclear weapon system in 1998. We believe it is making significant progress. It is bound to be painstaking; but, nonetheless, it is progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised questions in answer to some of the points made by the right reverend Prelate in relation to detaching warheads from missiles. Her Majesty's Government agree with that point. We believe that to detach warheads from missiles would be impractical, as he suggested, because of the nature of our deterrent. As Trident is a single submarine-based system, there would be significant difficulties in detaching our warheads from missiles while maintaining the credible deterrent to which Her Majesty's Government are committed while we are going through the process I described.
The noble Lord also spoke about the importance of Trident. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reminded us of the Government's position over this. We have said that we will retain Trident, but retain it while we work for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. It is a very different policy from that of the previous government, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, reminded us. Our overall objective is of course a strong defence against the new security challenges in the post-Cold War world. We have recently ordered new missile bodies in order to ensure that Trident is kept up to date. But that does not mean that our goal is not clear: to continue to press for multilateral, balanced and verifiable reductions in these weapons. Our goal of the final elimination of those weapons remains clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that there were no new arguments. He was not surprised that there were no new arguments. Neither am I surprised that there are no new arguments. It is indeed an old argument, but it is an old argument with a great deal of new energy behind it, a new energy supported by the British public. He may have found it a depressing argument, but many do not. They find it a genuine prospect for the eventual elimination of these appalling weapons of mass destruction—a very important and exhilarating prospect. It will indeed be painstaking; it will indeed be difficult; it will indeed demand verification; but it is important and it is desirable. The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, showed that this Government's policy is very, very different from that of their predecessors.

689
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for allowing me another opportunity to present—I hope with much greater clarity than is possible in dealing with Questions in your Lordships' House—the Government's position on nuclear disarmament. I have taken note of all the points made. I hope that I have answered them. When I read through Hansard if I find that there are any points that still remain to be answered, I shall write to noble Lords.
In the seven months since the general election we have made steady progress on this issue. We shall continue on that course in line with the undertaking so clearly expressed in our manifesto. I conclude by referring to the remarks of Archbishop Martino's statement. He called for an unequivocal commitment to the abolition of nuclear arms. I am happy to repeat that this Government are committed to the global elimination of those nuclear weapons.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in her brilliant summary to this fascinating debate my noble friend has clarified the Government's position. I find it entirely satisfactory. I have a certain qualification about speed and direction; but, so far as concerns the objective, there is a growing feeling, which was exemplified by the speeches of the noble and gallant Lords who graced this occasion with their presence, that the world is moving towards making a distinction between weapons of mass destruction and weapons which can reasonably be used in war.
It is rather like a man in a house who quarrels with other members of his family. There is not much point in bringing down the whole house by using a weapon which has that effect. In a simple way that is why the distinction between weapons of mass destruction which threaten our world as it has never been threatened before and other weapons is made by those whose duty has been—and the duty of their successors might still be—to put those weapons into active use. There was an international meeting of generals from many countries, including Russia, at which the reluctance of people to initiate a process which might have the type of effect I have described was manifest. The world is moving in that direction.
Apart from the opening speech, the debate has been characterised by quite brilliant speeches. It should be printed and circulated widely. It would make good reading. I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in the debate. I feel invigorated by it. I hope that that feeling is not confined to me—I do not believe that it is. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is unusual for a measure of this kind to be introduced and
690
sponsored from the Cross Benches. First, it seeks to give effect to one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Relations between Central and Local government which I had the honour to chair and which reported unanimously on a cross-party basis in July last year. Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, indicated in a debate on an Unstarred Question on 23rd July this year (at col. 1500 of the Official Report) that since time had not been found for a Government Bill this Session, if I were to introduce a Private Member's Bill it would have government support. That is my justification. Before I go further, I must also declare an interest in that I am honorary president of the Local Government Association, which has welcomed the Bill.
This should be an important debate and there are a number of distinguished speakers taking part. I look forward with particular pleasure and interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. He will be speaking not only with his authority and experience as the leader of his own council but also as someone who over many years has taken a great interest in and spoken and written about good government and good practice and how to make local government more effective and more accountable. I am sure he will say things of great interest to us.
Before offering some comments on the main provisions of the Bill, perhaps I ought to try to answer the question: why do we want experimental arrangements in local government decision-taking arrangements? After all, the existing statutory committee structure is long established and people are used to it. Why do we want to change it? There are three rather different reasons. First, local authorities are very different in size and nature. What works well in one place does not necessarily work well in another. That is why the Council of Europe Charter of Local Self Government, which the present Government have signed, says in Article 6 that,
"without prejudice to more general statutory provisions, local authorities should be able to determine their own internal administrative structures in order to adapt them to local needs and ensure effective management".
At present, there are unnecessary constraints preventing our own local authorities doing just that.
The second reason is that over many years local government has become both more complex and more political. As a result, most major policy decisions are now taken not in the formal committee structure but in smaller political groups of the majority party. Yet the need subsequently to process these decisions through the formal committee structure both blurs accountability between the executive and representative processes and is also one of the things which led the Audit Commission recently to conclude that councillors spend far too much time in committees rather than with their community.
As long ago as 1993 a working party established by the then Secretary of State for the Environment and comprising representatives of both central and local government suggested that the pretence that all councillors have equal power and equal responsibilities

691
was no longer sustainable and that experiments in decision-taking arrangements which recognised that fact should be tried.
The third reason is that while there is widespread acceptance of the importance of local government itself, public interest in its actual processes is at an all-time low, which is reflected in the deplorably low turnout at local elections. The need for clearer accountability is matched by the need for democratic innovations which will encourage local people to exercise their democratic interest and authority over matters of direct concern to them. The Bill, however, is confined to ways of doing this through the arrangements for decision-taking by local authorities. Other possible ways of revitalising local democracy—for example, changes in voting arrangements—will have to await discussion in the context of the White Paper which the Government intend to publish next year.
Against those reasons for change, Clause 1(5) of the Bill sets out three overriding criteria for any experimental arrangements: first, that they should be likely to lead to decisions being taken in a more efficient and more accountable way; secondly, that they should be likely to lead to decisions being taken with greater regard to local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area; and, thirdly, that they should include provisions for members of the authority—that means members of all political parties—to scrutinise the exercise of any functions to which the arrangements relate. Those three criteria underlie and inform the duties placed on councils, on the Secretary of State, on monitoring officers and on everyone else concerned in the Bill.
I wish to emphasise that the Bill is permissive and not prescriptive: no one would be forced to do anything. It would, however, allow authorities to apply to the Secretary of State for approval to operate an experimental scheme for a limited period and would enable him to make an order, subject to the negative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament, making temporary modifications to certain current legislation where these are necessary to allow the scheme to proceed and provided the criteria of efficiency, accountability and transparency are observed.
The Bill has 13 clauses of which the first three are the crucial ones. Clause 1, in addition to setting out the criteria to which I have referred, lists a menu of options which might improve the decision-making process but which are not permitted under current legislation. Broadly, these are the direct election of a mayor with executive functions from a single ward comprising the whole of the authority's area; arrangements to allow the appointment of executive or advisory committees, the membership of which does not conform to the existing requirements about political balance; arrangements to delegate the discharge of functions to individual members of the authority whether it is to lead members for particular issues or to an indirectly elected mayor; and arrangements for the appointment of scrutiny
692
committees to scrutinise any functions of the authority and in particular those subject to an experimental scheme.
There are variants of these broad categories which are spelt out in the Bill but I wish to emphasise one point. The Bill specifies that experiments may not include the discharge by an ordinary member or by an elected mayor of any functions which, but virtue of any enactment, may be discharged only by the authority itself or by an officer of the authority; for example the level of the local budget and council tax which have to be set by the full council.
The objective of any experiment would be to sharpen and make more accountable the decision-making process. I should, however, add a word about the proposal to allow experiments with committees whose membership might be from the majority party only. The argument, which was endorsed by the joint working party in 1993, to which I referred, is that this would make the decision-making process both more expeditious and more transparent. It would be more expeditious because it would avoid the cumbersome two-stage process, to which I referred, and more transparent because discussion in a committee composed only of the majority party would be brought within the formal decision structure with advice from officials, minutes which would be made available, in particular to an all-party scrutiny committee, and so on. I ought, however, to make one thing clear. It would not be the intention to approve an experiment which involved a departure from the normal requirements of political balance on committees unless it was accompanied by an all-party scrutiny committee to preserve and formalise the rights of minority parties.
Clause 2 contains the procedure to be followed by an authority which wants to submit an experimental scheme for approval and Clause 3, the procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State when he receives such an application. The clauses are somewhat detailed and technical, but they are important since the Secretary of State will need to know not only the objectives of the scheme and how it would meet local needs, but also how the arrangements between members and officers and between the executive and other members would work; how conflicts would be resolved; and what the safeguards for propriety and access to information would be, and so on. Noble Lords will also note that before reaching his decision the Secretary of State is required to consult the Audit Commission as well as the Local Government Association. Clause 10 requires the authority's head of paid service and monitoring officer to make an annual report on the effect of an approved scheme which will go to the Secretary of State.
The other clauses deal mainly with arrangements for extending or varying an experimental scheme and repeat much of what is in the first three clauses. I would like to emphasise one point arising from them. An experimental scheme could be approved for up to a maximum of eight years in the first place, and it could be extended only once, again subject to the negative resolution procedure, for up to a further four years. No further extension would be possible without primary legislation since it is not felt that the possible

693
modifications to existing legislation listed in the schedule to the Bill should be other than for a defined and temporary period. In other words, the whole purpose of the Bill is to allow certain temporary experiments and not to become a backdoor way of introducing long-term changes.
I do not suggest that any one of the options which would be permitted by the Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, is necessarily a panacea for revitalising local democracy. Indeed, an attempt to impose a uniform approach to structural reform at this stage might be a recipe for disaster. I am, however, convinced that, as the Select Committee strongly recommended last year, local authorities should be allowed to conduct pilot experiments subject to the safeguards proposed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am well aware of the background that has led to this Bill and I welcome the opportunity that it gives us all to raise the profile of a very important part of our democratic process, local government. I also welcome the idea of giving local councils greater freedom to experiment. I share the noble Lord's desire to make local government much more accountable; much more accessible, particularly for constituents; and more attractive so that people will put themselves forward as councillors to serve their communities.
However, I have many reservations about the detail of the Bill. As we shall have an opportunity to discuss the details in Committee, perhaps I may confine my remarks this evening to just two areas. I should like to concentrate particularly on accountability and on certain aspects of the experimentation, as well as on how we can make local government more attractive both to candidates and the voting public.
I start with accountability. I am afraid that, unless we see stronger safeguards in the Bill for back-benchers and opposition members, I am not sure that allowing individuals certain powers and setting up one-party committees will increase accountability. However, perhaps I may suggest one or two things that might do that: we could devolve committee structures to local areas, allow members of the public to question councillors: and allow members of the public the right to speak in committee on certain items. I believe that such changes are more likely to increase the accountability of our local councillors. Liberal Democrat councils have successfully introduced the latter proposals and have allowed public question times—quite often in the face of strong opposition from other parties, but sometimes with their agreement.
On the point about a committee structure, I believe that devolving the committee structure to local level has, where it has been tried, done an incredible amount to bring the public closer to their councils and to make the councillors more accountable to the public. I have experience of two councils which I know well and which are run by Liberal Democrats. One is Kingston
694
and the other is East Hampshire. One is an urban authority; the other is a rural authority, but, more or less independently, they have set up similar systems. Councillors have found that when dealing with planning matters—always a difficult area for local councillors—they have been under great scrutiny from local people and they have been held accountable for the way in which they have voted on certain issues.
We must try to attract candidates to local government and help people to become interested in serving as local councillors. I agree that many people who could use their expertise and interests to the benefit of their local communities are at present deterred from standing for local councils. That is partly because the world of work has changed so much in recent years. The jobs market is very competitive and it is now difficult for people to take time off work so that they can devote the necessary time to being a local councillor. I believe that people have been put off for another reason: in recent years many decisions have been centralised. Local people feel that they do not have much power so they ask why they should put themselves out by spending a lot of time in the council when they can make only a few decisions. Finance has been a particularly difficult area for local councils. We have had capping and all sorts of restrictions so people question exactly what decisions are now left to local councillors. That area needs further consideration.
I turn now to the voters. I do not quite follow the logic of the argument that the committee structure would encourage voters to think that everything was much more accountable. I believe that that is up to the individual councillors. I agree with the noble Lord that councillors of all parties tend to get extremely hung up about the day-to-day running of their local councils and to forget who elected them to that place. Voting history shows that those councillors who take the trouble to keep in touch with their electorate, to go out and be involved in their local community and to bring the council nearer to that local community, are those who make the people in that community more interested in local government. I believe that that increases the turn-out. In an area in which I was very active when a councillor, we increased our turn-out because we made local government important to local people. We are well known for that as Liberal Democrats. We tend to publish what are called "focus leaflets" which at certain times cause consternation, but which have a purpose and ensure that people are kept in touch with what is going on.
I would not be a Liberal Democrat if I did not take this opportunity to say that I think that the electorate would be more interested in voting in local elections if we had a fairer and more representative electoral system. I know that that point was raised when the general matter was investigated. I hope that at some stage in the future that possibility will become a reality.
The intention of the Bill is laudable, but I do not think that the reality will quite meet the intention. The Bill seeks to improve the administrative running of councils, but we must also take a look at the democratic process. Achieving the right balance between those two is important. It may be that as the Bill progresses some of

695
the safeguards about which I am concerned can be included in order to address those problems. I am aware that I am probably in a minority tonight in giving the Bill what could be called "lukewarm" support. Given that I am a Liberal Democrat and that we always wax lyrical about being the leaders of experiments in local government, that may surprise some people, but I hope that I have explained some of the reasons behind my views. I look forward to the rest of the debate and particularly to the speech of my noble friend Lady Hamwee who is a councillor of long standing, with a great deal of experience of experimentation in local government.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as is traditional, I am sure, on the occasion of making one's first speech in your Lordships' House, I have taken extensive advice on how one should conduct oneself. The most useful document is, of course, the single sheet of A4 paper provided by an unknown author from the Whips' Office which simply advises maiden speakers to be,
"unprovocative and refrain from saying anything that might give offence, politically or otherwise".
So, having taken extensive advice I decided to join in a debate about local government. Looking around the Chamber this evening I am not so sure about the wisdom of that decision.
However, the subject of the debate is one which I find hard to resist—and here perhaps I should declare an interest as leader of one of the nation's better known local authorities, Brighton and Hove. The future of local government is very much on the agenda and I welcome the opportunity to make some observations on the content of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth.
The noble Lord is, in my view, to be congratulated on an act of outstanding bravery in bringing this measure forward. Looking at the Rowntree Trust poll of 1,600 councillors conducted in 1994, I note that only 3 per cent. of those members decided that they liked the idea of an elected mayor and just 13 per cent. favoured the principle of executive Cabinet-style structures. Yet national public opinion polls show 70 per cent. to 90 per cent. support for such measures.
The debate about the modernisation of local government is one that will increase in intensity. It is not one that will always attract widespread support, largely because of a misunderstanding of the intent of the proposals and their effect. After all, this is an enabling piece of legislation. It provides an opportunity for change; it does not prescribe change. In so doing it does not offer either carrot or stick. For this reason it is to be welcomed. Local authorities have a choice. They can embrace its principles or continue working as they do currently. The choice is theirs. Its principal innovatory features would enable local councils to create directly elected executive leaders or mayors, establish political executives or cabinet style local government, delegate some decisions to lead or executive councillors and
696
arrange for the appointment of scrutiny or select committees. All are important measures in whole or part.
Variants of these models can be put in place, but whatever they are they must conform to the important principle of making local authorities more accountable, efficient and effective. All of these objectives must be in the public interest and the interests of good public service.
Some councils, and no doubt many councillors, will ask why they should embrace this agenda for change. To them I have this observation to make. Why is it that in almost any public opinion survey undertaken the public continue to be largely ignorant or ill-informed about the business of local democracy and yet also crave more information and access to their local council and its decision making processes?
Authorities like my own, Lewisham, Camden, York, Bradford, South Somerset, Sutton, Derbyshire, and many, many others, have over the past few years undertaken extensive efforts to develop community planning and consultation mechanisms to open up the democratic processes of local governance and let the people into its "secret garden". Yet with all of this activity, and no doubt with unqualified success in terms of feedback, are we really creating a more participative local government system or a system in which people really find they have a say? If so I fancy that we would see larger turnouts in local elections.
The fact is that in terms of performance league tables—as a Brighton and Hove Albion fan I know about these things—.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: From top to bottom!
Lord Bassam of Brighton:—the UK occupies the bottom spot in terms of public participation in local elections. Just 40 per cent. traditionally vote. We sit last in a table of EC turnouts: Denmark has 80 per cent., France 68 per cent., Germany 72 per cent. and Italy 85 per cent. How much democratic legitimacy can we in local government claim when so few feel motivated to participate?
My case for change is based on the need to renew and engage in the democratic process so that in the future we do not go through the excessive centralisation and accretion of power to the centre which over the past two decades we have experienced. We need to make local government more relevant to our people, more active, more alive and—dare I say—more fun. We need to open up its structures and make the business of government a touch more exciting.
I argue that mayoral contests will increase turnouts and excite local electors and generate local debate. The media will be interested, and they will become the focus of strong civic leadership that develops in our communities. If it takes the creation of a directly elected political leader to do it it is worth giving it the green light. My guess is that the debate in which your Lordships' House engaged on Monday about the creation of a greater London authority with an elected mayor will in a few years lead to an explosion of interest

697
from provincial towns and cities in changed democratic forms. No one will want to be left behind, especially as London again becomes a focus for excellence in governance and a pace setter in attracting inward investment from the business sector and regenerating public services. London will become an international cultural and financial capital and be known as such for its democratic voice.
The long-term trends in local government take us inevitably in the direction of a new agenda for the revitalisation of civic life. I believe that local leaders are indirectly elected mayors already. Most local authorities have informal cabinets. I believe that for the past 50 years the very notion of good local governance has been under threat. We need to reverse that process. Measures like those proposed in the Bill at last give us the opportunity to do things both well and differently. They will enable us to get more from the undervalued and often ignored talents of elected councillors. They will enable Government to give councillors back trust and responsibility and enable those of us involved to carve out a new, exciting and powerful strategic role for democratic public services.
Our local authorities spend in excess of £45 billion annually in the provision of those services, yet we invest little in training and improving the quality and calibre of councillors who make vital and critical decisions that affect the daily lives of all citizens. The experimental arrangements Bill will encourage local government to introduce structures and processes which should be more relevant, open and accountable to the people in whose name we seek to serve. It should encourage authorities that are strategically better focused, well led and act with a sense of purpose and vision. It should help those of us who are committed to the modernisation and improvement of government to re-fashion local government more in the image of the new millennium and less in the shadow of the Victorians who provided us with such a rich legacy but, sadly, have left us with a system of committee-led, process-dominated and often faceless and over-bureaucratised councils.
We have a willing and supportive Government that want to help local government rediscover its basis and origins. We have a willing agent of change in the Local Government Association, who have argued for and given aid to the Bill. Sir Jeremy Beecham said:
"Being a councillor should be about representing the local community, both at ward and authority level. Reviewing our procedures and experimenting with better ones under the proposals…should mean that the structures allow councillors to be more effective representatives of their communities. These and other reforms will help to renew local government as an accountable democratic force for leading local communities and promoting their interests.
"I hope that every local authority will look at its procedures and explore the possibilities for experiment contained in this Bill".
I believe that those are very powerful and important sentiments.
If I have one minor criticism of the measure it is that it is perhaps not enabling enough. Let local electors have a say in triggering a local debate on new democratic arrangements, perhaps by obliging consultation or creating scope for a trigger ballot. Let us open the gate to local government's secret garden. I believe that there
698
is much talent and potential for innovation in local government. All of us should give our warm blessing and support to this Bill and begin the revitalisation of provincial local government tomorrow.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on his maiden speech which is based on long and substantial experience in local government and is spoken from the heart on behalf of local democracy. I hope that in future he will take a full part in the work of this House now that he has made such a good start. Perhaps I should declare a double interest when I say that council work forms a good basis for work in this House. It is even better when you are born and brought up in Essex.
It is with great regret that I express disappointment with the Bill, especially as it has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who was such an excellent chairman of the Select Committee on Central and Local Government Relations on which I also served. In the report of that committee Rebuilding Trust it was recommended that local government should be given more freedom to innovate, with which I agree. We had in mind a wide variety of possibilities which would allow local authorities to experiment to "improve their democratic legitimacy", particularly emphasising that "different models might suit different authorities". The report referred to a number of different ideas and ways of "responding more quickly to proposed partnerships perhaps with the private sector", or of "undertaking activities considered to be in the interests of their area", and "annual elections, referenda, elected mayors etc." which would "restore an interest in local democracy" and "promote a return to civic pride". We did not deliberately come down in favour of any one of those options.
I served in local government for about 25 years at district and county council level, so I believe deeply in its importance and freedom to act in the interest of its communities. In my early days politics took a back seat and there were no group meetings. Like Cross-Benchers here, we voted according to our conscience and local situation. I recognise that those days are gone, although witnesses told us:
"there was evidence that people wished to see less party involvement in local politics".
My disappointment over the Bill is that its suggestions are too narrow. They relate particularly, as laid down in Clause 1(2), to elected mayors, single members of the authority being able to discharge any of the functions of the authority acting alone, and to the appointment of committees of the authority:
"otherwise than in accordance with the political balance requirements".
Those are not the kind of arrangements that will improve local democracy. They will only give more powers, and arbitrary powers at that, to the majority party, which I do not believe most local people would want. The Bill, I agree, then goes on to provide for protective arrangements; but all that does, it seems to

699
me, is to increase bureaucracy. It would certainly make it more difficult for the ordinary back-bencher to play a full part in the workings of the council.
My Lords, when you are elected as a councillor, you are there to represent your village or ward in a town. As you take more part in the workings of the council, you soon learn that you cannot realise all your ideals; you certainly cannot have all your own way; and you have to consider other members' needs on behalf of their localities. All those things are naturally subject to resources being available. In my experience there are never enough resources, and money is always tight.
However, in the sub-committees and working groups, politics are not so high on the agenda; compromises can be reached and collective decisions made, taking into proper account the needs of minorities. Eventually, later in the process, there will be political disagreement on financial priorities, and other major policy decisions. It is very important that at the early stages of decision making local minorities should be present and have their say. Parish councils, for instance, which are not usually political, should be able to put forward their solutions to local problems. Perhaps I may declare an interest as president of the Essex Association of Local Councils. That is the essence of local government. Political caucuses, of whatever party, are no substitute.
Subsection (5) tries to reintroduce accountability, scrutiny, and the views of local electors. In my view that is too late. The die will be cast and it will be much more difficult to unravel a complex decision. I am not in favour of elected mayors, although I am not against experiments being tried. I believe that far too much power is put into the hands of one person. It smacks of some people's idea of the ideal committee—the committee of one. That is not my ideal.
The elected assembly can criticise the mayor's actions, but it will be much more difficult for that assembly to be in possession of all the information necessary to criticise objectively, and even more for it to force the mayor to change a policy. I have seen an elected chief executive in action in Germany. In that case, which is similar, it certainly led to arrogance towards the other elected members.
I hope that the Bill does not pass into law in its present form. I am in favour of more freedom for local government, but should like to see far less prescriptive measures. I should like to see a more bottom-up approach to powers for innovation, and more emphasis on subsidiarity at local level, to which we referred in our report.
As Robin Wendt, Chief Executive of the Association of County Councils, said in evidence:
"it is time that local government was actually trusted to be responsible rather than continually being told what it ought to do very often in considerable detail".
Once again, the Bill goes into too much detail. Responsible local authorities, responding to their own difficult local problems in an innovative manner, can develop policies that other local authorities may decide to adopt too, once again adapting them to their own local situations. Sometimes those policies may later be
700
adopted nationally, which shows their practicality. The Bill does not fulfil the Select Committee's ideas or give enough freedom to innovate at a local level.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, on bringing it forward. As a former member of the Oxford and Birmingham City Councils, he has been rather modest about the effect of these proposals. I see them as being an essential element in the rejuvenation of local government and local democracy, and in the potential that local councils have to give leadership to their local communities.
I have lived in Birmingham for 20 years, and I have seen the effect of a local authority pulling its community together, leading it from a situation in the early 1980s when so many of our traditional industries and businesses went to the wall, to attracting new investment, investing in the arts, and new services such as the National Exhibition Centre and the convention centre, to trying to develop as well, and in parallel, an improvement in services such as education.
With cross-party support, local authorities such as Birmingham have shown what can be done to rebuild confidence in a community. What Birmingham has done, a number of other local authorities have also done. The history of local government over many years now has been negative. Since the war there has been a continual taking away of power from local government. That started in the 1940s with electricity, gas and health. Before the formation of the NHS, the LCC was the largest hospital authority in the world. In 1974 NHS responsibilities, which local authorities then had, were taken away, along with water. Since then the police and major parts of the education service have gone. Throughout that process we have seen central government putting many more controls on local government and capping their ability to raise revenues locally.
It is hardly surprising that the public has lost confidence and interest in what local authorities do; hardly surprising that voter turnout is so disappointing; and that local authorities have found it difficult to get away from that rather depressing picture, when their decision-making processes rest so much on a committee structure bequeathed to local government by our Victorian forefathers.
As someone who worked in the NHS for many years, I have to admit that local government does not have a monopoly of committees and working groups. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the Audit Commission report, which was published this year, stated that too much of a burden is placed on councillors, often unproductive, by committee meetings which are focused on detailed issues. It went on to say that such committees could consume large amounts of management time, slow down decisions, and duplicate one another's work.
It is worse than that. The committee system has inhibited strategic leadership in many local authorities. It has undermined the role of managers and officers in

701
managing services. It has inhibited the integration of services. I often think that the local government committee structure, reinforced by powerful departments and committee chairs, parallels the problem that we have in Whitehall in terms of achieving integrated approaches across departmental barriers.
There are examples of local councils which have attempted to innovate in the decision-making process by introducing provider committees and policy committees; setting up time-limited task forces which have attempted to cross departmental boundaries; decentralisation to local committees; changing the management philosophy from one of a hierarchical philosophy to one based on outputs; and the output of the work in relation to the public.
So much more needs to be done. If local government is to recover, if we are to have dynamic democracy at local level, it must take a more radical approach to changing the way in which it makes decisions. That is why I welcome the Bill so much. I believe that the prospect of elected mayors, single councillor responsibility and a cabinet system of Government will offer the opportunity of greater strategic leadership and greater public interest. I believe that more people will wish to stand for election to local government.
I should have liked the Bill to have gone further. I should like to have seen greater ability for councils to devolve to local committees. As Professor John Stewart and George Jones have written:
"Local authorities which have considered imaginative schemes for decentralisation have found themselves restricted by legal constraints about the delegation of powers and about co-option".
They go on to argue:
"It is important to balance the concentration of power in the Executive with measures of decentralisation".
A number of issues will need to be teased out as the Bill progresses. There are the needs of the minorities, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt; the balance between the greater authority which will be given to the political leadership of a council; and the effectiveness of scrutiny arrangements which need to be put into place. I strongly support the concept of a Select Committee approach.
Then there is the need to ensure that back-benchers within local authorities have a real job to do. Scrutiny certainly, ward work of course, but I also believe that they must have an opportunity to take part in policy development. What happens if relationships between, say, the elected mayor and the council break down? What happens if the council consistently rejects the major proposals put forward by the mayor? What happens if the mayor's behaviour is deemed to bring the local authority into disrepute? How can we introduce safeguards into the process which cannot be used by one party, which might have the majority of councillors, to undermine the position of the elected mayor who may come from another political party?
Furthermore, I am somewhat concerned about the wide discretion which the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to make modifications of enactments. We need to understand the implications of that.
702
Finally, as regards openness, I am a critic of the committee system in local government. But in one sense at least it has to its credit that it is an open system. It is open to the public to go and hear decisions being made. It is important that in making these new arrangements we do not move away from a principle that decision making in local government should be open.
The great beauty of the Bill is that it allows for innovation, experimentation and the sharing of good practice. I believe that it is timely for local government to be reinvented and reinvigorated and for the next 20 years to see powerful democratic local councillors listening to their public and having a leadership role to play on behalf of their local communities. I very much support the Bill in that context.
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt of Tanworth on bringing forward his private Bill tonight and introducing it so clearly. I wish to say a little about elected mayors, who first came to my notice during evidence given to my noble friend's Select Committee into relationships between central and local government in 1995-96. The issue of elected mayors was kept alive by a speech made by Mr. Tony Blair to a local authority conference in July 1996; by a discussion paper published by the Fabian Society in March this year entitled More than the Flower Show—Elected Mayors and Democracy; and, of course, in the proposals for a mayor for London contained in the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill which had its Second Reading in this House on Monday.
An elected mayor is foreign to the way in which local government is run in this country. Indeed, the 1986 Hillingdon judgment stated that there is at present no statutory power for the council or for committees or for sub-committees to delegate decisions to individual councillors.
By "elected mayor" I mean someone who is elected by all the people he or she must serve within a local authority area and who, once elected, will assume executive responsibility for that area. In our great cities, where party politics are strong, I imagine that the person elected will probably be a prominent politician and probably the current leader of the authority. And if a system of proportional representation is used in the election it should ensure that whoever is elected commands broad-based support. In country areas, where party politics are less strong, the successful candidate for mayor could well be someone who belongs to no political party but is fiercely ambitious for the welfare of his local area. A successful elected mayor could achieve national prominence, strengthen the local government side of the central-local government relationship, and help to reinvigorate local democracy, which is in danger of disappearing.
In a national survey recently carried out by Strathclyde and Glasgow universities as part of the ESRC local governance programme, more than 70 per cent. of the public supported the introduction of elected mayors, while only 16 per cent. of councillors liked the

703
notion. I do not see that councillors should be unduly concerned. Certain decisions, such as the level of the local budget and council tax, would still have to be made by the whole council as required by law. Committees will still need to be manned and decisions taken. Once the executive and the councillors have agreed how the local authority is to be run in all its aspects, the local councillor will have an important role to check that what was agreed is being carried out and to complain if it is not. Local councillors will still have their all-important role of representing the interests of their electors. They should become more effective and that will help to stimulate local interest in local affairs. Whereas councillors will be all right under an elected mayor system, there might be some redundancy among whoever is carrying out the role which the elected mayor will assume. That probably means the current chief executive.
My noble friend's Bill will allow local authorities to experiment with the ways they carry out their jobs with a view to doing them better. I hope that they will rise to the challenge. Mr. Michael Clarke and others at the School of Public Policy at the University of Birmingham, in their pamphlet Executive Mayors for Britain?, make the point that there is no single model for decision making that will suit all councils. Indeed, from the experience of systems in America and Germany, it appears that there is a wide difference between systems where there are clear executive arrangements and also a variety within systems.
In his speech on the Greater London Authority Bill the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, speaking of an elected mayor for London, said:
"I for one would not be at all surprised if the London example were soon adopted by other cities, large and small, in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 15/12/97; col. 429.]
Greater London will not have its elected mayor before the year 2000. By then, cities such as Bristol, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Brighton could have elected mayors and London might be approaching those cities to see how it is done. I hope we shall shortly give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, for the first time in my 17 years in this House, I must begin with an abject apology to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I should explain that I was attending the annual reception of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. I informed my colleagues there that the House of Lords was debating the abolition of nuclear weapons and I told them that it could not possibly abolish them before eight o'clock. I was wrong.
However, I was fortunate in coming in for the first minute of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. It is not often that Brighton is doubly represented in one of your Lordships' debates. Perhaps it is an omen for the future.
When I read the Bill, I found it somewhat surprising because circumstances have changed to such a great degree since the Select Committee, which the noble
704
Lord, Lord Hunt, chaired in the last Parliament, reported last summer. At that time we lived in a very quiet and unchanging world. The idea of having elected mayors or making other changes in local government could have been regarded as a somewhat radical proposal. But we are now in a very different world. We are being subjected to a series of major constitutional changes. Some may think well of them and others less well but they could result in, for example, Scotland passing under the rule of Mr. Alex Salmond; Wales passing under the rule of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas; Guernsey perhaps being ruled by Mr. Geoffrey Robinson; and London will be run, as we understand it, either by the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare or by Mr. Ken Livingstone or, as in "The Gondoliers", a sort of joint rule which would be interesting.
Therefore, it is in that perspective that we must judge this modest suggestion. It did not figure, I think, in the article in The Times today by Mr. Anthony Barnett, setting out the great changes which have already been made or are about to be made. But then Mr. Barnett combines an extraordinary degree of ignorance, folly and self-righteousness which is not unique in British politics, although it is occasionally to be observed. What we are discussing is something which, as both noble Lords on the other Benches have pointed out, appears to reflect—unlike some of the major constitutional changes—some kind of local demand. When we had witnesses before us in the Select Committee I was struck by the feeling that there were a lot of very capable people, both elected members of local authorities and, even more perhaps, some of their officers who compared extremely favourably with the Whitehall civil servants whom we examined. I felt that there was a good deal of talent not being utilised fully by the nation as a whole.
It is true that, as I remember it, they did not attach so much importance to the internal reorganisation of what I gather we are supposed to call the decision-making process as they did to the recovery of some control over their own affairs which could be brought about only if there were some relationship between the way people voted in local government and the forms of expenditure which the local authority was allowed to make. Indeed, they were so keen on that that at one moment—of course, it was only a momentary aberration on my part—I thought that they really wanted the poll tax back; but perhaps that is to exaggerate.
In any event, it is obviously interesting and important that if that demand exists, we should find some way of cultivating it. The low turn-out in local government elections, which has been referred to, is not proof conclusive of public apathy but at any rate is a prod to think about it again.
The difficulty is whether these proposals seem likely in themselves to re-create the sense that there is not only a local identity but some local thrust towards particular solutions of those problems. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to our Victorian predecessors from whom we inherited roughly, although with many changes, the structure of elected local government which prior to that had not existed in any serious fashion. Conscious as I am of the decision-making in Brighton

705
in recent years, the most obvious example of defiance of our Victorian predecessors has been the abolition of most of the public conveniences in that town. I do not know what the Victorians would have said about that or whether, with a better decision-making process, it could have been avoided. Nevertheless, there are clearly arguments in favour of at least an experiment. Will people feel about a mayor as they do not feel about the leader of a council, even if that leader has the most excellent qualifications?
Therefore, I am inclined to say that on the whole there is an argument for what is proposed being tried. I believe that it should be tried first in areas where there is a clear undercurrent of popular demand for a greater say in local affairs. Unlike the changes in boundaries we have had to put up with in local government, which vitiates a good deal of what one is trying to do, I do not believe that it should be universal, at least to begin with.
The committee was precluded from considering the problems of London government. We took no evidence relating to London. Given the fact that we are, so it seems, to have that mayoralty, single or dual as the case may be, I should have thought that London is perhaps rather low on the list of places where we should experiment with another tier of mayors. It is bad enough going round Westminster and bumping into tourists. If you bump into mayors on every corner, that would be an additional problem. If there is an amendment to delete London from the Bill it would have my support, but in other respects I think it certainly ought to go forward.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I start with an apology as I could not be present when the report of our committee was received in this House. I extend my apologies and thanks to the chairman of the committee at this stage. I welcome the opportunity to do so here because of my failure to be present at the appropriate time. However, I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as regards his summary of what is happening in local and other government.
Some 50 years ago I became involved in various ways in local government. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has given examples of certain matters which have ceased to be governed locally. Therefore there is no need for me to dwell on that point, as I had intended to do if the debate had taken a certain course. I expected this debate to be short because, after all, we are merely proposing that local authorities should tell us what they think about innovation, and whether or not they wish to innovate or introduce various provisions.
I thought that I could say a few words about mayors of cities but then I thought that I had better not do so. However, several have done so. In the debate the other day about London noble Lords were talking about all kinds of matters other than the relevant Bill. The Bill concerned a referendum and whether that could gain the support of people in London. However, we heard about mayors and all kinds of things. As regards the possibility of having a mayor, I would say only that anyone who has visited Washington at a time when the mayor was about to be changed, and has had an interview with the
706
officers who were appointed to carry out the job of governing the city, will never support the appointment of a mayor. The place was bedlam. Every officer was trying to elicit support to ensure that he kept his job when the new mayor was elected. Therefore I would never support the idea of a mayor. We have mayors, some of whom are good and some of whom are not. There is one blessing as regards the mayor of a major city: he will probably be the mayor for only 12 months. After that someone else can be appointed.
The job of a mayor is to represent what a city is all about. Sometimes a mayor has to carry out his job with his tongue in his cheek, but at least he does it. He speaks for both sides in the council. I do not think anyone can suggest that if we had an assembly and a mayor in London there would be no difference of opinion between the two. Of course there would be differences of opinion. Then the mayor would be in difficulty or the assembly would be in difficulty. But one thing is certain, sooner or later that row between the mayor and the assembly would reach the ears of the public. Such a situation is not on.
I have also visited Chicago at the time of Mayor Daly. Some said that he was popular but others detested him. He told me explicitly that if the officers in Chicago did not pay their "subs" to the right party, they would no longer be officers in Chicago. There was a complete acceptance of that in Chicago at the time. Anyone who has studied the history of Chicago and Mayor Daly will know some of the things that went on in Chicago. That should teach us not to have mayors. At this stage we should not tell local government what to do. In fact we should never tell local government what to do. We should have faith that they will tell us what they want to do. At this stage we should not be saying, "We do not think local government should do this or that". The debate tonight has given me pause for thought. What we need is a real debate on local government.
I do not know whether the position of local government will revert to that pertaining in 1945 or earlier. All I know is that in 1944 local government was responsible for many matters. I ask myself over and over again: will that situation recur? If anyone drives round a major city today in a motor car, the first thing he will find is that it is difficult to drive through the city centre as it is full of buses. Those buses are nearly all empty, even at peak times. They all pour out fumes into the atmosphere, poisoning the city. Why does that happen? It happens because the management of those buses is no longer in the hands of the local authority. We have moved away from the position in the 1940s to a situation where local government effectively does not exist. The management of local affairs reposes in the boardrooms of various offices.
Local government once managed water, electricity and gas. Anyone could make representations to local authorities. That is no longer the case. How long will it be before we discover that the private sector will not fund the necessary investment adequately to provide those facilities in the long term? There is already talk in the water industry as to whether or not there are failings in the provision of that service. The private sector is certainly failing as regards the provision of decent buses

707
in appropriate routes in city centres. When the services fail, central government will look to local government to sort things out.
We should not criticise this Bill on the ground that it merely allows local authorities to propose certain measures. If we want to examine fundamentally the government of this country we must go into the matter much more deeply than merely examining local government. Soon the transport systems within cities and conurbations will fail. When those transport systems fail, some so-called local authority will have to consider the problems. I give an example from the place I know best; namely, Liverpool. It will be no use the local authority merely considering the problems that arise in the city centre of Liverpool; it will have to look also at Merseyside.
When we talk about innovations in the operation of government, we must bear in mind that we may have to consider what kind of government we want. The truth is that local government is moribund. We shall not reinvigorate local government unless we attract people's attention to it and get them involved in it. This Bill is an attempt to stimulate that debate among local authorities so that they will contribute to the general debate about local and national government. It is important that we examine how we are governing our community. When someone talks to me about sovereignty as regards local government or national government, I ask, where is it? That sovereignty has been moved firmly and sharply to the private boardroom and we cannot do much about it.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is a great delight to welcome to the Chamber another good friend of local government. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, when he is being controversial.
Like other noble Lords, I must declare an interest as a serving councillor in a London borough. Like others, I, too, was privileged to serve on the Select Committee, which was unanimous not only in its report but also its admiration for the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. That makes me particularly sorry to sound a note of unease, but I have a sense of disappointment at opportunities that might have been taken in the Bill. I am not alone this evening in making these points.
When the Select Committee commented on the desirability of innovation, it referred to powers as well as administration: the powers of local government, and the electoral arrangements applying to local government. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, reminded us of that. He made some trenchant statements to some of the officials who gave evidence. He has also provided me and, I believe, other colleagues with a great deal of material for speeches based on the comments he made about some of the absurdities that he exposed during the course of our proceedings.
Paragraph 3.32 of the Select Committee report referred to the need for popular support, improvement in turnout, finding ways to involve the public, and
708
strengthening local democracy. The paragraph indicated that one method was to allow individual authorities the option of moving to different electoral systems for local elections.
In paragraph 3.31 the report floated some options for experiment: the separation of powers into an executive and legislative branch; the use of local referenda or local proportional representation. It is important to regard the proposals in the Bill as merely a selection, a choice from the menu, of the totality of the ideas which the Select Committee debated and recommended.
After consultation in 1991, it was stated that the Government wished to ensure that local government attracted good councillors who could represent the electorate effectively. I agree that that is important. My noble friend Lady Maddock mentioned the issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who referred to career development. Those of us who may have become a little stuck in our ways in our authorities may have failed to recognise adequately the importance of encouraging colleagues and of recognising the constraints on them. They cannot drop their day jobs. They have to cope with the strains of their "real life", of their careers. However, there is a responsibility on us to assist them to develop their political careers as well.
The committee structure is not perfect. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the diversity of local authorities and the need to reflect that diversity in the structure. But we must be alert to the inherent dangers there may be in some changes, such as devaluing the role of local representatives, discouraging general local interest which often presages the first step into political activity, balancing the relationship between casework and management, the creation of a second class of members, undermining representative democracy, and introducing personality politics if that is to the detriment of democracy.
That is not to say that we on these Benches do not support innovation and experimentation. My noble friend has referred to what can be done without changes in legislation. I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that greater freedom to devolve the work of local authorities would be much valued. There is scope, too, for introducing different combinations of subject within committees—thematic committees—and recognising the need for a more holistic approach to what local authorities do. However, any experimentation has to be subject to safeguards and should provide a sufficiently wide menu of options.
The context for the Bill is not just the relationship between local and central government. The proposals are now within the context of freedom of information measures which the Government are bringing forward. I welcome that. It would be ironic if there were to be more access to information on the part of the public while at the same time the rights of minority and back-bench councillors were reduced. I shall be interested to examine the interrelationship of the developments.
The proposals are within the context of the work of the Nolan Committee (now the Neill Committee) on openness and standards. I fear that within the proposals

709
there may be scope for blurring the distinction between government and management and for obscuring the reasons underlying decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, talked about the term decision making, as we are now to call it. The Bill is about improved decision making. But what is an improvement? I agree that it is important that decisions are taken speedily. But is that more important than that they have local support and local relevance? Speed is important but it is not the only criterion.
The Bill proposes the possibility for individuals to fulfil different roles. An individual can fulfil the requirements of accountability and democracy—although I suspect that it is easier for an individual to slide out of those requirements than when within a committee structure. I do not advocate personality-free local government, but again I wish to be assured that there will be proper safeguards.
The Secretary of State is to consult the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association. Perhaps I should congratulate the association on what is likely to be its first mention in legislation. But, as has been said, there is no requirement on the local authority to consult locally. The Bill might indeed have provided the opportunity for local referendums. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to trigger ballots. I think that that phrase would get us off the hook when working out whether we should talk about "referendums" or "referenda". I thank him for that.
I am not in favour of elected mayors but I think that local communities should decide. Proposals for experiment should be put to them.
We do not know what criteria the Secretary of State will use for his decision. What criteria will be contained in the Secretary of State's guidance? Clause 1(5) of the Bill refers to accountability, regard for the electorate, and scrutiny arrangements. If those arrangements are inadequate, does it mean that the application will be refused? I look forward to examining what is meant by the provisions at Committee stage.
A scrutiny committee will be extremely important if single party committees are to take decisions. But a scrutiny committee, by definition, is backward looking. I have had the opportunity to take part locally in the work of a performance review committee. Its best work was in anticipating future developments and helping to set standards in advance.
Clause 1(5)(b) refers to having
"regard to the views of local government electors and other interested persons".
That is what councillors have to do all the time. Perhaps I am over suspicious, but I detect a degree of populism within the provisions which makes me a little uneasy. We know that it is easier to get elected on a promise to sweep the streets than on a promise to provide more domiciliary care or more services for people with learning difficulties.
I have never heard of a council leader who says that he needs more autonomy, but perhaps a council leader would not dare. I have often heard how the rights of minority councillors are absolutely fundamental to the good working of democracy. An elected mayor is
710
proposed. By what method of election? And if a local authority is to be permitted to experiment with new electoral arrangements for a mayor, then why not for the whole authority and why not other changes such as weekend voting and rolling registers and so on? I dare say we shall be told by the Minister that a White Paper is on the way. I would prefer to see the proposals as a package, for the rather cynical reason that once one has taken a few steps then, human nature being what it is, the pressures of the legislative timetable and so on, we may hear, "we cannot take forward the other elements of the package; local government has had its time in Parliament and we have to move on to other things". For that reason I would much prefer to wait to develop these ideas with others.
Some of the concern about the Bill is due to the very tight way in which some political groups on some authorities are run. One hears examples of a group taking a decision on the basis of its chairman's casting vote, with all the members then obliged to toe the line. I would hate to think that we were in any way helping to reinforce that kind of rigidity. Of course I accept that in reality some committees do rubber-stamp privately-taken decisions; but where the ruling group knows before it goes into a committee what decision it wants and will propose, the opposition has the right and also the responsibility to question what is proposed, to test it and to hold the ruling group to account.
Some authorities are one-party states and some are very nearly so, because of the electoral system. My noble friend Lord Tope and I know that, perhaps to our benefit, from our own authorities. But the changes in administration that are being proposed must have in-built safeguards to ensure that one-party states created by the first-past-the-post system are not turned into impenetrable fiefdoms. We all want to re-invigorate local democracy, but if increasing power to individuals and small groups is to be advanced then it is even more important that those who have supporting roles in those authorities are the more astute and assertive, and have real ability to act as a check and balance.
We talked in the Select Committee about local government having the right to fail. It needs courage to contemplate failure. I would not want to be thought to be arguing against legitimate innovation, and at Committee stage we will endeavour to test whether the structures proposed have adequate safety barriers, so that if there is a right to fail then it is a right to fail but not a likelihood of failure.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for bringing this Bill before the House for its Second Reading. I am certain that the proposals in the Bill will be the subject of great interest within local government. Certainly any proposals which have the potential to raise the profile of local government, to improve its accountability, to increase the interests of the public and their participation in the electoral process are to he welcomed and are certainly worthy of exploration.

711
I have to say at this point, as I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we on these Benches are somewhat surprised that the Government should be content for these proposals—which are quite far reaching—to be contained in a Private Member's Bill. I hope that since perhaps this follows the invitation offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on 23rd July to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, to bring forward a Bill, the Minister when she replies will be able to give us some indication, if it is possible, as to how time is to be found for this Bill, not only in this House but in another place.
Turning to the Bill itself, there we have a variety of options before us. Certainly as a local government member—and I declare my interest to that extent—I accept that committee structures need to be reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to the ways in which the traditional committee structure can inhibit leadership, innovation and management. I accept the criticisms that he has made but I suggest to him that, as local government is structured today, it is not just a question of changing the system. Back-bench members need, as has already been mentioned, a fulfilling role: but I wonder whether that can actually be achieved for all back-benchers, given the relatively large number of local authority members which we have in authorities in the United Kingdom. That is a matter which I know is controversial and does not necessarily win one any friends among colleagues in local government. It is certainly a matter which if proposals of this kind were to be pursued would also need to be addressed.
My Lords, perhaps I may look at some of the options that are before us in the Bill. The first concerns executive mayors directly elected across the area of the authority. What is proposed is the introduction of an elected executive official: something which, apart from the particular and special proposals for the government for London, is a significant departure for the United Kingdom. That does not mean to say that it is wrong; but it is a new principle which would be established and one which therefore needs particularly careful thought and examination of the potential consequences for establishing that principle.
The second proposal involved delegation, as I read it, to executive councillors, one of whom becomes the indirectly elected executive mayor. These members individually would have executive power but not, under this model, power as a body. Perhaps if we could consider these two models for executive mayors for a moment, I believe, as I said during the debate on the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, we need to give consideration to what effect these proposals would have on the institution of mayoralty as we know it in England and Wales, and which has served local communities and local government well. There is a great public understanding of the role of mayor, far greater than that of the leader of the council—something which, as a former leader, I may regret but which I believe to be true. The mayor, unlike the leader, is welcomed normally throughout his or her authority and generally is a non-political figure, certainly for his or her year of
712
office. He or she acts as an ambassador for the town outside and for the council within the city or the town. When the mayor becomes a political figure, as he or she would under these proposals, all that will change. Incidentally, as the Bill is drafted, if all London boroughs were to avail themselves of the possibility of directly elected mayors, certainly the prospect envisaged by my noble friend Lord Beloff of a mayor on every corner, and certainly in every quarter of Greater London, would come about. That is a detail which we would certainly want to examine. We need to consider the effects of these changes very deeply. A senior local government officer once said to me that the mayoralty was the most popular service that we provide. Therefore we need to be aware of the profound changes that these proposals would bring about.
The third model described to us is the cabinet system—a group of leading members with the personal executive power, including a single-party policy committee with decision-making powers on behalf of the authority. That raises a number of concerns and questions. Would the council as a whole be able to challenge decisions before implementation? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, scrutiny after the event is a different matter altogether. In those circumstances, is it right for a decision-making body, as opposed to an advisory body, to be single-party and meet in private? I pose that as a question.
The fourth model is the single-party executive committee, comprising members who do not themselves have executive powers but do have such powers when acting together. That raises similar concerns.
The last model, the single-party advisory committee being put in the constitutional framework of the authority, meeting in private and making recommendations to a multi-party body, the council or committee, is perhaps the least radical but certainly raises the least number of questions. It puts on a formal and proper basis the method of working of many local authorities and makes possible what, before changes to legislation, was previously carried on by many different authorities. The changes that were made regarding the admission of the public to meetings certainly prevented what was, in my experience, an efficient way of working. I also suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, that the whole question of delegations, particularly to one member, needs close examination.
Politics in local government are a reality. And of course there will always be group meetings. Having been a local authority leader, I well understand the case for the leadership of an authority, however constituted, being able to meet in private, subject to decisions being taken publicly in multi-party forum. A properly constituted committee, the membership of which is known, its meetings a matter of record, is not a secret meeting. I have to lend my support to that because it is the basis on which I gave evidence to the Widdicombe Inquiry, and I am not minded to withdraw that view at this stage.
We all look forward to discussing these matters at later stages of the Bill. In the meantime, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister her reactions to

713
these proposals: whether they are supported in their totality by the Government and—given the significant involvement that the Government may have had in the preparation of the Bill—whether government time will be available throughout the Parliament to see the Bill, if it is the wish of Parliament, enacted.
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have something of a sense of déjà vu, having been involved in the discussions referred to in earlier times—in fact, going back so far that I can remember decisions being taken away from chairs of committees on the grounds that it was unsafe to allow them to have powers. I believe the expression is, "What goes round, must come round".
I begin by saying how grateful the Government are that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has decided to bring forward this Bill. When we last debated the subject in July, my noble friend Lady Hayman, the Minister, said that we wanted to encourage democratic innovations in local government and greater public participation in local government and democracy. She also explained that finding time for legislation is always a challenge, and the Government have not been able to do so this Session. In those circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was invited to bring forward legislation enabling authorities to innovate and experiment with different management arrangements. The noble Lord is to be congratulated on taking up the opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, put a question to me on the issue. This is a Private Member's measure and as my noble friend Lady Hayman made clear, the Government intend to give it all the support we can. The noble Lord argued that the Bill should have been a government measure. I make no secret of the fact that, had there been less pressure on our legislative programme this Session, the Government would have put the Bill forward. But the noble Lord will understand the pressures.
In 1993, the then Conservative government accepted the recommendation of the Working Party on the Internal Management of Local Authorities in England that the Secretary of State should be given powers to allow individual authorities to make experimental changes to their internal management arrangements. They were, however, unable to find a suitable legislative opportunity. That is an important feature, and it is why we are so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing forward this Private Member's measure.
The debate has swung between two aspects. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which I took to be more in support than not, although I must admit, as a non-Londoner living here while the House is sitting, I was rather frightened of the "push-me, pull-me" creature that he was creating. I shall read very carefully all the supporting background documents to make sure that we are not offering a job-share to people of different parties, which could lead to problems for the capital.
I remind the House that the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, urged the Government to find legislative time as a matter of
714
urgency. In response, the then government, the previous Conservative government, promised to bring forward legislation in the next Parliament. We are now in that next Parliament; however, I believe it will be agreed on all sides of the House that we face even greater legislative pressure than did the previous government. The measure before us is a Bill that would implement the committee's recommendations, and do so at the earliest practical opportunity.
I appreciate that noble Lords who have spoken might have wished to see a much larger measure brought before the House. However, I stress that the nature and history of the Bill—allowing local authorities to experiment in their own political management—makes it particularly apt that it is introduced from the Cross-Benches by the chairman of a Select Committee which unanimously recommended such legislation. Given that it is brought forward in this way, we in all parties can perhaps more readily, collectively, support the Bill—such support being essential if its purpose of inspiring innovation in political management is to be achieved.
There are precedents for Private Members' legislation making important changes to local government legislation. The current provisions on access to information in local government in the Local Government Act 1972 were placed there through a Private Member's measure introduced in another place by Robin Squire and sponsored in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised her concerns and disappointments. We accept that the Bill is a first, albeit significant, step in a programme of democratic innovation. It is a step which local government has been waiting for since 1993. I agree that the Bill needs to be seen in a wider context. That context is that this Government were elected in May to modernise Britain and, as a crucial part of that agenda, local government. Reinvigorated and renewed local government is at the heart of the pledge of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to modernise our country and bring back government to the people.
We wish to see councils which are modern in their political and organisational management; modern in their political outlook and attitudes; modern in their structures and service delivery; modern in the way they plan and exercise their economic development powers; and modern in their approach to partnership with the private and community sectors.
If enacted, the Bill will be a significant first step towards achieving that vision. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained, his Bill will enable a range of experiments to take place based on four or five main approaches. The legislation would be permissive, setting local authorities free to find better ways of taking decisions which suit them and their local circumstances. I appreciate the history and experience of my noble friend Lord Sefton but say to him that the measure has cross-party support from the Local Government Association representing local authorities in England and Wales.

715
We are keen for as many authorities as possible to take the opportunity raised within the Bill. Local democracy in this country is weak. Too few vote in local elections, too few are interested in local democracy. That matters. Without effective, democratic and accountable local government we shall not be able to secure the kind of local services people want, the kind of local leadership communities need and the quality of life our citizens rightly expect.
The Bill will, if enacted, enable local authorities to operate new arrangements which make it clearer who is responsible for the decisions which affect local people and which provide a sharper scrutiny of those decisions and the policies which guide them.
Most of the experiments under the Bill will involve the separation of the executive from the representative role and will, to a greater or lesser extent, enhance the representative role of councillors. New ways of working will mean a move away from the "attendance at meetings" culture in some authorities to a stronger representative and challenging function with real responsibilities for councillors.
A very important point is that it could also mean more time for councillors to spend in the local community. The point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about different types of councillors, such as those who have full-time employment, and the need for them to have an opportunity to be active in the community role in the area they represent both at residents' meetings and surgeries. It is a role which is seen by the public in all surveys as being particularly important. The role of councillors would be expanded. They would become, in a much clearer way, the advocates of local people, channelling their grievances and demands. That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness.
The scrutiny function need not only relate to decisions already taken but could deal with the issue of overall strategy of the executive in determining an area of policy. Back-bench councillors could have in some cases a much enhanced impact on determining the authority's policy.
The Government welcome the opportunity for diversity which the Bill will permit. Those who are concerned about new models say that some of the models could create conflict between the executive and representational roles. New models will ensure that mutual accountability will operate effectively and visibly, for example, through cabinet or lead member systems or a model with an executive mayor. As to the issue of the role of the executive mayor, at this point I have to declare cowardice. My long experience in local government in the north west would lead me away from any temptation to promise to redraw the boundaries of Liverpool. I admit to cowardice on that point.
All these models have their merits and local authorities may come to different conclusions about which models are better than others in specific circumstances. I have no doubt that during the later stages of the passage of the Bill, we shall have further
716
debate on experiences in other countries. I specifically looked at the model of the directly-elected mayor in the City of Baltimore. I was impressed by that role.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the Bill is permissive. It gives local authorities the opportunity to innovate and experiment with their political and operational management structures. But it is not simply about the adoption of a specific model; the Government feel that the opportunity the Bill offers is important. It is a first step in a process, part of which is making local authorities more responsive to local communities.
In response to points raised by several Members, it is important to stress that local communities may have a part to play in some of the experiments proposed in the Bill. We believe that the potential benefits from taking part in the experiments are so significant that we would wish to see as many authorities as possible, of all types and from all areas, taking part. Indeed, we are pleased that we have already been told by authorities of all types, from London boroughs to shire counties and of all political colours, that they are actively working out proposals for experiment under the legislation. We are clearly of the view that the Bill ought to cover London boroughs along with other principal local authorities. If that means that London boroughs move to an arrangement with an executive mayor—though that is unlikely—so be it.
Each London borough already has a mayor. Under this legislation it would be up to each borough whether it wished to create a mayor with executive responsibility. That is perfectly consistent with our approach to the creation of the strategic London authority where the establishment of the GLA is not intended in any way to diminish the role of the boroughs. It will be a strategic authority which will tackle those of London's problems which require an all-London or multi-body response. The Mayor of London will speak with Londoners. It is clear that mayors of boroughs will speak with their residents also.
My noble friend Lord Bassam, in an outstanding maiden speech, demonstrated how much the House will benefit from his experience and knowledge in future debates, particularly Members such as myself who come from long distances and do not have the most recent local government experience.
The Government will, of course, need to be sure that in each experiment the necessary safeguards for probity and against fraud are put in place as well as arrangements for resolving any conflicts. The Bill envisages that all those issues should be covered in an authority's application to the Secretary of State setting out its proposed experiment. The Secretary of State will issue guidance to authorities about the kinds of safeguards which need to be built into each model permitted by the legislation.
The Government intend to consult widely on this guidance, ensuring that the best advice from academics and the local government world is reflected. It might include guidance on the nature of scrutiny committees, for example, making clear the requirements on political balance and access to information that would be necessary for the proposed arrangements to deliver better local government.

717
That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I agree with the noble Baroness that openness and rigorous scrutiny are essential to any arrangements for a separate executive created under this legislation. I can assure her that those issues will loom large in any guidance issued to authorities and in the consideration of applications from authorities to experiment under this legislation. We on the Government Benches support that principle, as I imagine does the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Before any approval was given, both the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association would be consulted on the proposals. If the proposals are acceptable, the Secretary of State will lay an order giving effect to the proposals for that authority. And as he does so he will ensure that copies of the authority's proposals are placed in the Libraries of Parliament. All Members of this House and of another place will be able to satisfy themselves that for every experiment all necessary steps have been taken to safeguard and encourage proper and effective local government.
To conclude, the Government fully support this Bill and urge this House to do likewise both today and in its future progress through Parliament.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. The hour is getting late and I doubt whether noble Lords want a long closing speech from me which would be bound to repeat some of the points the Minister made. However, I should like to make one general point about the philosophy of the Bill. The objective is to allow local authorities as much freedom as possible to experiment with their internal structural arrangements for taking decisions with a view to modernising and bringing out into the open the different roles played by the executive and the
718
legislature and enabling them to be more responsive to local opinion. I do believe, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said, that identifying where decisions are taken and where the buck stops provides a link to popular feeling and enables popular feeling to be more clearly and more strongly put over.
However, if one is to go for maximum experimentation it has to he accompanied by safeguards—safeguards for probity, obviously, but also safeguards to protect the rights of minorities. That means that the Bill inevitably contains a good deal of detail, more than some noble Lords would like. It has to contain a good deal of detail because what we are talking about in every case is giving local authorities temporary permission to experiment with things which are at present not legal. Therefore, one has to spell out what previous enactments there will he temporary derogations from in the case of each model.
The Bill has a certain degree of detail which is not particularly attractive at first sight. But it also has running throughout it a balance between giving local authorities as much freedom as possible to experiment while on the other hand preserving the things which we think are essential and for which there have to be safeguards. At the Committee stage there will be an interesting discussion about whether we have that balance right, as I believe we have.
A number of extremely interesting points have been raised on which I should like to ponder. There will be more thinking about the points made here than about mince pies during the Recess. I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate. I ask 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.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past nine o'clock.