Lords Sitting of 18 February 1998

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

HMS "Cavalier"
Baroness Strangeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will withdraw the export licence to Malaysia of HMS "Cavalier", the only remaining RN destroyer which fought in World War II, and support her retention in Great Britain.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the export licence issued in connection with the proposed export of this vessel to Malaysia has been returned to my department. I understand that the former licence holder no longer intends to export the vessel.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, as always, courteous, if not helpful, reply. I, too, am aware that the first part of my Question has become overtaken by events. However, is the noble Lord aware that there is an HMS "Cavalier" Association which would be willing by public subscription to provide some funds towards the retention of HMS "Cavalier", perhaps at the historic maritime dockyard at Chatham, if other funds could be forthcoming?
Is the noble Lord further aware that 153 ships of this type were lost in the Second World War, with 30,000 members of their company giving their lives for us?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful for that supplementary question from the noble Baroness. Yes, I am of course aware of the work of the association and of its aspirations. One also recognises the contribution made to the war effort by those who sailed in ships of this class. It is also true that this is the last surviving vessel of its kind. But the fact is, as my right honourable friend the Minister for the arts said yesterday when he spoke at the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, that, while the Government are aware of the emotional attachment which undoubtedly this ship gives rise to, they do have to make hard choices about the availability of funds for preservation. I have to say that the vessel is not a top priority for the department that my right honourable friend represents. However, if other sources of funding can be made available, and, if a suitable location could be found, the Government would be delighted.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, until South Tyneside bought HMS "Cavalier" in 1987 from a company in Brighton which went bankrupt, that vessel might have been scrapped? South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council bought the vessel to be part of a national shipbuilding exhibition centre. The
222
"Cavalier" was to play a main part. It was to be based at Hawthorn Leslies shipyard, which built some of the finest naval vessels ever to be put to sea. I spent many years there as a shipwright.
Is my noble friend also aware that the reason the project did not go ahead is that the previous administration cut back on local government expenditure? The former Department of the Environment ruled that urban money could not be used for projects which were covered by urban development corporations; and the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation was too interested in prestige projects in Newcastle to be concerned about the project at South Tyneside.
Is he also aware that we would welcome some finance, because it cost the council tax payers of South Tyneside, of which I am and have been one all my life, over £600,000 to maintain this vessel and that project?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was aware of most of that. I did not know that my noble friend had been a shipwright. I suspected that he probably was and still is a taxpayer. But I am most grateful to him for that information. Of course he is right in saying that the South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council did a stalwart job in seeking to maintain this vessel. I pay tribute to it in that regard.
Perhaps I may add this; it may help the House on the issue. At yesterday's Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, representatives of the National Heritage Lottery Fund indicated that it might be willing to consider an application for support for HMS "Cavalier" in its own right under its fast-track procedures. I thought that the noble Baroness in particular might be delighted to hear that.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as "Cavalier" has given the country a very good run for its money over the years and as she is now on Tyneside, at the heart of the warship building industry, does this ship not symbolise more for the north-east than the fabricator's folly which has just been erected in Gateshead? Can the Government go that extra sea mile, as they did with "Britannia" and help find a proper home for this warship? She was never a first of class; she was never a flotilla leader, so far as I recall; but she is a survivor. I believe that she is worth a place in history.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the question was. It seemed more an assertion than a question. These matters are not within my area of responsibility. The noble Lord should write to the appropriate government department. As to the term, "fabricator's folly", no fabrications are known to this House as I understand it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that answers to questions that begin with a statement that a matter is "not within a Minister's area of responsibility" are not good enough in this House?

223
He answers for the whole of Her Majesty's Government. If he does not know the answer, could he perhaps write to the noble Lord?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am most grateful for that lesson, which the noble Lord imparted with his usual geniality. I do not seek to pass off responsibility. What I sought to say, perhaps inelegantly, was that the noble Lord would do well to write to the department concerned about this matter. If he wishes me to receive the letter in the first place, then I shall certainly act as a suitable postman.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, perhaps I may address the House as Able Seaman equivalent, Writer Cocks P/MX830065. I was very encouraged by the Minister's remarks. A great many people in the north-east pay into the lottery and there is a feeling that they have not received as much out of it as some other areas in the country. Will the Minister reinforce the plea and press the lottery fund? If this ship goes, coming generations will ask what on earth we were doing.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Able Seaman Cocks for that suggestion. I shall certainly pass on (and I hope that that will meet with the noble Lord's acquiescence) his assertion to those responsible for the lottery fund. I hope that the statement that I made yesterday before the Heritage Committee as to what the lottery fund had to say about the matter will prove helpful.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his earlier Answer. I am very grateful indeed for his encouraging reply.

Vitamin and Mineral Supplements: Toxicity
2.45 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What importance they attach to the assessment of the toxicity of vitamin and mineral supplements, as announced in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food press release of 18th December 1997, in the context of overall food safety.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government are concerned to ensure that products sold under food law, including vitamin and mineral supplements, are not harmful to health. The establishment of the new ad hoc expert group will contribute to that aim.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, does he agree that this seems a rather curious use of public resources and expertise, given the enviable safety record that vitamins and minerals have and the absence of any scare,
224
complaint or other indication of problems? Will he acknowledge the very real worry among the public that the same kind of inappropriate criteria will be applied in this exercise as have been applied to restrict Vitamin B6?
Lord Donoughue: No, my Lords. Concerns have been expressed about the safety of high dose vitamin and mineral supplements. As the noble Earl, with his long-standing interest in this area, will know, that goes back to a joint departmental report in 1990. COMA has expressed concerns; the Consumers' Association has contacted us with concerns; and the European Union has issued a consultation document aiming to move towards aspects of control. So there are concerns. With public health as our top priority, we are in the process of setting up a committee of experts to advise us. That does not prejudge any conclusions and is an entirely responsible thing to do.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, whatever the Consumers' Association and the European Union may say, the Government are holding themselves up to public ridicule in relation to the argument about basic dosage. Should they not accept the findings of the National Poisons Unit, which has found no such dangers, against the evidence of either the ridiculous European Union or even the Consumers' Association?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is possible to dismiss almost every body which is inconvenient to one's argument. However, in relation to Vitamin B6 we have received very serious scientific advice. The Committee on Toxicity examined it twice and consulted with the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, and as a consequence submitted its advice. On the basis of that advice, we have made our recommendations. There will be opportunities for consultation. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Earl that the suggested dosage for Vitamin B6 is more liberal in this country than anywhere else in the European Union.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether there will be nutritionists on the new committee that is to review vitamins and minerals in food? Nutrition apparently comes very low in the training programme for doctors and they are not therefore fully qualified to debate the subject. Will he also tell the House why vitamins and minerals are being regarded as poisons to the extent that their toxicology is being examined, whereas in relation to medicines the risk-benefit procedure is used in deciding how much of the medicine can be taken? Why is there that enormous difference?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we take nutrition seriously. There will be a member on the committee with experience of nutrition, as there will be members with experience of the alternative medicine industry and consumer interests.
There is a clear statutory difference between medicines, which are covered by the Medicines Act 1968, and vitamin and mineral supplements, which are

225
considered to be food and come under the Food Safety Act 1990. The concern as regards vitamin and mineral supplements is that they should not be injurious to health.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what good Vitamin B6 does a person?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there are differing views on that. There is very little scientific evidence, which is why we wish to look at the matter. I believe that among the alleged advantages which may interest the noble Lord is that it is thought by some to ease pre-menstrual tension.

EMU and the UK
2.52 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for joining EMU.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government plan to join EMU only when the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous. Barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, there is no realistic prospect of Britain having demonstrated during this Parliament convergence with the other European economies which is sustainable and settled. We need a period of stability first. But in order to give ourselves the genuine choice of joining early in the next Parliament, Government and business are now preparing intensively.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer—at least I think I thank him. Can he clarify the point he made about unforeseen circumstances? It for example, the Chancellor's five tests are met, which seems extremely likely, and it clearly would be in the national interest to join in this Parliament, can I take it that that is not ruled out?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we shall be delighted if we fulfil the Government's five economic tests. But, as I made clear in my first Answer, our concern is not only for spot compliance but also for sustained and settled convergence, and it is that which we think will take more time.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister help the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and answer his Question by saying whether the Government would consider joining during this Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I repeat that I had already answered the Question in my first Answer. The answer is that, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, there is no realistic prospect of that. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, assuming for a moment—although it is unlikely—that there is any
226
proposition in economics that is clear and unambiguous, I should like to ask this question. Does the Minister agree that we shall not have sufficient evidence until the countries which are likely to participate on 1st January 1999 have experienced how the single currency can weather a recession?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree that the additional qualification for our taking forward the EMU project in this country and seeking the approval of the people for entry to EMU is that the single currency itself should succeed. There will be many tests of that currency in the next few years; I hope that they will not include recession.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that, in seeking the advice which they will undoubtedly have to seek when the new circumstances arise, the Government will remember what happened when, in October 1990, the Government received unanimous and very authoritative advice as to how it was indispensable to join the exchange rate mechanism, with results that are obvious to all of us? May we take it that the Government will have more regard to the facts of the situation, if they can understand them, than to advice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I appreciate my noble friend's comment about understanding the facts of the situation. It is an established constitutional principle that advice given to a previous administration is not available to current Ministers.
Lord Newby: My Lords, given that the decision on the first head of the European Central Bank is due to be taken during the British presidency, can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that that difficult and contentious decision will be taken on time, and whether the UK will be promoting any particular candidate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the process leading up to the appointment is on time and there is no reason to suppose that there will be any delay. As the noble Lord correctly says, we have a say in the final decision. We shall exercise that responsibility in a serious way.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Chancellor Kohl, whom we welcome to London today, has invited the Bundesbank to prepare a report on progress toward convergence of the EU member-states in anticipation of EMU, which will be discussed in the German Cabinet on 27th March along with similar reports from the European Monetary Institute and the Commission? Can my noble friend say whether, in view of the fact that we shall be chairing the critical meeting in May at which the decision on the initial participants in EMU will be taken, the Government will invite the Bank of England to present a similar report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is open to any government in any member state to consult whom

227
they wish. There is no bar to Chancellor Kohl consulting the Bundesbank on this matter. No doubt in many other member-states there will be discussions between central banks and governments. As my noble friend reminds the House, the final decision will be taken on the advice given by the Commission and the European Monetary Institute.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the planning being undertaken will include the preparation of changes to our taxation system in order to fit with the taxation levied by members of EMU?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, fiscal independence is not a factor in this matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, has my noble friend taken note of the fact that doubts with regard to economic monetary union are creeping up in Germany, that 153 senior economists have cast doubt on the project and that the matter is to be discussed before the German constitutional court? Does he believe that that might have some effect on the progress of EMU? Can he say whether the British Government will take into account constitutional issues as well as economic issues before they decide whether we should join the third stage of EMU and the single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, who am I to contradict 153 economists on the rare occasion when they all agree with each other? No, the Government have determined that, so far as this country is concerned, this is an economic issue, not a constitutional one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the Minister that he would be in good company in dismissing the 153 economists. I believe that my noble friend Lady Thatcher did something similar in the early 1980s when 150-odd economists in this country criticised her policy.
Does the Minister hold to the view which we held that membership of the exchange rate mechanism will not be necessary prior to joining EMU? If that is not necessary, does he think that currency stability for two years will be necessary? Does he believe that that currency stability should be at the current level of the pound, which, according to Dr. Tony Scanlon, the outgoing president of the Engineering Employers' Federation in the West Midlands, is doing considerable damage to British manufacturing industry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly true that ERM 1 moved on to the prospect of ERM 2, which is slightly more voluntary than the previous expression. I remind the noble Lord that Article 109j provides for the possibility of normal fluctuation margins on the European exchange rate mechanism but that Article 109m refers to exchange
228
rates being a matter of common interest. I am sure that that will continue to be the case rather than existing exchange rates being fixed for all time.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, given the inevitability of the introduction of the euro, what are the Government doing to promote businesses in Britain to prepare themselves for the single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury is responsible within Government for these matters. He appointed a business advisory group in September 1997 which reported to the President of the Board of Trade in December 1997. It is intended that that report will be published. The EMU preparation standing committee, which includes the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Governor of the Bank of England, the CBI and the TUC, had its first meeting late in January. There is a comparable body ensuring that good preparations take place in Government itself.

Chewing Gum: Disposal
3.1 p.m.
Viscount Longasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will raise the matter of proper disposal of chewing gum with the Litter Advisory Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Litter Advisory Group was set up specifically to review the litter provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and reported in July 1994.
We look to the Tidy Britain Group to advise us on all aspects of littering, including disposal of chewing gum. The group, which is largely funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, runs projects to promote the proper disposal of gum. It is also working with a leading gum manufacturer to develop effective cleansing methods and to investigate the possibility of changing the composition of gum to reduce its adhesive qualities.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Answer. Can she go a little further? Does she agree that 300,000 pieces of chewing gum are removed from Oxford Street at any one time? Is not that a minnow compared to the rest of the country—towns, air terminals, stations and streets? Is it not the case that the situation is now so serious that Britain is beginning to look like an old English pudding called spotted dick? Furthermore, it is a far better sight to see a herd of cattle chewing the cud than to see a flock of tourists and

229
members of the British public not only chewing gum, but spitting it out or putting it around tables in restaurants.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am reluctant to interrupt what I believe to be 15 years' silence on the part of the noble Viscount. However, he really ought to ask a question.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree that the sight of anyone, whether British or foreign, spitting out gum is not pleasant. I agree also that it is a growing and expensive problem. Surveys undertaken by the Tidy Britain Group suggest that the problem of discarded chewing gum on streets and pavements is getting worse. I cannot confirm official government figures on the number of individual pieces of gum, but I can say that Westminster City Council spends approximately £25,000 a year simply on removing chewing gum from streets and pavements. Whether the Westminster problem is specifically related to the inability sometimes suggested of politicians to walk and chew gum at the same time, I am not certain.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, would not the Government consider imposing a heavy duty on the sale of chewing gum and putting the proceeds towards paying for cleaning up the mess that chewers cause?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the House will understand that matters of taxation and duty are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I recognise that I respond for the Government in this House on this matter and I shall certainly pass on that suggestion to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take on board the advice of some young friends of mine? There is a simple answer to all this. When one chews chewing gum, one should keep the wrapper. When one finishes with it, it should be put back into the wrapper and put in one's pocket until one finds a rubbish bin.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the House may be interested to know that the Tidy Britain Group provided 24,000 spring clean-up kits promoting good gum disposal and 16,000 youth packs for schools and youth groups suggesting the sort of action referred to by the noble Baroness. Those kits are being produced as part of the Tidy Britain Group's annual campaign—the National Spring Clean—which will take place in April this year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, do the Government accept the premise of the question that there is such a thing as the proper disposal of chewing gum?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, if the Government accept the premise that people chew gum and that it
230
should not be made a criminal offence so to do, then the Government accept the premise that the proper disposal of gum is an issue that they should consider.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, after 35 years of smoking, some of us managed to give up that habit by chewing, first, nicotine chewing gum and then ordinary chewing gum? Might it not be in the national interest if the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and other smokers were to contemplate the therapeutic joys of chewing gum?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that it will be in the interests of public health that as many people as possible follow the example of my noble friend and give up smoking.

Forestry
3.7 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryferose to call attention to the case for a policy to expand forestry in the United Kingdom, based on partnership between the public and private sectors; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as the chairman of the All-Party Forestry Group. It may be helpful to those who are listening to this debate for me to establish one or two facts in relation to forestry. In this country only 10 per cent. of the country is covered by trees. In Germany it is 30 per cent. and in France it is 26 per cent. At the beginning of the century only 5 per cent. of the countryside was under trees; but now we have managed to increase that to 10 per cent. However, that is substantially below the woodland cover of our European friends and neighbours.
Forestry is a considerable industry. The current value of output in a year is £800 million and growing. Sixty per cent. of all woodlands are in private ownership. The Forestry Commission is responsible for only 40 per cent. of woodland ownership. Having established those facts about forestry, I should perhaps refer to an earlier debate on this subject, which took place in January 1995. As I said at that time, the Minister concerned had previously assured us that,
"It continues to he our policy to encourage the expansion of woodland cover in Great Britain".—[Official Report, 14/4/93; col. 1143.]
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was present for that debate. He had said in a debate on forestry in 1991:
"I have every confidence that the industry itself will increase the number of plantings".—[Official Report, 27/3/91; col. 1066.]
Those are the promises that were made in previous years. Since then investment in forestry has declined and new planting has substantially declined. The Forestry Commission, of which I was chairman some years ago, used to plant around 20,000 hectares a year. Last year, that was down to 400 hectares. In the private sector 10 years ago 19,700 hectares were planted. Today the figure is 16,000. This represents an industry in decline because of lack of concern and lack of acceptance of its importance to our economy.

231
It is important, now three years after that debate, that we should take stock of where the industry is going. I propose to say a few words about, first, its economic importance to the country; secondly, the environmental impact of forestry; and, thirdly, the importance of forestry in giving us a reasonable quality of life in our country.
As far as concerns the economics of forestry, we import over £6 billion of wood products a year. I attended a lecture upstairs just a few weeks ago when the head of the DTI Export Department told us about how much the Government are spending on export promotion and how they hold seminars and exhibitions overseas. I pay a compliment to the DTI for its endeavours in export promotion. However, very little is said about import substitution, which is equally important to our balance of trade. We should be looking at this tremendous bill of over £6 billion per annum for the import of wood products.
In the past 10 years the pulp and paper industries have expanded considerably. In that time over £1 billion has been invested in new plant and equipment. That investment is undertaken on the assumption that there will be supplies of timber from domestic sources in order to keep the pulp and paper industries going. However, the record of the past few years has shown that there is no possibility of the industries being sustained by domestic supplies.
The industries were based on the assumption that the quality and supply of British timber would enable them to be competitive in the world markets of paper production. There is nothing wrong with the quality of British timber. However, there is something wrong with the record of the planting programme. The industries depend on spruce, largely sitka spruce, as the material for paper and pulp production, but nowadays more than 50 per cent. of new planting is in broad-leaves, which have a rotation of 90 to 100 years. They contribute something to the environment but contribute little or nothing to maintaining the kind of industrial investment that has taken place. I therefore suggest that we have to look at forestry as an important industry and as an important contributor to national wealth.
I want to say a few words about quality of life. The Government spend a lot of time talking about sport and making people more healthy. I do not believe it is particularly healthy for 60,000 people to go to Old Trafford on a Saturday. I prefer to walk in the woods. I prefer the quiet. I prefer to escape from the trashiness of television. We should give people the opportunity to get out into the woodlands to walk. They would thereby become more healthy, physically and mentally.
Fifty million day visitors walked in the Forestry Commission estate last year. I am referring to the Forestry Commission estate, although the private sector has been similarly active. Chalets in the Forestry Commission woodlands were occupied for 1.2 million bed nights last year. The Forestry Commission is responsible for the management of 17 forest parks. All of these make an important contribution to good and healthy living. These factors have to be taken into
232
account when the Government talk about making us a healthier nation but spend a lot more on the glamorous aspects of sport and recreation. The Forestry Commission works closely with NGOs, English Nature and Scottish Heritage in maintaining the standards of our environment. The Forestry Commission is responsible for 70,000 hectares of SSSIs, which are important to our national heritage. Forestry, therefore, is not only economically important but is a national asset in terms of our quality of life.
When I was chairman of the Forestry Commission, the private sector and the state sector worked in partnership together. We shared research and training facilities. We were not competitors. We did our best to create a healthy forestry estate. I regret to say that under the previous government there was an upsetting of those partnership arrangements. The Forestry Commission has been run down, no money has become available for planting or acquisition, and substantial investment and grants have been made, rightly, to the private sector to encourage it to grow trees. I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will be encouraged to make a new start in this relationship and revive the old partnership concept. Instead of selling off the Forestry Commission estate and denying it the funds necessary for planting and acquisitions, I hope there will be the re-establishment of the relationship which existed formerly.
I was delighted to see the other day that forestry has featured on the Prime Minister's agenda. However, I believe that he overdid it a little when he made a statement on forestry. It was headed by his Press Office,
"Prime Minister Tony Blair has launched the most significant forestry document in the past decade".
That is encouraging, but I believe that it is going a little too far. Nevertheless, the fact that the Prime Minister is now taking an interest in forestry is a very good thing.
I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the party manifesto in connection with forestry. It says,
"We favour a moratorium on the sale of Forestry Commission land. The countryside is a great national asset and calls for careful stewardship".
I hope that that is a message that the Minister takes on board.
Perhaps I may make one further aside as regards the devolution debate which we shall have in due course. The fact that the Government will now devolve forestry and will make it a Scottish concern in Scotland, a Welsh concern in Wales and an English one in England will contribute nothing to improving the management and expansion of the forestry estate. I hope that the Minister will also take that on board in anticipation of the Scottish devolution debate.
I am delighted that a number of noble Lords are participating in this debate and I hope that their encouragement and voices will be heard. I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for introducing this debate and somewhat flattered that, in responding to him, I find

233
myself first wicket down—which, in the West Indies (which we are not)—is not normally a healthy position to be in. I put my name down to speak to the debate this morning not because I wish to disagree with him about the importance of forestry, but because I wish to emphasise, as he has done, the recent document published by the Government entitled, The UK Forestry Standards, and the need for a balance between the environment and production.
To my great benefit, I live in the Queen Elizabeth Forest Park, which I hope will shortly become part of one of the first Scottish national parks to be created in Scotland. The Government have made that announcement. I already enjoy the huge benefits, to which the noble Lord has referred, of being able to walk out of my front door and straight to the top of Ben Lomond, some 15 miles away. I totally appreciate all that.
The noble Lord did not comment on the proportion of land in Scotland under trees, which I now believe is about 13 per cent. I agree with the noble Lord about the decline in forestry planting in recent years. There is a very simple reason for that. There has been very little increase in net planting by the public sector, the Forestry Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby—who was present a short while ago, but who is not now in his place—had the simple answer as to why the private sector stopped planting; namely, the removal of the tax incentives. The noble Lord also removed much of the incentive to invest in the forestry industry which many people, including myself, thought was highly undesirable. It was a tax break to encourage forestry production. However, I believe that that had a very undesirable effect on the type of forestry planted throughout the United Kingdom. I for one was extremely glad that that tax break disappeared. I was equally well aware that many people whom I know in the private sector used their forestry account because of that to carry out a great many activities that were not strictly forestry because of the advantages that the tax gave them, So I plead with the Government to be fiscally neutral and to try to achieve their objectives economically by way of planting and grant.
I was involved in the promotion of Scottish economic development and I do not argue at all about export substitution; nor do I argue about the need to try to encourage forestry planting on a productive scale.
In any government review I urge them to seek to bring forestry down the hill. The reason that it has not come down is because of land prices. Why are land prices higher? Because of the subsidies on farming, and particularly sheep. I see the Minister nodding and smiling at me, as he so often does. We need to encourage forestry to come down the hill. There better trees will grow. The land will produce more and environmentally it will be infinitely preferable to the terrible problems that have been created by a mass sitka mono-culture in the uplands.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will understand that I do not seek to disagree with him on the purpose of this this debate. I do not seek in any way to criticise his highly distinguished period of office as
234
chairman of the Forestry Commission. I do not seek to criticise the forestry authority. I believe that great strides have been made in understanding the effect on the environment of forestry as so much was planted before the war and shortly afterwards.
I would like noble Lords to understand the appalling damage that that ignorance has created in the environment and the countryside. The damage to watercourses and to biodiversity is irreparable. We also suffer from the huge problem of acidity due, as we all know, to global warming. I am no scientist, but I believe it to be an established fact that two things have happened. Vast forestry and upland drainage, and the use of the Cuthbertson plough have meant that, whereas the uplands acted as a sponge for our watercourses, held water and fed it off gradually to the great benefit of the environment, we now have the rapid pulling of a plug and water flows straight out, giving rise to flash floods with huge effect. Forestry in the mass acts as a sieve in collecting and depositing the acid rain—something we can do little about. That is lethal to fish stocks and many other forms of wildlife.
I also believe that great strides have been made in understanding the effects of forestry on wildlife. But there is no doubt that intensive planting in the uplands has had great effect on the biodiversity of species that live on heather moorlands. It has vastly encouraged that rapacious predator, the fox, which has removed so many of our upland birds and has a sanctuary in upland forestry.
So in a sense I am saying, "Let us increase our planting, but let us be extremely careful". That is why I so much welcome the document published by the Government and launched by the Prime Minister on 19th January called The UK Forestry Standards. I regret to say that I had not read it or looked at it—there is a copy in the Library—until shortly before this debate. I have read it quickly. I commend it to anybody who, unlike me, has been ill-informed and not looked at it.
I would like to quote the Prime Minister's words in his introduction, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor has referred:
"The Government recognises the need to monitor UK forests and to take steps to correct anything found to he going wrong".
That is what I am pleading for. That is inconsistent with the Earth Summits in Rio and in Helsinki in 1992 and 1993.
In our future forestry policy we need a balance and equilibrium, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has so wisely said, between the public and the private sector. We need a partnership on which all the best bases are founded. We need to see that re-established and enhanced. We also need equilibrium between atmosphere, climate and forestry production. I welcome this debate and the attention given to forestry. I very much welcome the UK Standards document and the guidelines being issued by forestry managers. I believe that there is now a far greater understanding of what needs to be done in terms of the rest of the environment and forestry planting.
I plead that in any new steps that the Government take there is no financial incentive to take short cuts and to bypass, for reasons of financial gain, so many of the

235
wise limitations that have been set. It is a great temptation. It is easy to write documents and to say that guidelines should be monitored; it is far less easy to ensure that they are being enforced and it is far harder to tell the long-term effects of some of the actions that we may take in the short term.
I shall sit down in a moment, not having used all of my allocated time, but I must make one more point. The Forestry Commission and the forestry industry have not been subsidised to anything like the extent of agriculture. It may be true that the upland subsidies to agriculture, which have been based on food production, have done more environmental damage than forestry because of the over-grazing. That may well be so, but as the guidelines are enforced it is essential that we become far more aware of the environmental effects.
We also need greater awareness of the downstream economic effects of forestry production. Local authorities and highway authorities tell of the high costs of forestry extraction day after day. It is carried out mostly by contractors, not full-time employees. Such work has to be undertaken on bridges, culverts, narrow and country roads. Those who live on or by such roads will testify that the work and the cost of it is considerably greater than people imagine. By all means let us try to increase that 10 per cent. Figure—it is 13 per cent. in Scotland—but in doing so, let us be extremely aware of the environmental consequences.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the question of the allocation of land use in an overpopulated country like the United Kingdom lies at the root of a number of the problems we find ourselves discussing in this House. Last week we were discussing competing claims by rural interests and housing; today the debate is on the need to expand forestry, but it cannot be about forestry only since more land devoted to forestry is less land devoted to agriculture or housing or wilderness, or one of a number of other objectives. So, this is merely one part of an important ongoing debate and we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for bringing before your Lordships' House not merely the whole subject, but also his unparalleled expertise in this area.
I did not put my name down for this debate until very late because I have no particular knowledge of forestry as a specialised subject and I had, and have, every confidence in my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie who was, and is, down to speak and to whose speech I eagerly look forward.
However, I was stimulated to add my name to the list of speakers when I received a briefing paper from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, a body with which I am in broad sympathy although I by no means always agree with its policies. I am all the more pleased that I am to speak largely to its briefing paper because I note that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is not speaking in this debate. The CPRE's brief was most helpful in underlining the basic problem of land allocation, on which subject I am, if not an expert, at least an enthusiastic pupil.
236
Well managed woodland can be a great benefit to the country and, indeed, the world in a number of ways. My noble friend Lord Redesdale was telling me recently of the big recovery of diversity of wildlife in some woodland which he had started managing both sensitively and aggressively—that is my description, not his.
In addition to diversity, woodlands also add, in the words of the CPRE,
"beauty and character to the landscape. They improve air quality and help temper local climates".
It is because those objectives are both acknowledged goods and not easily quantifiable in pounds and pence that I welcome the CPRE's insistence that the Government's target needs to be driven not by economic criteria alone, as the discussion paper (Woodland Creation: needs and opportunities in the English Countryside) suggests, but should be based primarily on environmental and recreational criteria which it will be easier to justify, implement and monitor.
This is not to say, as we might be caricatured as saying, that we want to decide what we would like to see and then throw money at it. Value for money must be taken into account at every stage of the planning. But it is to say that the objective and the result is not to be solely measured in GNP. It is to be measured in human satisfaction and welfare and also in the holistic good of God's creation (or nature or Gaia or whatever other name one likes to give to that overarching responsibility).
If we are to pursue those ends, we must proceed delicately and with circumspection. It is no use announcing plonking targets and then planting huge areas insensitively. Let us proceed little by little where the area calls for it, and do not let us designate large areas for single-species cultivation. Let us encourage diversity. Nor should we enslave ourselves to political shibboleths. There should not be a reliance on private enterprise for its own sake or public ownership for its own sake. Both have their part to play and we must organise our policies to encourage both.
We all know that one of the major problems in land allocation in the UK is the CAP. It is not only a massive problem; it is a complex one, but we should welcome the European Commission's expressed desire,
"to develop a more integrated rural policy for Europe in which agricultural, social and economic objectives are drawn together".
At the same time, in responding to a situation in which Europe tends to produce too much agricultural produce at too high a price for current markets, we must not lose track of the near virtual certainties; first, that more food will have to be produced to feed the world; secondly that, as this becomes more obvious, food prices will go up, and, thirdly, that the world must, and therefore will, move towards spreading its undoubted wealth better, so that fewer people will starve in the midst of plenty.
What I have just said may sound as if I am almost opposed to the spread of forestry—not at all; I am very much in favour of it. It is merely that I believe that we must proceed sensitively and step by step, a conclusion with which I hope that few of your Lordships will disagree.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe correctly pointed out that the expansion of woodland in this country does not necessarily mean the expansion of forestry. We have seen a considerable effort to expand woodland in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years. That is appropriate because we are one of the least heavily wooded countries in the European Union.
Previous speakers have pointed out the benefits of woodland in terms of access and recreation, and for wildlife. Woodlands also make a modest contribution to the process of carbon sequestration to mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide and their impact on climate. They are important too in terms of landscape although I must confess to being mystified by the then Department of Transport and its belief that one could somehow mitigate the effects of building motorways by the salutary effort of planting a few trees alongside.
We have some excellent examples in this country of commitment to the expansion of woodland by private landowners and the public and voluntary sectors. I refer to the new national forest that is now growing in the Midlands and to my local community forest at Marston Vale which is revitalising and greening an area previously ravaged by brick clay extraction and landfill. Private landowners, often helped by the farm woodland scheme, have helped to create small woodlands across the country. Non-governmental organisations, such as the Woodland Trust and, dare I say it, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—here I declare an interest—have done their bit in terms of creating woodland.
However, I do not believe that that is what my noble friend Lord Taylor was talking about; he was referring to the expansion of forestry, which is different. The expansion of forestry will provide all of those benefits but also the economic benefit of timber production and, perhaps even more important, employment in rural communities. I well recognise the noble Lord's concerns about the future mismatch between the availability of commercial timber for processing and the processing facilities that we are developing in this country. Therefore, a significant expansion of forestry is called for as opposed to simply an expansion of woodland. But we need to find the solution to a number of issues, some of which have already been identified.
First, we must define how much forestry is wanted so that the targets are realistic. We must clearly define the types and location of the forestry required and how it will be delivered. In the past the targeting of forestry increase has been a problem. We must resolve the issues of land ownership that have already been pointed out. I refer to the current debate about the Forest Enterprise estate and whether it will continue at its present size or reduce dramatically. We must also consider the availability of new planting sites on agricultural land. The whole process of bringing forestry down the hill has so far been singularly unsuccessful on a commercial scale because of land prices. We must tackle the difficult issue of investment in public and voluntary sector planting.
238
I wish to put up a few markers on the environmental front. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, make a strong case for environmental protection as part of forestry expansion. Forestry expansion must be part of a vision for multi-purpose forestry delivering not only economic but environmental and social objectives, particularly taking forward some of the biodiversity objectives of the UK biodiversity action plan. I give an excellent example of how that occurred in a highly commercial forest. In Thetford, East Anglia, there is one of the most productive forests in the United Kingdom; yet there has also been a huge increase in numbers of woodlark and the return of the nightjar in proportions that are the envy of many areas of the country. It is also a delightful area in which to walk.
The expansion of forestry must take place in the context of a UK strategy that can be interpreted at regional and local level. It must deliver national biodiversity targets related to the overall strategy for forestry expansion. An excellent example of expansion under the biodiversity action plan that has already begun is the planting by Forest Enterprise of native Caledonian pinewood in Scotland.
One word of warning. We know from past experience that forest expansion can result in inappropriate trees in inappropriate places with inappropriate forest design. At the moment many NGOs and statutory bodies are spending extremely large sums of European Union money taking trees off heathland in the south of England which were inappropriately planted 20 or 25 years ago. Heathland is a fast diminishing habitat in this country. The only way to get it back is to return it to what it should be rather than afforest in inappropriate places. The most prominent example is what happened in the flow country. Many noble Lords may have seen the recent publicity about it. Not only are the inappropriately planted trees in the flow country not growing very well—it is a rather wet place—but they must be removed to put that internationally important habitat back into the condition in which it should have been. It does not seem to me to be a sensible way forward or an efficient use of resources to subsidise planting and then subsidise tree removal before it ever becomes a harvestable crop.
The incentive and regulation system that we now have in this country has developed dramatically over the past 10 to 15 years and is pretty good compared with previous practice. I praise the work of the Forestry Commission, the Forest Authority and Forest Enterprise in implementing some of these conditions and ensuring that we no longer have the inappropriate planting that occurred on a huge scale in the past. But the odd one still slips through. Inappropriate planting submissions still arise. I commend the Minister for his excellent decision recently to require substantial amendment to a planting proposal in Scotland which would have jeopardised the home hunting range of one of the last few pairs of golden eagles in that part of Scotland.
I conclude by asking the Minister to build on his excellent start and assure your Lordships' House that in the promotion of forestry expansion in the United

239
Kingdom the Government will ensure that the economy, including the rural economy, and the environment all benefit from the right trees in the right places.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, timber supply will increase with demand up to the year 2025. After that if no new planting is undertaken supply will fall while demand will rise. Yet a continuous level of supply of softwood is essential to satisfy the domestic wood processing industry. At present the peak of production will be reached in 2022 at 16 million cubic metres and thereafter drop to some 12 million in 2042. It is already too late to affect that trough, but the planting of conifers should be increased by some 275,000 hectares over the next 25 years to achieve a return to 16 million cubic metres. Meanwhile, the town environmentalist has more influence over forestry than the forester with the expert knowledge and thousands of hectares are being wasted in the name of environment. One example of this is the insistence on large proportions of hardwood in every new planting. How nice that sounds for the countryside. But private owners have been planting hardwood for generations and have created the hardwoods that the townies have discovered and wish to protect by bureaucracy. But the opposite is being achieved.
A mature hardwood tree covers some 100 square yards: that is to say, a diameter of some 30 feet. Planted in rows 30 feet apart and only in such numbers that can be economically pruned and looked after one ends up with a wood with nearly 100 per cent. high quality and valuable hardwood. Planted in between the hardwood rows to pull them up will be softwood thinned out during the first 40 years to help satisfy the demands of the mills. The present incentives insist on a very much higher percentage of hardwood to be planted per hectare. There is no softwood to pull them up. Most of the hardwood will be thinned out at little value, and there are too many for the final crop to be identified and to be economically pruned. The result is likely to be stands of firewood quality timber with no contribution to softwood demand.
The demand to plant high densities of hardwood is totally counterproductive and a waste of private and public money. These stands are planted without thought of future management and cropping. According to a paper prepared by Dr. Claire Ozanne, it is a myth that conifers are poor for the environment. For example, she claims that Corsican pine would double the density of anthropods (whatever they might be) compared with oak wood. Another drag to efficiency is the total and unwarranted distrust in the motivation of the private forester. One example of this is the inheritor of an arboretum that had been laid down by his grandfather. It had been allowed to deteriorate, and the new owner lavished care and expense on it to bring it back to its former glory. Having done so, it was immediately put under a conservation order so that he could no longer do anything with it without the permission of the planning officer. Small thanks for his efforts. Perhaps the local council thought that the owner, having done all the improvements, would suddenly try to fell the whole lot.
240
My own experience is somewhat similar. I should first have declared an interest. I am a forester. Having won a national hardwood prize, the compartment was immediately conserved. I can no longer go out and prune it without committing an offence punishable by, from memory, a £2,000 fine. As a result I no longer plant hardwood for fear that the local authority will conserve it and remove my ability to manage it properly.
Surely it would be better to identify blocks of unmanaged or ill-managed woodland and bring pressure to improve them than to harry and discourage success. Interference by bureaucracy and by the townie and the unrealistic antipathy to softwood is inviting long term stagnation of the industry and doing far more harm than good. There does not appear to be any realisation by critics that forests have to be managed over a very large number of years to become high value timber. It is not just a matter of planting and waiting for a huge profit.
There is far too much unnecessary red tape. Foresters used to have to deal only with the Forestry Commission when they wanted to take some action and this was bad enough. Now the Forestry Authority has to consult with every "which way" organisation and local authority before it can consent itself; and the better the forestry the more control is exercised. There is little incentive to grow quality.
The standard of amenity of privately owned woodlands is far higher than that of the public woods for the good reason among many others that the Forest Enterprise has largely to confine its input to production, while the private owner is prepared to spend resources on amenity and landscape. I know of one person that bought back some commission forestry and it was in such a ragged state that he just felled it, and replanted to bring it back to the standard of the rest of his estate.
All the arboretums and parks have been created by the private sector not the public, and they are mostly open to the public such as Westonbirt, Thorpe Perrow, and many parks. Capability Brown would have had a lean time without the private owners. Why should their descendants not be trusted and allowed to maintain and make their own creations for posterity to enjoy without the direction and interference of the bureaucrats? Far more of the Caledonian forest was destroyed by public forestry and turned into black hills of Sitka than by private interests.
There is then the whole question of sale to the public, and the cry that the woodland will be closed to the public. That is nonsense. If a commission wood is open to the public, its sale deed can stipulate that the wood remain open. If the site is an SSSI, then the new owner is subject to the same rules as a public body. The only difference is that the private owner is not free to ignore the restrictions, as is the public body in, for example, the trampling of an SSSI by a motorway.
Forestry gives a very low return but private owners have been prepared to accept this for the amenity value it provides and for the roll-over capital inheritance effect that allows value to be passed on to future generations. There is every reason to encourage private capital to take over from public in the industry wherever possible, either by private planting, or by sale of Forest Enterprise

241
land. Existing access can be assured by covenant, and the private interest will care for the trees better than the public sector. Alternatively Forest Enterprise could be turned into a company and as many shares as possible sold to the public.
The Forestry Commission was not formed to be a trading or profitable enterprise. It was formed to establish a strategic reserve in timber. Low yield public capital tied up in trees could be far better used on national services, leaving the private sector to maintain that reserve.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I join those noble Lords who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe on introducing this debate on the expansion of forestry based on co-operation between the public and private sectors. The relationship between the public and private sectors, which has existed since 1919 when the commission was first established, could be neutrally described as ambivalent. Private landowners have always been represented on the Forestry Commission. That was made clear from the start, but the Acland Report which set up the Forestry Commission was not greeted with universal approval. It is now suggested that Forest Enterprise should be turned into a private company.
Over the years the Forestry Commission has come in for a great deal of criticism. Many of the things it has done have been controversial. There have been arguments about the merits of sitka spruce versus other varieties and so forth. However, no objective observer of the scene could come to any conclusion other than that the FC has served the country well during the almost 80 years of its existence.
It is not often said, but the FC should be congratulated on its experiments in relation to where it grows timber. It has experimented with growing timber at higher altitudes than normally might be expected, in difficult terrain, and sometimes in boggy country in Caithness. Some experiments have been unsuccessful but some have been successful. The commission should be congratulated on the way it has carried out those experiments.
Experimenting in the growing of trees, in circumstances not otherwise thought to be viable, is a better approach than using up good agricultural land for planting trees. This debate may have to be taken further. I am sure that many noble Lords have seen the briefing from the Woodland Trust. It argues, for example, that changes in land ownership, along with the expansion of the state sector and investment in public and voluntary sector planning, will undoubtedly be required to deliver any meaningful expansion. The trust states:
"Imaginative ways of encouraging land out of agricultural production and into woodland must be identified since under the Common Agricultural Policy farmers have not found forestry a financially attractive land use".
I do not want to go too far into the controversy about the CAP. It is clear that there is a great deal of thinking going on about the purpose of forestry. Over the years the FC has undergone a great deal of change. I would
242
not say that it is the only industry which has been reviewed more than once. There have been umpteen reports into the FC. There has been a number of investigations by Select Committees. All along there has been a drift away from the importance of the FC as a public service body supplying timber towards the private sector.
The new company, Forest Enterprise, is a Next Steps agency. It has just completed its first year. We use such terms now without thinking about what they mean. The Next Steps agency was designed to take publicly owned companies, not just the FC, which have been wholly in the public sector into an agency. The next step was meant to be privatisation, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. I hope that that idea has run up against the buffers, and that that route will not be followed.
The importance of forestry is well illustrated by the figures. According to the latest figures, timber imports last year cost £8.1 billion. Neither the FC nor private landowners will be able to make significant inroads into that £8.1 billion in the foreseeable future. I do not know how much of the land would have to he covered to produce that import substitution. I suspect that there would not be much land left for anything else.
It is interesting to look at what is happening: 75 per cent. of the forestry estate is comprised of coniferous plantations which were laid down between 1945 and the 1980s. It is a comparatively recent planting. Forest Enterprise's latest accounts show a profit on timber sales of £8.11 million. Significantly, in 1994, some 14,950 hectares were sold for £18.6 million; in 1995, 10,808 hectares were sold for £12.7 million; in 1996, almost 10,000 hectares were sold for £15.2 million; and last year, 10,842 hectares were sold for £19.8 million.
As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe made plain, the Labour Party manifesto made it clear that there would be no more large-scale disposals of forests. I join with him in asking my noble friend the Minister to make it clear that there will be no more sales of forest land.
I believe that the situation ought to be reversed. The Forest Commission should be given the power and authority to start buying land again. Restocking is down and there is a great deal of concern about replanting. Indeed, the Forestry Commission states that its programme makes a small contribution to the national planning objective. We cannot take that lightly. Until now, the Forestry Commission has been a supplier of raw timber.
My late father-in-law, John McEwen of Blairgowrie, a distinguished forester, had the odd tussle with my noble friend from time to time. He was a vigorous exponent of public ownership and, although at times a severe critic of the Forestry Commission, he certainly believed that its role should be expanded. If we are to have a private sector-public sector partnership I do not see why it should not be expanded into added-on value.
I do not know the price of finished timber compared with the price when it leaves the forest, but it must be considerable. I believe that the Forestry Commission should share in that. It is looking at ways of expanding

243
its role and it is considering leisure facilities. It is worth while taking a brief look at Forest Holidays. The companies, which have subsidiaries, are getting more like private enterprise every day. The business of Forest Enterprise is expanding. It is about to refurbish its cabin sites, which will be carried out under the private finance initiative. That business does not generate a huge amount of money. The company spent £1.1 million on the cabins and cottages and received an income of £1.3 million. It spent £2.3 million on camping and caravan sites and received an income of £2.9 million. That represents a gross profit of just under £900,000 and a return on capital of 9.6 per cent. That is higher than the return on timber production, but I do not suggest that the scheme should be proceeded with only on that basis.
More can be done by the Forestry Commission to look at new ways in which it can serve the public. The Forestry Commission does not exist simply because someone decreed that there should be a Forestry Commission; nor is public enterprise necessarily better than private enterprise. The whole ethos of public enterprise should be to serve people in the communities. The Forestry Commission is now doing a great deal of that with its forestry programme. It is an example of how people can work together.
Some of my noble friends jib at the private finance initiative. Many of my friends, especially those in the other place and outside Parliament, believe that it is diluting the pure milk and water of socialism. However, it is curious that most public companies, and, I suspect, the Forestry Commission, raise money by borrowing from private sources. Therefore, it would be far better if the two worked together in order to produce a better result.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to say that, looking to the future and to expanding forestry, there will be a real attempt to reverse the decline of the Forestry Commission's planting programme. It is essential to our future well being. I hope that the Government, in the spirit of opening the horizons of government, will look at ways in which the Forestry Commission can play a more vigorous and expansionist, even aggressive, role in a joint enterprise in the finished products of timber as well as the timber which we take off the land.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke in support of the Forestry Commission. As one who had the privilege to represent the constituency in which its headquarters is situated, I believe that it carries out its duties with great professionalism and dedication.
Perhaps I may mention a family interest in agriculture and forestry. There is a general community interest in the best use of forestry to enhance the environment. In Scotland, tourism is the largest single employer and many tourists greatly appreciate the opportunity to have access to appropriate forest walks. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned some 50 million visits. It is to his credit, and to his success as chairman, that the infrastructure has been developed by the Forestry Commission for those walks to be greatly enjoyed. I also
244
pay tribute to Scottish Natural Heritage and Magnus Magnusson who has helped to obtain access and management agreements of many environmentally sensitive sites in an acceptable way.
One initiative with concern for the environment at its heart, not only to develop woodlands in Scotland, but also to do it in an environmentally acceptable way, has been the Central Scotland Countryside Trust which has received a great deal of support from the Government. I should be grateful if the Minister could say what progress has been made, as many of the sites scarred by the Industrial Revolution were intended to be renovated.
The word "partnership" represents the key to what is required. I wish to raise three issues with the Minister. First, on the subject of a devolved Scottish Parliament, how is the funding to be arranged as regards the Forestry Commission? Will the Scottish executive be able to determine how much is spent in Scotland? How will the running costs of the headquarters of the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh be apportioned? Furthermore, will there be scope for different planning policies north and south of the Border?
It would help if the Minister could give a picture of what is envisaged and how the administration of the commission will be carried out in Scotland, England and Wales. Can he, for example, give a commitment that an environmentally friendly forestry policy will be followed in all parts of Britain, bearing in mind that loss of habitats can put surviving species at risk? I am thinking in particular of the red squirrel, the European otter and the capercaillie, to mention but a few.
Secondly, it is within my knowledge that Scotland has in the past been considered for inward investment in connection with wood processing and paper. But a number of issues have been raised relating to the following questions. Did the Forestry Commission have sufficient mechanisation? I was, for example, shown a machine in Finland which cut up a pine tree into measured poles, taking off all its branches, after cutting it down, and all within a few seconds. Such high-powered mechanical assistance, with an operator, could do the work of perhaps 16 men all working flat out with mechanical saws. More importantly, I was asked whether the forestry concerns in Scotland could guarantee a sufficiency and continuity of supply in the years to come. Those concerns were passed on to the Forestry Commission and it will help if the Minister could reassure the House that mechanisation and modernisation have taken place. Can he also confirm that there will be a steady supply of timber in the years to come?
Thirdly, can the Government give a strong message of support to the concept of a 67 per cent. increase in timber production by 2025, backed up by a pledge to review the funding arrangements under the woodland grant scheme? It may be that the scheme will need recasting so as to deliver an adequate cover for new planting and support for good, workable stewardship. Forestry is a long-term crop and should be so regarded. We have a relatively low coverage of forestry in Britain compared to other European countries. One of the obvious reasons for strongly supporting forestry is that

245
a healthy, thriving domestic industry will reduce this country's dependence on timber imports, thus assisting the balance of payments.
Our wood processing industry is one of the most advanced in the world. Many of our saw mills, panel and paper manufacturing plants can well be described as state of the art. I believe that the reason for that is that many of the processing companies have recognised that British forestry can, over a prolonged period of time, deliver the finest products of sufficiently high quality to justify the enormous investment that has taken place.
It was the present Prime Minister who wrote, in relation to new standards for managing forests, in a preface:
"What is at stake is a high proportion of the Earth's species, the equilibrium of the atmosphere and climate, and the lives of millions of people who depend on forests for food and shelter".
It is with those standards in mind that the excellent working relationship between the Forestry Commission and the private sector is in the country's national interest. That relationship is built on trust and co-operation, accompanied by a desire to expand and develop Britain's forests. It is a genuine partnership and I hope that the Minister will be able to strengthen that partnership with his words today.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I join previous speakers in offering commendation and gratitude to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe on securing this debate. I join with them in paying tribute to the long and dedicated service he has given to the cause of forestry, a dedication which was amply fulfilled today.
It is appropriate that there is an English Member from this side of the House to speak in the debate and much of what I say will be with specific reference to England. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, that I was delighted that, like my noble friend Lady Young, he touched upon the ecological importance of forestry. That is why I became interested in forestry myself. The first time I became really concerned about it as a politician was soon after I entered the House of Commons when the Treasury produced a cost-benefit analysis, which I described in an earlier speech in your Lordships' House as an example of utter imprudence. The analysis, issued in July 1972, demonstrated that it was not worth planting a single tree in Britain for commercial reasons. Three weeks later, the Russians trebled their timber prices and other timber producers followed suit. The analysis was knocked very hard on the head but unfortunately the Treasury did not react. I understand that your Lordships' House debated the matter some weeks later and that a large number of noble Lords criticised the then government, fortunately not of my political persuasion, for their inertia against that reality.
However, my main interest in forestry remains an ecological one. I spent a fair amount of time in the 1960s studying badgers and sharing the joys of being quietly within a wood rather than watching soap operas on the television, as my noble friend Lord Taylor said
246
in his fine speech. Unfortunately, the last government privatised the forests where I watched those badgers and the right of public access was removed. I could go into those woods only as a trespasser, and noble Lords would expect me to be obedient to the law.
I have an anxiety about access. I am not in any way suggesting that people should be prevented from enjoying woodlands and the countryside. However, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 rather excessively and slavishly ignores all considerations except human demand. One of the Private Member's Bills which I took through the Commons, and which your Lordships passed largely without amendment in 1978, provided for the conservation of wild creatures and plants. Under the terms of the 1981 Act, as recently interpreted, we see an absolute requirement to provide public access without any regard to the conservationist interest.
I quoted an example a few weeks ago at a meeting with Ministers, which some noble Lords attended, and it is worth repeating. One of the plants protected under the 1975 Act was the lady's slipper orchid. At that point, as far as we could tell, there remained one single plant in these islands and it was protected. As the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, otherwise a perfectly splendid piece of legislation, is being interpreted, if a group of people, including perhaps some of the more extreme members of the Ramblers' Association who believe they have the right to walk anywhere and everywhere, claim—such claims not always proving to be as accurate as they might be—that once upon a time people had walked through a field or a wood then that right should always exist even if it means trampling on the last lady's slipper orchid. The last findings and decisions that I have seen in relation to footpath inquiries give cause for some anxiety about preserving important environmental and ecological features. I hope that the situation can be re-examined.
Another area of interest was in relation to my work on the Council of Europe. I cannot remember whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was a member of the Council of Europe at the time. I know, however, that he gave much dedicated service to the agricultural committee. I acted as rapporteur and presented a report on forestry in the late 1970s which recognised the international as well as the national need in that regard. Unfortunately, the world has not seen forestry develop as the Council of Europe recommended, and that may be because it lacks power. We have not planted enough trees. One of the main reasons for that is the pursuit of privatisation and dogma. I do not like dogma in the British countryside. It can take things to extremes, damage relationships and so on.
Moreover, money may well have been used for the purchase of existing woodland which could have been devoted to the planting of new woodland. That diversion of resources has been extremely damaging and this country will regret it. Nevertheless, the Forestry Commission survived. Some of us were worried about whether it would be allowed to do so given the dogmatic approach adopted in the 1980s. In my view, it can make a very powerful contribution and needs to do so.

247
One area about which I feel some anxiety, although the Minister went a long way towards assuaging my fears in answer to a question the other day, is in relation to the community forest. About 15 years ago—my noble friend Lord Taylor will perhaps recall it more clearly than I do—there was a presentation in the Grand Committee Room to Members of both Houses concerning the proposed establishment of the Heart of England community forest, a splendid project. I recall saying at the meeting that we should not merely have that forest but a ladder of community forests from that initial forest through to Kielder, the great forest of Northumberland.
There were huge ravaged areas of north Nottinghamshire, north Derbyshire and south Yorkshire comprising far more land than was needed to be reclaimed for housing or economic development
I had accompanied my parliamentary neighbour, Stanley Crowther, on a canal visit from Leeds to Ferrybridge. It was an astonishing experience. Along the side of the canal were hundreds and hundreds of acres of opencast mining sites, areas which had been affected by industrial devastation in the early 1980s, and closed collieries. There was a great deal of land. I suggested that the area could very easily accommodate a community forest. As has already been explained, a community forest does not mean absolute 100 per cent. comprehensive tree cover; indeed, we must also have open spaces.
The same could be true in Durham. There we could most usefully see a community forest develop. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question. If he does not think that a community forest could loom very largely in the planning activities of the regional development agencies, does he agree that the relationship between the regions and localities is most important?
I turn to my final point; namely, the arrangements after devolution. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, many of us should, and do, walk in the countryside. At weekends my wife and I walk to the highest point of what was my constituency. It is surmounted by a pyramidical folly built by the Marquess of Rockingham to commemorate the quelling of the most unnatural rebellion of 1745. The Marquess was a Prime Minister who hated coming to London; indeed, he preferred racing horses at York and Doncaster, but was otherwise a perfectly splendid man. He planted many trees in my area which still remain. That pyramidical structure also marked the establishment of a just and balanced peace in Europe. It is interesting to note that Mr. William Hague was brought up just under the shadow of that particular folly.
I am concerned about the future of England under the forestry administrative arrangements following devolution. I trust that we will not find ourselves in the position which applied in the House of Commons for a time when those of us who wished to ask questions on English forestry had to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland and incur the wrath of my honourable friends from Scotland who did not like Englishmen trespassing
248
too much on Scottish preserves. The fact remains that there must be increasing interest in forestry in England and there must be increased planting in England. I hope that Members of this and another place will not have to go to Edinburgh when seeking answers to such questions.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, the original batting list of today's speakers indicated that my noble friend Lord Nickson was to be first wicket down, but I was not mentioned in it. However, I understand that there is now a revised list and, once again, I shall be Tail-end Charlie. Nevertheless, I am very pleased to be able to speak and I shall be quick.
I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss forestry. I should also like to thank him for his very carefully worded Motion in which he mentions the partnership between public and private forestry operations. At the outset, I must, like all good Scots and Angus boys, declare an interest. At the last count this morning, I was advised that Kinnordy estates are involved in 320 hectares—or, as we say, "thereby"—of commercial forestry operations. That is disregarding what are known in Scotland as policies regarding rhododendrons, other arboretums and ornamental shrubs.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and other speakers like Lord Hardy, who has just spoken, have the entire forestry programme right in that it involves an enormous and very valuable partnership. It does not matter who does the planting or who carries out the forestry operations, so long as they are accomplished.
Trees and forestry have always been part of my life. I have seen pictures of the events surrounding my birth well before the war when a bonfire was lit. That was not necessarily a "Bonfire of Vanities", nor of furniture from the house, but of spare firewood from clear felling on top of one of the hills which I think is visible from the new home of my new neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, let alone from his old abode.
During the war, I well recall enormous felling taking place. There was one event which marked my schooldays. There is a reference to it in Westminster Hall of all places. Just about the time of the death of the late Queen Mary, 31st January 1953, there was a wind storm which devastated—and that is putting it lightly—the forestry operations in east and north-east Scotland. That was also accompanied by floods which devastated Canvey Island, as well as causing enormous damage in Holland. The events of that day left an enormous scar on the woodlands and forestry in our area, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will well remember. I remember the plantations during my school days. I refer not just to our plantations but also to commercial woodlands, which were severely damaged by the events of that day.
The silviculture (which I believe to be a rather grand name for the operations outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor) also cover land use. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Silviculture operations, such as I see around my home at present,

249
with felling and clear felling, leave an enormous mess. That leads me on to the thought that if silviculture is carried out on bare or open land, what does one do with it afterwards? Perhaps our forebears, the Founding Fathers in the United States, let alone the people who are carrying out operations in the Amazon rain forest, may be able to give us some advice as to what one does after one has planted and felled.
In other words, does one go back to forestry or does one go in for other land usage? My neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Hemphill will certainly know that my homeland—the glens of Angus and the area around Kirriemuir in Scotland—is the start of what I call "the forest country". I say that because there is an enormous amount of land in that area which is not really adequate for CAP purposes or for agriculture. That is of particular relevance and importance, as my noble friend Lord Nickson pointed out, regarding employment.
As noble Lords are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that silviculture and forestry require an extremely long financial time-scale. Even the most experienced and aged noble Lords might get perhaps two, and if they are very lucky three, "crops" of softwood in one generation. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out that for hardwood one would be very lucky if one got a 100-year rotation, which I believe to be beyond the scale of most of us in this House.
I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister for the grants that are available. Any grant is most helpful to private woodland owners in their planting operations. But in typical upland land that I have described in and around the braes of Angus, if one starts planting it is something like an advertisement in the informal nature news, as it almost puts out a little notice saying, "Opening immediately at Kinnordy". Every red deer, roe dear, vole and rabbit will rush in for what I can only describe as a feeding frenzy. Therefore, major fencing and other operations, should not be carried out otherwise time, effort and finance will be pretty well wasted.
Therefore, proper silviculture—proper planting—in the uplands, requires a fair amount of fencing, and that means extra costs. That is why the fairly generous grants, for which we are most grateful, are in no small way dissipated by the costs of fencing. The Minister, being one of the many speakers appearing on today's list whom I could call a woodlander in that he lives in a fairly rural area, although he may not immediately say so, and although he was a white rose of Yorkshire originally—but is wearing a dark blue jersey today when he speaks for Scotland and for forestry—will know that red deer are pretty athletic. Fairly tough fences have to be erected to stop them getting in, let alone the roe deers and rabbits who can get underneath the fence. Therefore, there are considerable costs involved when carrying out proper and professional silvicultural operations.
I should stress to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who pointed out the
250
various uses of forest land once trees are planted, that much discussion has taken place in this House about access. My noble neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will certainly know about the woodlands around Kirriemuir. I will invite the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to visit the area in summer. He will find all sorts of things going on in the woodlands which perhaps the young people will tell him about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, may be a little startled to hear that one of the more popular events that take place in the woodlands in Strath Ardle around Perth and around our area of Scotland is motor rallying. Kindroggan Forest in Strath Ardle is not too far from the area that the noble Baroness knows. Some 25 years ago one of the forest wardens there said to me while we were watching the cars go by, "Yon will be nay *** use if he takes longer than 24 seconds between these two areas". Such was the enthusiasm of the forest warden for all kinds of uses of the forest. That was a somewhat unorthodox use of forest land in summer. I was astonished that it was taking place but it did not damage the roads too much. I do not think that the Forestry Commission was entirely charitable; I suspect that it obtained a fair rent and a fair sum in compensation for that activity.
In my own area in Glen Isla in the Forestry Commission plantation there is the most marvellous cross-country ski area. When the snow conditions permit, there is dog racing with huskies. I understand this also takes place in the Cairngorms. All kinds of activities take place on forest land which are far removed from those in the imagination of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I thank the Minister, in anticipation, for taking on board the desperate need for the partnership that we are discussing. That partnership is of immense significance and it is a great success. I hope that this partnership will ensure that planting continues where it is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has given us the relevant figures. I believe he said that the planting covered 25 to 30 per cent. of the available territory. I seem to remember that the figure for the Federal Republic of Germany was 25 per cent., and for France it was 26 per cent. I am delighted to hear that the figure for Scotland is 13 per cent. I hope that that will increase, and I hope that the Minister will give us encouragement that figure will rise.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I wish to add a few words. However, before I do so, I refer to the famous woods of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, Caddam Woods, about which a good fiddle tune has been written. Those woods are the walking place for every dog in Kirriemuir. For some reason those trees seem to grow and grow. The fertiliser must be excellent!

251
Good landlords in Scotland have opened their woods to the public. On the whole the public have used those woods properly. I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, introduced this debate on forestry. It must be a new interest on his part!
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is essential to have this debate because we have gone badly wrong in this area in recent years. The Forestry Commission has been downgraded and the situation with regard to planting has been disastrous. I take issue a little with the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, who made an admirable speech, and obviously knew his subject, when he said that he disapproved of the tax concessions which gave rise to some bad publicity as some well-known comedians and others put their money into forestry. However, properly administered, that money would have been extremely useful. Of course, at that time taxes were so high that the planting involved no cost to the people concerned. However, the scheme resulted in many trees being planted. When the Tory Government abolished the concession, the amount of planting being undertaken plunged, with bad results.
I accept that we must be careful about where we plant trees. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, spoke of the flow country. The Forestry Commission should not have permitted that planting to occur. Perhaps that took place because the Forestry Commission was not properly funded and could not properly oversee planting throughout the country. We in Scotland know about the pulp mill at Fort William and the pulp mills in Ayrshire. It is scandalous that after having invested money in the mills the companies concerned suddenly find that due to changes in policy there is no longer an adequate supply of timber to enable them to operate the mills. Co-operation between the Forestry Commission and private owners must be genuine and must be stimulated by the Government. The Government must provide money to enable that to happen. I trust and hope that they will show a great deal more understanding than has been the case with agriculture, which has suffered badly. Without proper backing of the Forestry Commission we shall not achieve the results we require.
I was interested to note that my noble friend Lord Beaumont and I are in complete agreement on this matter. We frequently disagree but on this occasion we are in complete agreement. It is extremely important that we realise the importance the public attach to seeing good looking trees about the place; deciduous trees, hardwoods and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, is obviously an extremely practical forester. He put his finger on the matter when he said that without softwoods forestry is not economic. Many of the estates in Scotland could not possibly survive without an income from the sale of softwoods for the pulp industry or whatever. At the moment maturing softwood is worth £1,000 an acre. If that money is realised every now and then, it keeps an estate going and keeps communities going in the countryside.
252
We need to plant sitka and other trees of that kind. We can at the same time plant the excellent Scots pine and the Douglas fir. We should also plant the European larch. In Deeside there is some admirably mixed planting which gives joy to everyone. There is also the "black forest" planting. Larch opens up the soil, the vegetation and the habitat. Hardwoods grow up in between the plantings of sitka or some fast-growing species. Therefore it is necessary to plant softwoods to encourage the growth of the oaks which will delight our great-grandchildren.
The simple fact is that the Forestry Commission must be reconstituted and given enough money to do its job. It must be able to buy land for planting, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said, and play its part alongside private enterprise. If that is done, we should at least be able to supply the pulp mills with timber and have a great deal of valuable timber for ordinary domestic use. The figures are horrifying. We have heard of the more than £6 billion that we spend on importing timber into this country. We have less than half the timber of France and of Germany and certainly a good deal less than that of Sweden. Therefore we must take this matter extremely seriously.
I do not wish to speak for much longer. I end with a story about my father and my uncle, both of whom had been chairmen of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. At my father's golden wedding anniversary, a former official of the college was proposing a toast and told this story. He said, "Many years ago I was going through some woods with my chairman, Mr. John Mackie, and I said, 'Lovely woods, Mr. Mackie'. His reply was, 'Aye, grand woods to walk in wi' a lassie'. Some years later my chairman was Mr. Maitland Mackie. We were going through the same woods, and I said, 'Grand woods, Mr. Mackie'. His reply was, 'Aye, these woods will be worth £1,000 an acre".
That illustrates the two points of view. We have to marry them. The Forestry Commission is the body which has to do that. The Government have to see that the Forestry Commission has the money.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for this debate on forestry. It is some time since I took part in a debate on forestry. One of the joys of Opposition—I think probably it is the only joy—is that one can move out of the departmental brief that one has been given and revisit subjects of interest. Certainly forestry is an interest of mine for a number of reasons.
In another place, for five and a half years I was the Minister who answered for the Forestry Commission to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for example. I well remember his questions about English forests which I found fascinating and enjoyed the interchange. However, I also remember that some of my Scottish colleagues were less than pleased at the introduction of English forestry into Scottish Questions. But being the lead Minister and having to look at forestry throughout the United Kingdom was a fascinating task. While I was

253
the lead Minister for some of that time, for the remainder I was the spokesman in the Commons for my noble friends Lord Gray and Lord Mansfield. They were the lead Ministers on forestry.
That allows me to ask the Minister two or three questions. He may not wish to answer them today; he may wish to leave them until the devolution Bill. My noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned these points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Some of us are puzzled as to what will happen as regards forestry after devolution. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, in her place. I noted that in a debate on forestry. instigated again by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on 29th October, she said:
"The commission will however continue to be the government department with responsibility for forestry throughout Britain. The commission will report separately to the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly but will still be a national responsibility. I hope that that provides some comfort and confidence to my noble friend".—[Official Report, 29/10/97; col. 1125.]
I do not know what it did to her noble friend but it puzzled me, and still puzzles me. The commission will still be a national responsibility, and yet it will report to those different parliaments and assemblies. Will there still be a lead Minister? If the Scottish Minister is responsible for forestry in Scotland, for example, how will he deal with the Treasury regarding grants, and so on? We know how important grants are in this business.
What will his position be vis-í-vis the English Minister who will live in, if I may so describe it, the same treeless forest of Whitehall as the Treasury Ministers. If the English Minister sees his priority as encouraging broadleaves and wishes to skew the grant to broadleaves, yet the Scottish Minister, for reasons I shall come to shortly, wants to skew the grant towards conifers, who will win? I would prefer to be in the forest with the English Minister when working out who will win. I think that the situation will be difficult. It will be difficult for the forest enterprise and forest authority to deal with three masters. We are advised that no man can serve two masters. I suspect that Sir Peter Hutchison and his successors will find it difficult to serve three masters.
What will happen to the headquarters of the Forestry Commission'? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, was too modest to mention that he took the Forestry Commission headquarters out of London to Edinburgh. Will the commission be broken up? Will Edinburgh become the Scottish headquarters of Scottish forestry, and somewhere in England, the English headquarters?
How will the commission receive its budget? Will it receive three different tranches: from the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament, and from Westminster on behalf of the English part of the operation? Those are difficult questions. I appreciate that the Minister may not wish to address them today. However, I give him notice that I shall want them addressed on another day.
My other claim for interest is that my old constituency is arguably the most heavily forested part of the United Kingdom, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and his friends, and the private sector. There were many forests, and access was important. However, in Scottish terms I cannot get too
254
worked up about access. If one went for long walks in the forestry woods, private or public, one did not meet many people. On the short, easy walks one met a few people. So the people who demand access do not want to walk but to cause trouble. There is plenty of access and there are plenty of roads in forests on which to walk.
Perhaps I may say a few words on an important aspect. I am surprised that no one mentioned it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, came nearest to doing so. I refer to the ancient woodlands of Scotland and England—beechwoods in the south of England, oakwoods in Argyllshire and the Caledonian pine forest. Those are all important. The commission is doing good work in re-establishing the pine woods.
However, forestry is not about access. It is not about being a playground for people. Its primary objective is the production of wood. We need that wood, as we have heard. We import something like 90 per cent. of the forest products we use. We have a balance of payments deficit in forestry of £6 billion to £7 billion. Yet in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, pointed out, we have good growing conditions. Trees in Britain take two-thirds of the time that the trees of many of our supplying countries take to grow to maturity. Indeed, there are many places in Scandinavia, which is heavily forested, where the trees take twice as long to grow. That gives them some advantages, but also some disadvantages, especially in pulping for example.
It is conifers which are in demand. It is conifers that people use. If we can substitute for some of the imports, we may well be helping to halt the felling in some parts of the world which environmentalists are so against. It is odd that many of the same environmentalists are against our planting any trees in this country. When we plant them, they are against us felling them 30 years later. I have listened to campaigns against planting, and a few years later the same people bob up campaigning against felling. It seems most odd.
However, the important emphasis is on employment in the countryside. I refer to Shotton and Irvine, Highland forest products outside Inverness, and caberboard. In today's Glasgow Herald there is a report of a £50 million chipboard mill at Auchinleck in Ayrshire. All those areas need employment. Auchinleck certainly needs it. Much good employment has been provided. I have sat round the ministerial table at the Scottish Office when we managed to achieve the new pulp mill at Irvine, and we were very pleased about that. But in the country areas also, the planting, tending, felling and transporting of trees creates a lot of employment. In many areas it creates more employment than sheep farming. One can see that in Argyll where much of the forest is now mature and is being felled—and again it is conifers.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough pointed out that there would be a doubling of production over the next few years. and that by 2022 it would peak. He asked: what will happen afterwards? I, too, pose that question. What will happen afterwards is a worry. The noble Lord the Minister gave the House some figures on 21st January about planting. They seemed encouraging.

255
But I suspect that the great bulk of them were replanting rather than new planting. Perhaps he will give us some details of that breakdown.
My noble friend Lord Nickson and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out that with changes in the CAP we should look at planting, as they say, further down the hill. There must be quite a few areas in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire—there certainly are in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire—where trees would do no harm, if I may so put it. In fact, at the risk of alienating people who come from those parts, I think they would enhance the landscape slightly. They would do a lot to improve those parts of the world.
Of course planting has to be better done. There was some bad planting in the past, when we had less knowledge than we have now. As my noble friend Lord Nickson pointed out, hardwoods could be used along watercourses, and to ease off the edges of trees. Those ideas are important. However, we should not become too obsessed about hardwoods. They do not provide the type of employment to which I refer, and we should not lose sight of the importance of such employment.
The previous government started the national forest in the Midlands, and that is important. Again, it illustrates the point: 60 per cent. deciduous; 40 per cent. softwoods. I am not sure that we shall keep Shotton going on that kind of ratio. My worry is that, if too much of the grant money goes into that sort of ratio, we are not going to see conifers being planted..
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to rich people putting money into trees. I have no great objection to that. It will mean less asset-stripping, since the trees have to stay there. It is a lot better than putting their money into offshore trusts. The money is invested in Britain, and in jobs in Britain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, reminded us about the flow country. Dare I say to the noble Baroness that the real folly of the flow country was that it is not in fact a good place to plant trees. The ground is too soft and they will find it hard to grow to maturity. With CAP reform, we need to look to trees being planted further down the hill, in places where we have not previously envisaged tree planting. It is important to keep in mind the economic importance of conifers. I hope that the Government will examine the targets again to see how they can be met.
It gives me no comfort to say that the government of which I was a Member failed miserably to meet the planting targets. I encourage this Government to look again at these issues to see whether they can produce planting targets, for both deciduous trees and conifers, which will not merely be met but will look to the employment potential way into the future and to the industries that we have set up to deal with conifers. The Minister will have my support in doing that.
4.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, perhaps I should begin not so much by declaring an interest but admitting to a lack of competence. The trees that
256
I planted several years ago are all deceased. So it is with no great sense of achievement that I address the House this afternoon.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for providing this opportunity to discuss forestry. The noble Lord has a distinguished history of involvement in forestry and the forestry industry and is a distinguished past chairman of the Forestry Commission, where he made a notable contribution.
The debate has been not merely interesting, but positive. Many noble Lords came up with imaginative suggestions as to the way forward for forestry in this country. I look forward to giving more thought to the many suggestions made.
I am also particularly heartened by the fact that, possibly with one exception, all noble Lords endorsed the work of the Forestry Commission. I wish to recognise the commission's considerable work and achievement over the years—not always in the easiest of circumstances.
There is one particularly important point that I wish to raise now so that it is not lost. Its importance relates to the whole business of inward investment and downstream development. During the course of the debate the point was made, initially by my noble friend Lord Taylor, that existing industries would not be sustained by the timber from existing forests. That is not correct; it is a mistaken view. Because of the rapidly rising graph in terms of timber harvesting over the next couple of decades, the timber produced from our forests will be more than sufficient to sustain our existing timber industries. In addition, we have the opportunity to plant and make sure that there is replacement for the time beyond that, when the graph begins its downturn. It is important to be clear about that. There is no problem in regard to security of supply for existing industries. That worry should be removed immediately.
Many speakers raised the issue of devolution. My noble friend Lord Taylor suggested that the devolution of forestry to Wales and Scotland, and, I may say, England, would not improve forestry management. I am not sure whether my noble friend is changing his position on that matter. I remember a question raised a few weeks ago when he urged me not to make a decision on a forestry matter until a Scottish parliament is able to make its position clear. I believe that forestry will benefit from being devolved. There will be the opportunity to make sure that forestry policy in the various parts of the United Kingdom—in Scotland, England and Wales—can respond more sensitively to policy priorities in the three countries in terms of rural development and general questions of rural land use.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, focused particularly on the grant systems. Because forestry is devolved, it would be perfectly possible for the grant system in Scotland to be different from that in Wales, and from that in England. Clearly, the grant systems exist to facilitate particular policies. If policy priorities are different, it is quite proper for the grant systems to be different as well. So, in the noble Lord's example, it would be possible in England to have a grant

257
system that encouraged softwoods and a system in Scotland that encouraged hardwoods, or vice versa. There is no difficulty in that regard.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe emphasised his wish to see more forestry in Britain, and in particular to see more trees planted as a result of partnership between the public and private sectors. I concur with him and with other noble Lords that that is indeed the way forward. We certainly want to increase the area of woodland in Britain. As many noble Lords observed, our coverage in European terms is low. It runs at about 10 per cent. It is higher in Scotland—but then one would expect all good things to be more plentiful in Scotland. It is therefore one of the lowest percentages in the world.
We are increasing that percentage (and this is my brief, my Lords) at about 0.1 per cent. each year. So progress is being made—but at 0.1 per cent. a year I do not think it would convince even the Fabians in their belief in the inevitability of gradualness. The 10 per cent. figure compares with an average figure of 36 per cent. for the European Union. Indeed, only Ireland has a smaller percentage than Britain. Denmark and the Netherlands are roughly the same. So the opportunity for an increase in forestry planting and woodland cover is there. I do not think that we ought necessarily to follow the mercantilist fallacy, which may best be illustrated by the "pineapple problem"; namely, it would be possible for us to achieve self-sufficiency in pineapples but that would not be a good use of our resources. In forestry, that is not a particular danger. We can increase forestry cover without any maldistribution of resources.
We are determined to increase the area of woodland in Britain. It is one of the key aspects of our forestry policy. That is best summarised in the mission statement of the Forestry Commission:
"To protect and expand Britain's forests and woodlands and to increase their value to society and the environment".
Well-designed forests not only provide timber but also good wildlife habitats, as my noble friend Baroness Young of Old Scone observed, and excellent opportunities for recreation, whether with young ladies or not, while also enhancing the landscape.
How are we to increase forestry? As the noble Lords, Lord Nickson and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated, a major consideration is CAP reform. Land is a finite resource; we cannot increase the amount. We can bring about changes in land use. A major factor affecting land use is the common agricultural policy. The inevitable consequence of an expansion of forestry cover would be a decrease in land used by agriculture. That is particularly the case as forestry and trees come down the hill. In some areas that message is not welcome. Frequent attempts are made to persuade me, as an agriculture Minister, that increased support for agriculture is necessary in order to maintain the present coverage of land for agricultural use.
The Government have made clear that we are working towards reform of the common agricultural policy, which we expect will eventually lead to a significant increase in forestry in Britain. Land has to be taken out
258
of agricultural production, and forestry is perhaps the most important and viable alternative use. But it will take time; it will not happen overnight.
In the meantime, we are offering generous grants and participating in a range of initiatives to encourage the creation of new woodlands. In total, 17,000 hectares of new woodland were created in Britain last year. Of that, nearly 5,000 hectares were new woods in England and nearly 12,000 hectares new woods in Scotland. Sadly, less than 500 hectares were planted in Wales, which is why we have launched a special challenge fund to encourage people in Wales to plant trees on land which is currently growing bracken. In response to a point made by my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath, I can say that we are also making a special effort to convert derelict land—for example, old mining areas—into new woods which will be an asset to the community instead of an eyesore. I very much take the point that forestry has a major part to play in the role of the regional development agencies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, the public sector has to work in partnership with the private sector to create new forests. There are many examples of such partnerships creating new woods throughout Britain. These range from the high profile initiatives of the National Forest in the East Midlands, the community forests throughout England and the Central Scotland Forest to much more local initiatives for individual woods, sometimes in commemoration of a particular individual. In every case, the public sector and the private sector are working together, providing not only funds for the new woods but also enthusiasm and expertise.
In response to my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, perhaps I may say that the Forestry Commission works closely with the private sector to manage its whole estate as effectively as possible. For example, it is planning to use private sector expertise and finance to improve the management and standard of its forest cabins, bringing in private capital on a partnership basis. As another example, the commission is encouraging private industry to invest in new harvesting machinery by offering long-term harvesting contracts. I believe that that is a positive way forward, bringing the strengths of the public and private sectors together for a common benefit.
The National Lottery Millennium Fund is participating in other initiatives, notably the Millennium Forest for Scotland and the Woodland Trust's Woods on Your Doorstep scheme. Both of these involve public and private funds in addition to the funds from the lottery. There is thus a significant gearing of resource going into forestry, and that is to be welcomed.
In addition, the Forestry Commission, through Forest Enterprise, is buying and planting land, targeting its limited funds on those areas where it can make the greatest contribution, such as the National Forest. In many cases the Forestry Commission, by demonstrating what can be achieved, provides an example which encourages other bodies and individuals to create their own forests.

259
Several noble Lords asked about the sale of Forestry Commission land. We imposed a moratorium on the sale of forest land managed by the Forestry Commission in May last year. That moratorium is still in place. The only areas of forest land that the commission has sold since then were areas which it had agreed to sell before the general election. In some cases sales take time to finalise. Those have been the only sales that have taken place.
Nevertheless, as well as being able to buy land, the commission needs to be able to sell land if it is to manage its estate effectively and efficiently. Indeed, in some situations the commission could increase the value of its estate to the public by selling one area and buying another. That type of disposal and acquisition is in the long-term interests of both the public and the Forestry Commission.
When the commission sells land in future, for whatever reason, we shall ensure that public access is preserved wherever possible. I attach a high degree of priority to that. The Forestry Commission encourages quiet and peaceful recreation in all its forests, except where that is prevented by legal constraints or safety considerations. As was mentioned by noble Lords, about 50 million day visits are made to commission woods each year. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, might not meet them, but they are there somewhere. In addition, I know that many noble Lords take advantage of the commission's policy of opening its forests to walkers of all ages and abilities.
We wish to preserve these opportunities for informal recreation. If any such woods are sold in future, we shall therefore expect them to remain open to the public. The commission will normally enter into an access agreement with the local authority before the land is sold, thus preserving public access to these woods in perpetuity. Obviously there will be cases where that is not possible because of the nature of the legal basis upon which the Forestry Commission holds the land, but I very much hope that such cases will be the exception.
We have seen the Forestry Commission come through a difficult period. I see forestry as an increasingly important industry in the countryside and our rural areas, but not just in rural areas, as it contributes to downstream employment in our towns.
I realise that I have not been able to deal in detail with all the points that have been made, particularly with the detailed questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I assure the noble Lord that I shall write to him on those points. We have had a good debate. It was right and proper to highlight the contribution of forestry, not only to the economy of the countryside but also to that of the country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer the question I asked about the split between new planting and replanting on the 30,000 hectares which he claimed were planted last year? Of those 30,000 hectares, what proportion was replanting of timber on areas that had
260
been felled and what proportion new planting? If he cannot answer me now, I should be happy for him to write to me.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on that point. However, perhaps I can again assure the House that there is increasing recognition, particularly in the context of CAP reform, that forestry will play an increasing role in the rural economy. It must be developed in a way that is environmentally sensitive and takes our citizens with us.
I believe that in the past we have been a little insensitive in the way that forestry planting has taken place. I take the point about the need for softwood. But most people regard such planting as monocultural blots on the countryside which are neither aesthetically pleasing nor environmentally sensitive. We must get the balance right. A swing, at least, towards some hardwood planting is long overdue.
Discussion can take place where there are proper differences of view. But, on the central point of the increasing importance of forestry, I believe we are all agreed.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, first, I thank all those who participated in the debate. On a previous occasion when this subject was before us there were some 24 speakers, many of whom had come down from the Highlands to make their contribution. They were allocated four minutes each. As a result, I believe some of them decided that the journey was not worthwhile. Nevertheless, we have heard a number of interesting comments from people who know the subject. That was most encouraging.
I was interested particularly in the commitment of the Minister and the fact that he is in favour of the expansion of forestry. But I was somewhat surprised by his reference to selling off land. He said that if the Forestry Commission sells off land, it will have more money to buy land. That is not true. The money from the land it sells off goes to the Treasury and does not go back into forestry at all. The increased selling of land therefore diminishes forestry; it does not encourage forestry. I would regard it as a betrayal in Scotland if there was any departure from the moratorium of selling off Forestry Commission land.
The Minister made another interesting point. He said that there is no difficulty about continued security of supply to the pulp and paper industry. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, but that is nonsense. The supply to those industries is maintained because planting took place 20 years ago. The sitka spruce are now being harvested. If the Forestry Commission planting programme was reduced 20 years ago from 20,000 hectares to 0.400 hectares this year, what will happen in 20 years' time? Where are the trees being planted now to maintain the security of supply which the Minister says is assured? It does not exist. Even the private sector planting dropped from 20,000 or 30,000 hectares in past years to 19,000 hectares total

261
forestry planting. If we reduce our planting programme to that extent, we cannot possibly give guarantees that there will be continuity of supply 20 years hence. The trees are not being planted now and the only way to secure continuity of supply in long-term contracts which will encourage those companies is to maintain a planting programme.
I am sure that we will return to the question of devolution when we debate the Scotland Bill. I do not believe that devolving forestry from central headquarters is worthwhile. When I was chairman of forestry my headquarters were at 25 Savile Row, W.I. I put it to my board that we should move nearer the trees. My board was divided into three Scotsmen, three Englishmen and one Welshman. I put it to the Welshman that we should get out of Mayfair and move nearer the woods. He said, "Yes, Cardiff is the place." I was able to say to him that if he proposed Cardiff and it failed, perhaps he would support Scotland. Of course, the Celtic alliance was established and the Forestry Commission headquarters for the United Kingdom are based in Edinburgh.
I do not believe that it will create another acre of trees to devolve the Forestry Commission to three or four separate commissions. It may increase the revenue of British Airways flying people here and there, but it will not increase forestry, which is our major concern. I hope we will return to that topic when we reach the Scottish debate.
Again. I thank the Minister for his commitment this afternoon. His statement that he is committed to the expansion of forestry is recorded in Hansard. I look forward to the fulfilment of that promise. It has been a good debate. Again, I thank the Minister and noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Nazi Victims: Restitution of Assets
5.16 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstonerose to call attention to the need for the restitution of assets to victims of Nazism in Britain and elsewhere; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to raise in this House the restitution of assets to victims of Nazism in Britain and elsewhere. At the start I thank those who have helped in what has certainly proved to be one of the most remarkable campaigns.
I thank Malcolm Rifkind, the then Foreign Secretary, for producing the first report on this issue. I thank him for agreeing to tie up—not to distribute—the residue of gold in the hands of the Tripartite Gold Commission. I thank Foreign Secretary Robin Cook for setting up the Nazi Asset Conference. He promised he would do it if Labour was elected and, as soon as it was elected, he carried out his promise. It was a remarkable gathering of 43 nations and authorities who were seeking to produce the truth and justice and some measure of restitution to victims of Nazism, even 50 years after the disaster had occurred.
262
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, with whom I have fought side by side in this battle and who accompanied me to Switzerland and to the Vatican, and laboured so hard for the results we won. I pay my special tribute to Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, to the American Congress and to the American people for their support in this matter, even though it has created difficulties for the United States as it is doing for us here in Britain.
Finally, our first targets were the Swiss Government and banks who at first behaved in a most disgraceful and dishonourable way. Over the course of a year they have changed. Under the leadership of their now President, Flavio Cotti, they have set up the Bergier Commission, the Volker Commission and the Humanitarian Fund. They have promised a Solidarity Foundation and have moved in a way that is honourable and worthy. I hope that they achieve results. I hope that our country will be prepared to do what they have undertaken; that is, to seek the truth, to do justice, and to make restitution.
Their work has been carried out largely under the leadership of the Holocaust Educational Trust, its director Janice Lopatkin, Stephen Ward, Dr. Danny Somerfield and their young and energetic team, with whom I am proud to work; and of historians and archivists from all over the world who have given us their time and effort in a cause which they regard as urgent and just.
The Motion refers to a need for the restitution of assets to victims in Britain and elsewhere and perhaps I may briefly refer to elsewhere before turning to Britain.
Other countries have moved in a way that a year ago no one would have believed possible. Countries have established commissions to ferret out how their nations profited from the assets of Nazi victims. That has happened not just in Switzerland and the USA but in Portugal, Spain, Argentina, France, Uruguay. Brazil, Sweden, Belgium, Croatia and the Czech Republic, and we are even starting to get some movement in the Vatican, following the visit paid by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, Sir Sigmund Sternberg, Janice Lopatkin and myself last weekend. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that senior Vatican officials told us that when we have researched the 12 volumes of documents produced some 30 years ago, we should come back to them with the questions which we need answering. That research has immediately begun. So in that centre of morality, we hope that light will shine soon through the curtains of darkness which have so far shrouded their archives.
What about here? In Britain, after the war, our economy was bankrupt and, not surprisingly, our then government were looking for assets. They appropriated bank accounts and valuables belonging to enemy aliens. The Custodian of Enemy Property worked under the then Board of Trade. He appropriated these enemy assets, properly in the case of Nazis and their supporters but totally improperly in the case of people who were victims of the Nazis. The three main safe havens from 1939 onwards and even during the war—were

263
Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom. The Custodian of Enemy Property took, among other assets, the savings, the property and the earnings of people who had been murdered by the Nazis, people who were the victims of the Nazis. Those assets were worth some £30 million in those days and would be worth far more today.
Britain, the United States and Switzerland, as the safe havens, have all to look to see what has been done and what could be done in order to provide restitution to these people. At first, no assets were returned to any of the victims. But, on Christmas Eve 1948, the then Government set up what they were pleased to call an ex gratia scheme for victims seeking the return of their money. As a lawyer, I have always regarded that use of the term ex gratia as disgraceful. Ex gratia means that you do it out of grace; you do it when you do not have to do it; you do it not because you must do it but because you wish to. There is nothing ex gratia in a payment which is a repayment to people of that which was theirs. It is the return, in this case, of stolen goods, of goods which did not belong to this nation but were the property of others. But at least the Government started the process.
Then these claimants had to prove what in most cases was the impossible. They had to show that they were "deprived of their liberty". It did not count as enough to have been incarcerated in a labour camp, to have been deported to a ghetto or to have fought in the woods with resistance movements. If a victim hid to avoid the Nazis, it was voluntary, and that did not count.
They had to have left their home countries. If they were trapped behind the Iron Curtain, they received nothing. Rightly, they must not have acted against the allies. Again rightly, they must not have enjoyed full rights of citizenship under the Nazis. But heirs could claim only if the victims had died during hostilities.
This deadline was later extended to 1947 but we know of people liberated by our army from Belsen who survived, who were ill and then, when they died, their heirs received nothing because the victims had survived for that time. Suicide as a result of Nazi behaviour was not enough. One victim committed suicide when the Gestapo knocked at her door to take her to a concentration camp. Believe it or not, her heirs did not qualify because she had not died in captivity.
The burden of proof was on the victims. Heirs had to show that there were witnesses to the death and they had to produce affidavits or death certificates, which was hardly possible when people had been murdered in Auschwitz or other death camps.
What then happened? The Board of Trade Solicitor said in October 1951:
"We are not bound either morally or legally to test the propriety of our interpretation of the policy … We decide whether certain property shall or shall not be released".
I reject that proposition totally. Anyone who wished to receive assets had to claim before 1956. After that date the money had been used by the British Government to compensate British companies or people who had lost assets in enemy countries as a result of the war.
264
I thank my noble friend Lord Haskel for his consideration in these matters. I know that he will help if he can. However, the problem is that when I last asked at Question Time what the Government were going to do, he said that none of this money was left. Of course there is no money. It has been given away. But it was not only the money of Nazis that was given to British companies or individuals; it was the money of people who had had their lives wrecked by the Nazis. That is why there is nothing in the kitty. It has been emptied for other purposes.
Thanks to the efforts of campaigners, including Sir John Foster, QC—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will refer to him—and my own father, some refusals were overturned. A £250,000 gesture was paid into a fund to help a small number of victims. Some payments were quietly made, even against the rules, through the 1960s. But many survivors and heirs of survivors—some within but most outside this country—received nothing. If no one in a family survived to make a claim, nothing was paid. Above all, some did not know how to claim, or that they could. When moneys were repaid, it was the same sum that was put in, without any interest, and the Government deducted a 2 per cent. handling charge.
Last year the Holocaust Educational Trust produced a document on ex-enemy Jews and the fate of assets in Britain of holocaust victims and survivors. Some of the survivors were Jewish, some were non-Jewish. but none of those who have sought their money since then—their assets, placed here for safekeeping—has succeeded. I pay tribute to the Government, who said immediately that they would investigate these allegations, and to the British Bankers Association, which swiftly responded with promises of their own investigations.
What has happened since? We were led to believe that the report of the Department of Trade and Industry would appear before the Nazi Asset Conference at the end of last year. It has not appeared. We thought it would appear at the beginning of this year. It has not appeared. We asked when the report would appear. We were told that the department does not know. Why not? Survivors will not survive forever. This is a matter of urgency.
On this matter I regret to say that the Government have not shown urgency. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was kind enough to provide me with a copy, in confidence, of the draft report. It is fair to say there is nothing in it—I am sure the Minister will not mind my saying this—nothing that contradicts anything that was in the report of the Holocaust Educational Trust. But that is as far as we have got. Now we want to know what will happen.
I wrote to my noble friend and received his reply. He said yes to the request that the Government should publish a list. I appreciate that very much. However, if they are to publish it, they must do so in a way that will let people know it is there. In his reply the Minister said that it will be on the internet. That is not enough. Too many people do not know how to consult the internet or where to look on the internet. At the very least we must do as a minimum what the Swiss have done, which is

265
either to publish the names in the newspapers or to let people know through appropriate newspapers that the names are available. If nothing is published in the newspapers, most people will not know where and how to look. I ask the Minister to look at that again.
What depressed me most was the very sad final paragraph of the noble Lord's letter in which he says,
"Finally, you raise the possibility of a mechanism to deal with claims. It is clear from history that successive British Governments have made great efforts over a number of years to respond appropriately and justly to the confiscation of assets as a result of trading with the enemy … "
I hope that I have said enough to show that that was not the case at all; that successive governments made efforts to return as little as possible to as few as possible. That is certainly not dealing "appropriately and justly". I am so sad that my noble friend has seen fit to reply in that way. I hope that he will modify that reply today. He goes on to say,
"In addition, over £2 million was paid to victims of Nazi persecution under the ex gratia scheme".
Some of them were repaid some of what had been taken from them. The noble Lord does not say that they will take action on behalf of the rest. Instead, he says,
"The Government is considering, in the light of the report, whether anything further should be done".
I beg the Minister at least to give the House the assurance that action will be taken and that we will not be shamed by taking even less action than the Swiss did. A survivor came to see me yesterday and said to me, "Look, it is a matter of morality. I do not need the money, but it is wrong that it is dealt with in this way". A woman telephoned from New York and said, "I do need the money. I am suffering and I am old and ill. I could lead a decent quality of life on the money. The money is mine. Why are you British keeping it from us?". I had no answer.
We cannot expect the Swiss, the Vatican and others to work towards justice if Britain, which at one time stood alone during the war for justice, morality and decency, refuses to take the action it should. We should agree now that there should be compensation. We should remember that in one of Winston Churchill's famous speeches during the war he said, "We are faithful servants of truth and justice". All that we seek is truth to know what happened. We seek justice in so far as it possible to achieve it now, which is not a great deal. There should be restitution, where possible, to our victims, which should not be "ex gratia", but because it is honourable and right that they get back what we took from them. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend has done the House a commendable service both in calling for this debate and in setting out so clearly the facts and the shame. But this debate is not simply about what is to happen to certain sums of money. Sometimes factual, historical events take on a sacramental quality. They become symbolic of deeper and more universal truths. They enable us, by the way we construe them and react to them, to ritualise our understanding of good and evil.
266
Events in Germany between 1933 and 1945 had that quality. It was not just that evil people did evil things, it was that they took over an entire country. They organised the whole administration to administer evil. They organised the education system to teach evil. They extended their evil to every part of the world they could reach. What was evil became what was normal. It was as though hell itself had opened up and everything that was twisted and horrifying in humanity took over the minds of ordinary human beings, destroying everything in its path and ultimately destroying itself in the final Armageddon.
Different groups reacted in different ways, but few were left wholly untouched. The victims who survived—I have been privileged to talk to a large number of them over the years—and the families of those who perished did not just feel polluted, but humiliated and dehumanised. They were not just victims; they were symbols of something much deeper. Above all, they needed to be reassured that what they had undergone was not a judgment on them, that they had done nothing to cause it and that they had not deserved it. Many of them needed physical help, as my noble friend said. But more than that, they needed to know that the world cared about them. They needed recognition that they had suffered injustice because on that depended their self-esteem. In this materialistic generation, which judges everything by its market value, that could be done only by financial compensation or, more particularly, by financial restitution of what had been taken from them or from their families. As my noble friend said, the money was sometimes needed, but it was even more important as a symbol. The world failed them.
I understand that there have to be procedures. Perhaps there had to be procedures back in 1948 at the time of which my noble friend was speaking. The then government agreed that some of the assets confiscated in the United Kingdom from Germany and from German nationals should go to recompense the victims of persecution who could establish to bureaucratic standards that they were victims of persecution and that they had assets which had been seized. Hardly believable, as my noble friend pointed out, a 2 per cent. administrative charge was deducted for handling. I appreciate that despite the obstacles some people were compensated; but for too many the world failed them. That failure may be rectified soon, but for some it is too late and with every passing month the number for whom it is not too late is decreasing.
That is one aspect of what we are debating today, but it is not the whole. It was not only the victims who were marked by those events. What happened consisted of the actions of human beings; people like us growing up, marrying, working and shopping just as we did. They were a part of humanity just as we were. It was part of the history of the whole human race and those millions of nightmares were happening to individuals at the very time when we were getting on with ordinary, everyday life. We lived through that and yet life seemed pretty normal. The whole of humanity—at least in the West—had been polluted and humiliated.

267
I was just too young to take part in the war. Those who did—there are a number of noble Lords in the House today who did—were different. I hope that they will forgive me when I say that in some ways they had less difficulty than we had in coming to terms with what happened. They had done what they could to resist the evil and ultimately to overcome it. They suffered and that itself, if I may say so, helped them because they had shared in the suffering. My generation came to adulthood with the revelations of what had happened and perhaps with the guilt that while it was happening we had given it scarcely a thought. Those who were born later probably felt it less than we did, but the whole world continued to bear the scars. We want to pay the debt. We need to pay it, but those to whom it is chiefly owed are passing.
Our community, nationally and globally, is come to judgment. We need to settle the account and lay the ghosts to rest. I hope that my noble friend, who I know feels much sympathy with what some of us are trying to do, will take that message today to his colleagues in government and to their officials.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the House for intervening in this debate. I promise to be brief. I rise to express support for the Jewish community, our brothers and sisters, in Britain and in other parts of the world in their quest for justice. The stealing of the assets from families during the period of the last war by the Nazis has an inexcusable and ugly history. It was evil. Certain banks and other institutions have been involved in an exercise of withholding information about those assets although knowing that there was a linkage with the Nazis. In the meantime, many account holders and their heirs have been treated very unsympathetically when submitting claims for a return of their rightful assets. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all account holders or their heirs receive the assets which are legitimately theirs from the banks with no further delay.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I intervene in the gap with great diffidence, but I felt that I had to speak. The headmistress of my London secondary school, a very great woman, together with Eleanor Rathbone, a distinguished Somervillian who represented the universities in Parliament, went to Germany before the war and brought back several young German Jewish children of the first victims of Nazi oppression even before the war to live with her and to be educated in the school. In the years of the Spanish Civil War, she also brought back Basque children.
By 1937–38 I was already aware as a schoolgirl of what the Nazis were doing to Jews and to many other targets of their destructive and brutish hatred: academics, clerics, and principled men and women of every walk of life. In 1938, as a London schoolgirl, I stood in the crowd when Mr. Neville Chamberlain announced that he had brought back "Peace with Honour", and I wept with shame.
268
During the war I served with the Special Operations Executive and met and trained some agents, both men and women, who served in the Resistance and who escaped to England to be trained. Some were members of the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY), as I was. Some wore the uniform of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) when they were in England, but in France and elsewhere they operated as wireless operators, couriers and agents. Many of them died in such terrible camps as Mauthausen and Belsen. Odette Churchill, as she then was, also a FANY, was in one of those.
After the war, the few who survived were in a pitiful state—kept alive only by their own indomitable courage. I can remember visiting one young Frenchman, a brilliant athlete before the war, who was living in a tiny flat in the Invalides, as a grand mutilé, paralysed for life. He had lost his father and two brothers in the Resistance. He faced life with indomitable courage and humour and was preparing to be a lawyer.
I do not know how many of those had family assets which were sequestered, but I do know that we owe it to them and to all those other unnamed victims to do all that can be done to ensure that if assets belonging to them exist and can be identified, they or their heirs should have them. I do not believe that we have the right to do nothing because, "It is all so long ago". People like Primo Levi and the very young victims about whom Martin Gilbert has written, who came to England after the war and who had lost every single member of their family, may have the right to forgive, though they cannot forget. We must neither forgive nor forget. If anything further can be done to secure some justice for them, it should be done.
We must couple that with vigilance. There are ominous stirrings in the unreconstructed undergrowth in what used to be East Germany. Fortunately, Germany as a whole is committed to a liberal, decent way of life, but the economic climate is nearly as volatile as it was in the 1930s.
All those who died had a right to believe, if they had put their assets, as they thought, in a safe place with honourable men, that they had provided for their children and families. If we can ensure that, even so many grievous years later, some of the survivors receive what is their own, we shall have done no more than our duty.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I had not thought to speak in this debate because I am really very ignorant of the subject in the sense that I have never studied it in detail. However, speaking as someone who fought in the last war, I feel humiliated in a sense which I could not have believed possible until I heard the full tale which the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, put before us.
How has this arisen? I do not want to speak of the moral case which has been so admirably expounded this afternoon. I want to examine what happened in the ministry. How do such things happen in ministries? They happen because of the Civil Service mentality. When faced with an awkward problem, in which money,

269
the Vote of the departments, is concerned, every sinew is brought into action to give a negative response. Time and again, the file comes up. Time and again, it is said, "Oh, no, here's that bloody old file again. What are we to do about it this time?". That is the spirit which so often defeats the best intentions of Ministers because when a department makes decisions on such matters right down at a low level—because, "We cannot possibly face the PUS with such a demand"—and when that spirit is rife in a department, the civil servants know that their Minister will naturally defend their actions as best he can. The loyalty of Ministers to their civil servants is a great tradition in this country, but, in many cases such as this, it is a disaster.
I beg the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who is to reply, to understand that some of us here know how such things happen in departments. We are not asking for any member of the department to be castigated, but we are asking the noble Lord to put matters right.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, deserves our gratitude for initiating this significant debate. He wears his father's mantle, campaigning long and hard for justice for the victims of Nazi persecution, and for their families. In what I say I can only supplement what the noble Lord has eloquently and powerfully explained already, giving a little more information about this stain on Britain's reputation for fair play. I cannot match the experience or testimony of noble Lords who have spoken, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. However, I shall try to answer to some extent the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, although I should not like it to be thought from what I have to say that Ministers of the time were not aware of what was happening because it is fairly clear from the official documents that they were.
Almost 50 years ago, Sir John Foster QC, Conservative MP for Northwich, former head of my Chambers and a great advocate for justice and human rights, tried repeatedly and without much success to persuade successive governments to be fair and generous in releasing property in the UK that had belonged to the victims of Nazism. After the war the Western Allied powers agreed to make ex gratia releases to victims of Nazi persecution subject to conditions. In the case of the UK, the British Government imposed unjust conditions that were unfairly construed and caused great injustice and real hardship. Elsewhere, notably in the United States and Denmark, the rules were fair and justly interpreted. The anomalies and hardships caused by British government policy reflected, as Sir John Foster observed, on this country's reputation for fairness.
Throughout the war the victims' property had been held, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, explained, as enemy property at the Crown's disposal under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939. With the signing of the peace treaties, the UK was given the right to seize property in the UK belonging to Italian, Romanian and Hungarian nationals as well as German nationals and to apply those assets to the partial satisfaction of reparation
270
or UK creditor claims. Under the post-war British legislation the victims' private property was therefore turned by Parliament into public property. The Government retained a discretionary power to make exemptions from confiscation and grant an ex gratia release of property to the former owners who had survived the Nazi terror. There was nothing in law to prevent the executive from taking a generous, fair and humane approach in relation to those victims who somehow had miraculously survived the Holocaust, but there was an inherent conflict of interest in the government's scheme. The more that was returned to the victims of Nazi persecution the less of the newly-acquired "public property" was available to the Treasury for reparations and to satisfy British creditors with foreign debts.
The international agreement approved by the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency in Paris in November 1947 had specifically provided that the property of enemy victims need not be taken by the state in the same way as that of ordinary enemy. Justice and humanity required this. Many enemy victims had no other means to support themselves and their families except the property that they had been able to salvage and keep in what they thought was a safe place in this country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, pointed out, in early 1948 the UK Administration of Enemy Property Department within the Board of Trade announced that it would consider the ex gratia release of property in the UK of so-called "enemy" nationals who were the victims of racial or other discriminatory laws and of the UK estates of heirs of legatees of enemy nationals who had died as the direct result of such persecution. The Board of Trade imposed five extraordinary conditions. They have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and I need not repeat them. Sir John Foster, among others, drew repeated attention to the many respects in which the Board of Trade's rules and practices were unsatisfactory and harsh in their effects. For example, the civil servants regarded the five conditions as cumulative and would not grant a release of property unless all five conditions were met. This was in sharp contrast with the United States approach which required only that a claimant should have fulfilled one condition; namely, that as a consequence of any discriminatory law of the nation of which the claimant was then a citizen or subject he did not enjoy full rights of citizenship between 7th December 1941 and the abrogation of the law. A claimant in such a case was entitled as of right to a return of his property and, if the American Office of Alien Property refused an application, the claimant had a right of recourse to the courts. A simple single rule like the US rule would, as Foster commented, have prevented,
"almost all the absurd quibbles and technicalities which had arisen in applying the Board of Trade Rules".
Sir John Foster complained of the absurdly narrow way in which the department interpreted the first condition; namely, that the applicant had to show that he or she had been "deprived of liberty". One example concerned Mrs. K, a German woman of Jewish origin living in Berlin, who had been summoned in September 1939 to appear before the Gestapo. The department

271
refused a release of £300, the sole remains of Mrs. K's once large fortune, to her son on the ground that although she had killed herself in those circumstances she had not been deprived of her liberty.
Sir John Foster also cited cases where Hungarian and Romanian Jews had been forced to go into hiding for many months to escape persecution at the hands of the Nazis but had been refused release of their property on the ground that they had not been deprived of their liberty. Until pressed by Foster and others—also, I believe, by the noble Lord's father—the department even refused to recognise incarceration of Hungarian Jews under the Hungarian labour law as sufficient, since on its face the Hungarian law applied to all Hungarians without discrimination. That was the bizarre approach of the department, of which the noble Lord is now a Minister, even though this was one of the laws under which the vast majority of Hungarian Jews had been collected together for despatch to extermination camps and the gas chambers. Forced segregation into a ghetto, notably in Budapest, was another means employed by the Nazis for assembling Hungarian Jews for despatch to the gas chambers. The department continued to refuse to recognise confinement in a ghetto as a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of returning the property.
Sir John Foster drew attention to other examples of unfairness. One of the department's conditions insisted that the applicant had to leave the enemy country where he was resident, or intended to leave there, within a reasonable time and establish permanent residence outside enemy or ex-enemy territory. Mrs. D, a widow of 57 years of age, owned some jewellery in this country. She had to live underground in Berlin during the war hunted by the Gestapo. As a result of her hardships she fell ill and became paralysed. For over two and a half years after the liberation she was treated in hospital. In 1951 she was still suffering from diseases of the liver and heart. When she tried to sell her jewellery to obtain medical treatment in Switzerland the department rejected her claim because she was still resident, paralysed, in Berlin.
Another Board of Trade condition imposed on claims by the heirs of victims was that the death should have occurred before September 1947. This led to absurd results. Mrs. O, a Romanian Jew, had been incarcerated in various concentration camps. In April 1944 she escaped and returned to Bucharest. As a result of her sufferings she fell ill and eventually died in June 1949. A release to her heirs was refused on the ground that she had died after September 1947.
Sir John Foster gave other examples of manifest absurdity, harshness and unfairness in the treatment of these cases and made concrete proposals to ensure that no real injustice would occur in any particular case. His representations fell on deaf ears. The relevant civil servants circulated internal memoranda containing not a single word of sympathy for the claimants to whom they consistently referred as "victims". In their internal documents they accused Foster of pro-Jewish bias because during the passage of the 1949 Act he, (to quote from the records),
272
"with Messrs. Silverman and Janner, were the vocal opposition to certain parts of that Bill".
The civil servants relied upon the ex gratia nature of the scheme to disclaim any obligation to act consistently or in accordance with the legitimate expectations created by the scheme.
One of Sir John Foster's lifelong friends, Miriam Rothschild, the eminent scientist and writer—still happily alive and vigorous in her late eighties—also wrote to the government questioning this policy and asking for reconsideration of specific individual cases. The same civil servants who had brushed aside Foster's representations made it clear in their internal minutes that with Treasury support they regarded their priority as preferring the claims of UK creditors to the claims of foreigners. They rejected the claim of Mrs. K, described as "a Jew by race" because she had committed suicide on 18th September 1939 in fear of the consequences had she lived. She did not therefore satisfy the "deprivation of liberty" test.
In response to one of Sir John Foster's submissions, the civil servant with main responsibility during those bleak years, one Sir Henry Gregory, wrote, on 15th November 1949:
"The acceptance of the proposals implied in the criticisms would mean that we should probably have to release all money or property held by Jews … I understand … that the World Jewish Congress have asked the Treasury that this should be done and that the proceeds should be paid over to them on trust for Jewry … I am inclined to think that the claim is being made because of the economic position of Palestine … the Treasury is not impressed".
Fifty years ago, English judicial review had not been developed into a strong set of legal principles to ensure that public powers are exercised lawfully, rationally and fairly. The official documents reveal practices and procedures involving serious and continuing arbitrary abuses of the statutory and prerogative powers delegated by Parliament and the prerogative to the Board of Trade. Even now there could and should be effective redress for the remaining survivors and their families.
I hope that in his reply the Minister, for whom I feel some sympathy at the moment, will confirm the accuracy of what we have said in the debate. I gave him notice of what I would say, troubling him with the notes of my speech. The noble Lord is a member of a government who believe in freedom of information. I hope also that the Minister will be able to assure the House that his department's report on the subject will soon be published; that the report will deal fully and frankly with the relevant policies and practices; and that the report will contain practical proposals to enable the surviving victims of Nazi persecution and their families to be traced, and, at last, to be treated with common humanity and simple justice.
On 15th January 1998, in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Janner, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel said:
"I am sure the right thing will he done in the end".—[Official Report, 15/1/98; col. 1135.]
I do hope so.
6.2 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important subject this afternoon. There must be no excuses in revisiting this subject time and time again. In fact, it is extremely important that people of my generation—I am probably the youngest Member in the House at the moment—and generations to follow, are made aware of the facts that have caused such a debate in your Lordships' House: 6 million murdered; 1.5 million children.
Those who suffered under Nazi Germany, and those whose countries were occupied during the last war, were the victims of one of the darkest—if not the darkest of all—periods in European history. The bestial crimes of the Nazis were matched by their greed, and cunning, in stealing the resources of their victims and salting them away in places which made it almost impossible in some cases for survivors, or their families, to recover.
One's heart goes out to those involved in the many stories that have been told in this House today and in other places. Many of them are people whose lives have been blighted by appalling experiences and who are now old. I believe we would all wish whatever uncertainties can be resolved to be cleared up as soon as possible.
As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, under the previous government, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Rifkind, ordered a detailed inquiry into the historical facts behind the handling of Nazi gold. The findings were published in 1996 and 1997 in two important documents which I believe have been very helpful in establishing the truth behind the fate of this gold in the aftermath of the war.
As other noble Lords have said, restitution was part of the treaty at the end of the War. Germany paid DM 3 billion to the state of Israel and DM 450 billion to various Jewish organisations. Since then further payments have been made by Germany.
Under the 1946 agreement the western allies agreed that gold and other valuables should be allocated in two different ways—monetary gold from confiscated reserves should be returned to those formerly occupied countries through the Tripartite Gold Commission, and non-monetary gold should be used for the resettlement of displaced persons.
The facts surrounding those transactions were covered in depth in the researches commissioned by Mr. Rifkind. But there were, of course, problems both in the handling of funds by former communist countries in particular, while in a number of countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, the burden of proof was laid heavily against victims and their families.
In the United Kingdom, under the present Government the Foreign Office followed up the publication of their research by convening an international conference on those matters in London last December. That was a most valuable initiative, and we on these Benches certainly welcome warmly Mr. Cook's action in carrying these investigations forward and seeking common international agreement on positive action for Holocaust victims.
274
We welcome the action taken in establishing a fund which will serve as a mechanism by which any country can offer money to help the victims of Nazism and their families. We hope that the details of how that fund will actually operate will be speedily agreed.
It is clear from the historical research that the authorities and the banks in this country and in others were not always as open and helpful as with hindsight it is clear they should have been in releasing the details of dormant accounts and in facilitating the efforts of survivors and their families to establish a claim to resources.
I know, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has told the House, that further inquiries have been continuing within the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that the Minister who replies will he able to tell the House that the fullest possible information will be published on the accounts concerned and that all reasonable assistance will be offered to Holocaust victims
This is one of those issues on which I believe the whole House would be united, and we will support the Government in whatever further action they think appropriate to respond to the reasonable requests of victims and their families.
We look forward to hearing, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, what steps the Government now intend to put in place for the mechanism for processing claims that was discussed at the London conference and elsewhere.
A great deal of attention has been given to the role of the authorities in Switzerland in this matter. I have no doubt that mistakes were made, and that there was excessive caution, as in many other countries. We ourselves are not beyond reproach. The complaints made by holocaust victims and their supporters have aroused real concern in Switzerland, where, in the past year, disbursements have been made from a special fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, mentioned the Bergier Commission, an independent group of researchers; the Volcker Commission; and, of course, the Swiss Bankers' Association, which has published a list of unclaimed pre-1945 accounts. That is an example which it would be expedient for us in the UK to follow. I welcome the undertaking given in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, to publish those accounts, and also those of accounts handed to East European countries. I hope that he will be in a position to tell us today that this will be done speedily.
Nothing ever can—or should—remove the stain of Nazi infamy from our memories. We all owe a special duty to the families of their victims. I welcome the action, however belated, now being taken in so many countries to assist the tracking down of confiscated resources.
It is right, as in this debate, that the stance of individual governments and financial institutions be challenged. Nothing can repair the damage done to those people who suffered in the Holocaust and their families. But, so long as we can be, and are, satisfied that

275
governments and banks today are sparing no efforts to assist them, then we should, I believe, be careful to avoid too much recrimination among nations today.
I that way we should be allowing the poison of Nazism to corrode and distort relations between states—a process which may actually hinder that untiring and unflagging search for restitution and justice that all of us would wish to see completed.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this has been a passionate and emotional debate. It is a passionate and emotional matter. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and to thank him for raising it in the House today.
In explanation, but not in mitigation, in the years following the war it was difficult for governments and individuals to cope with the tragedy that had befallen Europe. The tragedy and horror of the events were so great that nations and individuals had great difficulty in facing up to the reality of what had happened. Therefore, at that time, the emphasis was on rebuilding devastated nations and devastated lives. I sympathise with the outrage of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and other noble Lords. I came to Britain as a refugee and I experienced the situation at first hand. We who came to Britain were the only members of my family who survived.
Against that background, there were bound to be insensitivities. It is only fairly recently that time has enabled us to look back on those dreadful years with a deeper understanding. The Government are concerned, and they recently demonstrated their concern by hosting the Nazi Gold Conference in December, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I acknowledge my noble friend's important contribution and that of the Holocaust Educational Trust in helping the Government to recognise the importance of this issue.
Even after all these years, it is still a very emotional topic but it is important for us to look back at what was done in the intervening years, in particular at the impact on those who deposited their assets in the United Kingdom before the start of the Second World War. As we have already heard, these assets were dealt with under the trading with the enemy legislation. Perhaps I may crave your Lordships' indulgence and spend a few minutes outlining how the legislation operated, what were its consequences and how those were unravelled in the postwar years. It is only by examination of those details that noble Lords will understand the position of the present Government and what we are trying to do.
On 3rd September 1939 we were at war. We had to prevent the enemy from acquiring assets which could be used to fund or help their war effort. So the Trading with the Enemy Act became law. Companies and individuals were prevented from trading with the enemy and bank balances and other assets were blocked in order to prevent the enemy from drawing upon them. At first, it applied to countries which declared war on the
276
United Kingdom (the belligerent enemies) and then to other countries (the technical enemies) as they were occupied by the belligerent armies.
This was a serious step, but it was a serious situation. However, there was a due process of law. My noble friend Lord Janner was perhaps a little dramatic, but the legislation gave custodians appointed under the Act the power to seize assets from companies which were registered in enemy countries and individuals who were residents of enemy countries. Nationality and religion played no part in defining who was and who was not to be classed as an enemy. The assets seized included bank accounts, stocks and bonds, physical assets and trade debts. Records show that some 220,000 returns covering individuals and commercial organisations were made to the custodians. In all, some £360 million worth of assets were seized.
When the war in Europe came to an end on 8th May 1945, the powers of the custodians remained in force and work began on the process of unwinding the assets held by the custodians. By 1949, most of the technical enemies had concluded some form of bilateral payments agreement with the United Kingdom. The majority of technical enemy property in the form of bank balances and securities was released relatively quickly. By 1951, 90 per cent. of the assets of technical enemies held by the custodians had been released. It was many years before the final 10 per cent. of claims were settled.
Of course, it is possible that some bank balances which were unfrozen were not claimed and have been lying dormant in the banks for more than 50 years. This Government have been in contact with the main clearing banks and we know that they have been searching their records for any dormant accounts for the period in question. The banks have also been in contact with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the Holocaust Educational Trust about those dormant accounts. Indeed, they have supplied detailed responses to some of our questions and to those of the trust.
However, in the case of the belligerent enemies, with the exception of Germany, the Government negotiated peace treaties which set out the arrangements for handling the confiscated property. Again, there was a due process of law. Acts were introduced to implement the treaties; the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Act 1947 and the Japanese Treaty of Peace Act 1951. Those treaties, with the exception of those of Finland and Italy which so far as possible restored property to its original owners, provided for confiscated property to be disposed of by the Government to the extent necessary to offset its claims and the claims of its nationals in respect of property confiscated in the enemy country. The former enemy countries undertook to compensate their own nationals whose property had been seized by the custodians.
Arrangements for Germany necessarily differed, primarily because there was no single government representing the whole of German territory. But the Federal Republic of Germany undertook to compensate its nationals for the loss of seized assets under the terms of the Bonn Convention in 1952. An administrator was

277
appointed for each belligerent enemy state. While the duty of the custodians had been to preserve the property, that of the administrators was to liquidate and distribute the assets sold. Some £30 million was realised by the administrators, around 90 per cent. of which was trade debts or other commercial property. The sums raised were primarily used to settle claims from British companies and nationals who had lost assets in the enemy countries but were insufficient to meet their claims, and distributions were made. I have the details of the distributions which were made in the various countries.
However, some of the liquidated assets were diverted to other purposes. For example, £3 million of Japanese money was donated to benevolent organisations to help former Japanese prisoners of war. A further £2 million was paid as compensation to victims of Nazi persecution. I shall return to that matter later.
The winding-up process took many years. The confiscatory powers of the Government were terminated by a series of directives issued in the 1970s and the various administrator posts were wound up, with the exception of the administrator of German enemy property, which still remains in existence.
I turn to the question of compensation for victims of Nazi persecution. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for giving me notice of the points that he wished to raise. I shall respond to them in due course. As he told us, in 1947, in response to requests from Jewish organisations and individuals such as Sir John Foster, requests were made to release the assets of individuals who had been victims of Nazi persecution. The Government instituted a scheme whereby victims could make a claim for property which had been seized by the custodians. It is important to make the point that we are not talking about the deliberate seizure of property from a religious group, such as was carried out by the Nazis. Losses suffered in the United Kingdom were an unintended by-product of necessary action taken to prevent enemy countries from securing assets in this country for their war effort.
Yes, the Government adopted the criteria which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Janner mentioned. But those criteria were agreed by the Inter Allied Reparations Agency concerning the release of property to a German victim of Nazi persecution. The five conditions were as noble Lords explained, and I shall not repeat them. However, I emphasise that those criteria were agreed internationally and were not, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seemed to suggest, domestic criteria imposed by the Board of Trade.
The then government did, however, agree to extend the scheme to cover the victims of Nazi persecution in the satellite countries—Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania—and expand the criteria so that an heir of a victim could also apply for compensation.
Noble Lords are right: the first condition, the need to have been deprived of liberty, was the most contentious. But I say to my noble friend Lord Janner and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that after considerable discussion it was agreed—I agree not until 1951—that persons who had undergone forced labour service, whether civil or
278
military, or who had been held in custody for a short time but under the threat of death or who had been forced to live in a closed ghetto satisfied the qualifying conditions. In fairness, I must point out that all previous applications for compensation were re-examined in the light of those modified criteria without the need for applicants to reapply. Therefore, there was an attempt to be fair.
While it is true that the scheme continued to have its critics, it is true also that the government's modifications to the original criteria attracted support. For example, Mr. Sydney Silverman MP, who had supported representations from the World Jewish Congress, expressed gratitude to Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Secretary for Overseas Trade, on 5th May 1951 when he said that in his view,
"most of our points have been adequately met".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, also drew attention to UK actions compared with those of other countries, and in particular he compared them with the United States' more liberal interpretation of the Inter Allied Reparations Agency conditions. At this distance in time it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. However, it is interesting to note that by 1953 the United States had returned only 15 per cent. of assets applied for whereas the United Kingdom had refused only 13 per cent. of applications for compensation. Therefore, other criteria are involved. There is evidence also that in practice the United Kingdom ignored some of the conditions when assessing claims.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned also specific unsuccessful claims for compensation. I understand that, in a memorandum in October 1951, Sir John Foster drew attention to the case of Mrs. D., a German widow who wished to sell jewellery held in this country to pay for medical treatment in Switzerland. We have done some work on that and, although we do not know whether Mrs. D. ever received payment, officials have found a record which shows that at the time Sir John raised the case the person who had brought the jewellery into the United Kingdom denied that it was Mrs. D's property. Therefore, there was a debate about proof of ownership.
I believe that that illustrates the difficulty, after so many years, of being absolutely clear about the complete story surrounding particular cases. That is why, in the forum of this debate, I shall not go into further details of individual cases.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Looking back now, does he agree with me that the way in which those five conditions were interpreted by Board of Trade officials at the time seems like an arbitrary abuse of power? Does he agree that that is wholly out of line with the way in which, these days, claims would be dealt with? Does he agree also that the fact that the United States and Denmark had a different and more

279
liberal policy shows that there was nothing to prevent the British government from acting in a more generous and compassionate way than they did at the time?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord that the United States and Denmark had a more liberal policy. It depends how one defines liberality. As regards the five conditions, it is very difficult to judge by today's standards actions which were taken all those years ago. Values were different; different things were important; and there were different priorities.
As regards the assets that were seized, the original assets, which in some cases had been sold, were not simply released. Instead, as my noble friend Lord Janner told us, ex gratia compensation payments were made which were equivalent to the amount of money which had been seized by the custodian less a 2 per cent. administrative charge.
The words ex gratia in this case are used in a rather bureaucratic and legal way. It is not a term of condescension. It is used because some of the assets have been sold and so an ex gratia payment was made which was equivalent in cash to the value of the asset. That was the only way that those assets could be returned. Compensation was in fact paid to about 1,000 claimants with only some 16 per cent. of those who applied being refused payment.
In addition, in 1957 the Government decided to waive their legal rights to the sum of £250,000 from liquidated assets and donated it to the Nazi Victims Relief Trust to alleviate the poverty of and provide education for victims of Nazi persecution.
Last summer, my noble friend Lord Janner and others raised concerns about the application of the wartime trading with the enemy legislation, and the fact that it had resulted in assets in the United Kingdom of people who became victims of Nazi persecution being confiscated. In response, this Government agreed to set in train a research project in the Foreign Office and the DTI to examine the relevant papers held on the subject. The research, which was led by historians from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, revealed a difficult and complex subject which took time to get right. The research is now completed.
I can understand noble Lords' frustration at the delay in publishing the report. The Government share this frustration, as we believe the report will demonstrate that successive British governments have made great efforts over a number of years to respond appropriately to these issues. However, the report has taken longer to finalise than we had hoped. A great deal of work has gone into reconciling some of the details in the report. I regret that I cannot give a date for publication. However, I can assure noble Lords that the President of the Board of Trade is taking this subject very seriously and that the report will be published as soon as possible.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but can he give the House some indication as to what is the problem? If the historical
280
research has been completed and the draft report has been completed by officials, what on earth is the reason for any further delay in publication, given that this House has been pressing on various occasions for sight of the report? Why do we have to wait for more than another four weeks?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I understand that a draft of the report was given to the Holocaust Educational Trust and some questions were raised regarding some of the figures in the various annexes and those must be researched further.
The Government recognise that some of the information currently held at the Public Record Office will be of partciular interest to Holocaust survivors or their families who may wish to check their family histories. As I announced here on 15th January, we have therefore agreed to publish a list of names and other details of those who had their property seized. As there is no means of identifying which of the property seized by the custodians may have belonged to people who became victims of Nazi persecution, the Government have decided to publish a list of all the names that they can. The list will comprise the names and details of those from belligerent enemy countries whose property was seized, plus limited details of those in other countries, around 25,000 names in total. It is not possible to publish a full list of 220,000 names as the individual case files have not been preserved. Our intention is to publish the list on the Internet. Putting information on the Internet has the advantage of being more long-lasting than publication in the newspapers.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, told us about the Nazi Gold Conference in December of last year. It was an historical fact-finding forum, not a decision taking one. It achieved its aim of helping to establish a sound body of historical fact relating to gold looted by the Nazis and what subsequently happened to it. I am grateful to the American Jewish Congress for its detailed account of the whole matter of the confiscated gold.
The United Kingdom's involvement in this question stems from our membership (with the United States and France) of the Tripartite Gold Commission. The commission was set up following the 1946 Paris Agreement on Reparations to distribute monetary gold recovered from Germany by the Allies to the former occupied countries whose gold reserves had been looted by the Nazis. Just under 2 per cent. of the pool, worth around £38 million, remains to be distributed to the claimant countries.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about that fund. I can tell him that it will provide relief for needy victims of Nazi persecution who have so far received little or no compensation. Its aim is to try to avert the second tragedy of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis having to live out their days in poverty. Payments will be made to non-governmental organisations involved in this type of work. The United Kingdom is giving £1 million to the fund, and contributions so far stand at around £23 million.
The question of compensation for, or the restitution of, Jewish property expropriated during or in the years immediately after the Second World War only achieved

281
international prominence following the collapse of Communism. The original attempts to pass laws in the post-Communist countries which would allow for the return of stolen Jewish communal property were closely followed by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London, which published a number of important papers drawing the attention of a wider public to those moves. Those reports have subsequently proved very useful for all those involved in dealing with these difficult issues. I am grateful to the institute for having undertaken that work.
In my capacity as Deputy Chairman of Jewish Policy Research, I attended a conference in Strasbourg in June last year, hosted by the Council of Europe, where this matter was discussed. It became clear that where funds had been available, as compensation for communal property, those funds were used to create communal centres which benefited the whole community, Jewish and non-Jewish, in which they were situated.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he can answer the 64,000 dollar question; namely, when the report is published and when people respond to the list that he mentioned, how long can we expect it to be before claims are actually settled?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give my noble and learned friend a response. Obviously the list will be published when the Government are in a position to consider what needs to be done.
Today's debate has demonstrated the breadth and complexity of this sensitive subject. I hope that we have made progress in shedding some light on the key issues. I am sure that the publication shortly of the research into the history of enemy property and the list of names will also help to further understanding of this subject. I can tell noble Lords that further action is in hand. The Government have initiated inquiries to clarify to what extent the provisions of the post-war peace treaties were implemented by the foreign governments involved, and how those governments would respond to any new claims for compensation which might now be made under the terms of those treaties. That is one reason why I am in some difficulty in responding to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer.
However, there are some positive developments in that respect. For example, we have learnt that in Hungary, following a constitutional court decision in 1996, legislation is being drafted to implement Article 29 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, which concerns compensation for Hungarian nationals whose property was confiscated by the allies. Further, we have heard within the past week that the Romanian Government have approved a finance ministry memorandum on the need for legislation on this issue. The Ministry of Justice has the task of preparing a draft law.
I should tell noble Lords that the Government are sympathetic to the plight of victims of Nazi persecution and their families. Over a number of years, successive British Governments have tried to respond appropriately
282
to the losses suffered. Sometimes they succeeded, as evidenced by the £2 million which was paid in compensation to victims of persecution under the ex gratia scheme; but sometimes they did not, as the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and of other noble Lords, have shown.
In the light of the research that has been undertaken and the representations that have been made, including points raised by noble Lords today, the Government are considering whether anything further should now be done. This is an honourable and decent Government. This Government will act in a decent and honourable way.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, my noble friend's final words constitute the redeeming sentence in an otherwise, if I may say so with respect, deeply sad and disappointing speech. I have never understood why the Swiss Government until recently spent so much time trying to justify the intolerable behaviour of previous governments, 50 years ago. Similarly, I see no reason why this Government, who I support so fully and who I regard as being honourable and worthy, should seek to justify clearly insensitive and often wicked acts by a British government, 50 years ago.
The House is entitled to know what this honourable and worthy Government, which I am proud to support, are going to do now. We are told that the research has been completed and that is good news; but we have had no undertaking regarding when the report on such research will be published. I can assure my noble friend the Minister that none of us in this House who spoke today will let the weeks go by without reminding the Government that survivors will not survive indefinitely, and that those whom my noble friend referred to as having "devastated lives" need help now and not in two, three or four years' time; nor, indeed, when the Romanian Government may decide one day perhaps, having approved a memorandum, to make some restitution to some Romanian victims.
I was very deeply moved by many of the speeches that were made today. I have in mind especially the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. As a youngster, I was a war crimes investigator in Germany. I always hoped that there would be some way to try to do what my noble friend referred to as helping rebuild devastated lives.
I look back on our debate with appreciation, but I have grave reservations about my noble friend's speech. For example, he referred to distributions in various countries. Yes, indeed, distributions were made to Communist countries behind the Iron Curtain. What happened was they were allowed to set off moneys which were owed to people who were resident in their countries, including victims, against what those countries owed to British companies on the basis that they were going to repay individual victims in their countries. But everyone knew that those people would not get a penny and they never did. Our Government also should have known that such victims who were stupid and dire enough to claim the money would end

283
up in a communist concentration camp for their efforts. At that time there was no question of any of these victims getting anything back. It was an unworthy ruse by a government who sought to dispose of debts, albeit brought about by a war which we fought bravely.
I shall of course write to the noble Lord on matters which he has mentioned. I shall make one or two further points. The difficulties of making restitution provide no reason for doing nothing. We do not have much time. I would have expected the Government to say in this House, "This is what we are going to do. We have completed our research and we shall publish it within two to three weeks. We shall then announce to the House what steps we shall take".
I did not expect the Government to say to the House, "We shall consider whether or not we shall take action". That is no answer for this House in view of what the noble Lord himself has said of devastated lives, and what he called insensitivities and what I call gross, unconscionable injustices. We want to know what the Government will do and when. We shall not rest until we get a reply.
Once again, I thank all those noble Lords who have contributed to this important and moving debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Life Prisoners: Release Procedures
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of recent comments by the Lord Chief Justice, they will consider applying the same procedure to the release of mandatory life prisoners as is applied to discretionary life prisoners.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the distinguished speakers who are to follow me in the debate. I am only sorry that each of them will have only nine minutes in which to speak. I am allowed 10 minutes but I shall not use those 10 minutes in order to leave a little margin for the other orators. I am particularly pleased that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn is honouring us by making his maiden speech tonight. I believe that he will bring us good news from the Synod. The Home Secretary is his "constituent" and therefore I think we can regard him as the Home Secretary's spiritual adviser, or even director. I hope that the Home Secretary will pay close attention, to say the least, to what his spiritual director says tonight.
I take my text from some recent remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice at the end of an appeal case concerning Myra Hindley. I pass over his actual judgment and refer to his final comments. He said that he left the case with a certain uneasiness because he felt that the deepest issues underlying the situation had not been discussed and were not before the court. He was referring to the whole question of whether the Home Secretary should be allowed to make the final decision about the length of time that mandatory life prisoners spend in prison. He hinted that that ought to
284
be debated. He appeared to desire an urgent debate on the issue of whether mandatory life prisoners should still be left to the mercy of the Home Secretary, or whether they should be placed on the same footing as discretionary life prisoners where the final decision rests with the judiciary. That is the issue I raise tonight. I realise from the quality of the speakers that it is one which interests many of your Lordships.
The real arguments against leaving such matters to the decision of the Home Secretary are two. The first is one of principle and the other is one of practice. The matter of principle concerns whether any Home Secretary, however enlightened—we know that the present Home Secretary is a good Christian socialist—should be placed in the position where he may have to choose between what is right and what appeals to the multitude. That is the present situation. If I draw on the case of Myra Hindley it is not because she is the only person convicted of murder I have ever met; I have met many. Off and on I visit half a dozen "lifers" at the moment. However, I take that one case out of the 3,000 mandatory "lifers". I believe that there are 400 or 500 discretionary "lifers". I return again to the remarks made by the noble and leaned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as regards Myra Hindley. He pointed out that her counsel had argued that she would never receive a fair trial because of the emotion that had been stirred up against her by the tabloid press and others. Was that an unreasonable contention in that case, and would it be unreasonable in other cases? What would be the situation of the Home Secretary if he had to consider what kind of woman she is?
The other day a taxi driver drove me home after I had visited a prison. He did not know that I knew Myra Hindley and he confided in me that he had four children and if "that woman", as he called her, came out of prison he would fear for his children. He showed that amount of hysteria about a middle-aged lady who has been in prison for 31 years. Where does that hysteria come from? To some extent it comes from politicians in the background, but primarily it stems from the tabloid press. The Sun newspaper has played a leading and discreditable part in generating that hysteria. Not long ago the Sun had a headline which ran, "Myra Hindley, the most evil woman who ever lived". We in the House of Lords may say that no one takes the Sun newspaper seriously. I read it every day but I think I am the only person here who does. Noble Lords may brush it aside and decide they need not bother with it. However, when I asked the taxi driver where he got his information from he told me it was from the Sun newspaper. As a result he told me that he feared for the life of his children if Myra Hindley were to leave prison. That is what we have to cope with and that is what the Home Secretary has to cope with.
If the Home Secretary were to tell his Cabinet colleagues that he was thinking of giving Myra Hindley a chance, they may reply, "That might suit your conscience, but what about our careers and our party. Would it suit the party?" It would be difficult for a Home Secretary to act in that way. It is frequently said that no Home Secretary would ever dare to let her out. I hope that is not true but it is frequently said. The Home

285
Secretary can ignore the good opinion of her held by old-fashioned "do gooders" like me. However, even if he ignores me and people like me, a succession of priests have known her well. Perhaps people may wonder whether she is ministered to by Catholic priests. She is a Catholic. However, there is also the opinion of the Reverend Peter Timms who is a former governor of Maidstone Prison and is now a Methodist minister. I must refer to one recent opinion of a Catholic priest who ministered to Myra Hindley for four years in Cookham Wood. He said that he found her to be sensitive, caring, intelligent and polite. There is that opinion on the one hand, but on the other hand there is the opinion of the Sun newspaper.
That is the situation today and that is what the Home Secretary is faced with. People may ask whether the Home Secretary would want to give up this responsibility we are discussing. I should have thought that he might be quite pleased to be rid of it. However, that is neither here nor there. Therefore there is the argument that we should take such a decision away from someone who, to some extent, is bound to be at the mercy of popular emotion.
The other argument concerns practice and how one arranges matters. At the present time a discretionary life prisoner can make an application to the Parole Board and can be represented before it and can, of course, appear in person. The decision of the Parole Board, with a judge presiding, is final. If the Parole Board decides that a prisoner should be released, that prisoner is released. That is the existing machinery. That is much fairer than the present arrangements for Myra Hindley. She or her lawyers have to make representations in writing to the Home Office and a reply is given without providing any real reasons, unless you call some reference to deterrence and retribution a reason. That is the difference between the machinery in the two cases. I do not say that the present arrangements for discretionary life prisoners are perfect. I regularly visit two discretionary life prisoners who find the arrangements unsatisfactory. If one seeks to apply the arrangements to 3,000 prisoners instead of 400 or 500, they need modification. I only say that in principle it is correct that the decision should be removed from someone who is at the mercy of popular emotion. Arrangements should be made to give the prisoner proper representation before a tribunal whose decision would be binding.
I hope that other speakers will bring their own expert knowledge to bear in different ways. Although I cannot expect a positive answer today, I hope that we shall at least hear from the Government that they are giving the matter careful attention.
6.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I speak for the first time in your Lordships' House in this debate on a sensitive matter which provokes strong responses in people of opposing views. I do so not because I am told that the diocese of Blackburn contains more prisons than any other in the northern province, nor—despite the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford—because the Home Secretary is
286
the much respected Member for Blackburn in another place. My concern goes back over 30 years to the time when I was curate of the parish of St. Anne in Wandsworth. Three weeks before my ordination, the parish had no accommodation for its new curate. Parishes behaved like that in those days. So I ended up with a room in the gatehouse of Wandsworth prison. Every day as I sat at my desk I looked out on prisoners exercising in the yard below. Later, as a relief chaplain in that prison, I got to know some of them including a number serving life sentences. That experience has never left me.
Mandatory life prisoners and their release was the subject of a debate in the General Synod of the Church of England in July 1995. It was on the motion from the Diocese of Sheffield,
'That this Synod recognises that the system of mandatory life sentence gives rise to many injustices and therefore recommends that the penalty for murder should be a maximum of imprisonment for life".
The motion was carried by a massive 317 votes for to only one vote cast against. The debate, as I remember it, was both sombre and serious. Members of the Prison Service, the Probation Service and the judiciary all took part. There was a widespread recognition of the pressures facing the Home Secretary in relation to the sentence for murder. Synod members felt that the present system of mandatory life sentence for murder led to injustice because it was not possible for the sentence to be fitted in individual cases to the particular crime. Nor was the Synod happy with a situation in which the length of the custodial sentence is determined by the exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion rather than by a judicial decision in open court.
In the light of that debate, and in response to it, in 1995 the then Home Secretary said that retribution, deterrence and public safety would all be factors to he taken into consideration, but so too would public opinion. The real concern that that raises is that in principle, even if not in practice. it could lead, as we have heard from the noble Earl, to individual cases becoming vulnerable to the political influence of the day and could be altered with a change of Home Secretary.
The mandatory life sentence for murder is based on the assumption that murder is a crime of such unique gravity that the offender should forfeit his right to freedom for the rest of his life. I believe respectfully that such an assumption is perhaps a fallacy. It arises from divisions between the legal definition of murder and that which lay people believe to be murder. The common law definition of murder embraces a wide range of offences, as I understand it, some of which are truly very grave indeed. But logically, constitutionally, and in jurisprudence, surely the decision on punishment should be made in open court. The judge after trial should be able to pass such sentence as is merited by the facts of the case which have been laid before the court.
The Christian Church has always believed in the importance of human life and its dignity under God who created life in his own image. In that context we look to the prison system not only for deterrence and punishment but also for the rehabilitation of offenders so that they may know the gravity of their offences.

287
Sadly, at present, prison does not always help the rehabilitation process and does not allow individual decisions to be considered for individual people. Christ always treated individuals as unique in their own right. As I think back to those men in the prison yard at Wandsworth all those years ago, I am very conscious that the present system of sentencing for murder may be denying to some individuals the proper particular attention that the facts of the case demand.
These are very grave and sensitive matters. But I believe truly that if judges were allowed to have specific powers in the case of murder our judicial system would be the better served for the future.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, it is my pleasure on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on his maiden speech. We have waited for this speech since 1995 when he first entered your Lordships' House. It has been well worth waiting for.
The right reverend Prelate is a Countryside Commissioner as well as a bishop and is keen on the right to roam, although not a member of the Ramblers themselves. He has spoken robustly on the subject, stating about the idiom that an Englishman's home is his castle that, "It is not their castles, brother, that we're talking about. It is their open spaces".
He has also spoken on the subject of my right honourable friend William Hague spending his time in his diocese in a double-bedded room with his then fiancée who is now his wife. He disapproved of that. But he has given his blessing for ITV's new religious series, "Heaven knows", described as the ultimate quiz.
He is a man of many thoughts. In fact he might have been a journalist. But he also possesses a deep religious fervour, and now that he has broken the ice here in your Lordships' House, I trust that we shall hear from him on many more occasions.
I must also thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this most interesting debate. Discretionary life sentences are set by the judiciary, and mandatory life sentences by the Executive. But that has come about only as a result of the abolition of the death penalty. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it must be right that judges, the judiciary, should decide on the length of a prison sentence. They are on the spot, so to speak.
But it is also important that the judge is given parameters from the Executive within which to work, otherwise sentencing depends on the judge's own moral code. Several judges seem to have had very different views upon the subject of rape—first, second, or even third-time rapes—and on murders. That cannot be right. We must have a better system.
I believe that the whole system is the wrong way round. Judges set the term, and prisoners have time off for good behaviour. Why on earth do we do it that way round? Surely the judge should set the term and then there should be "add-ons" for bad behaviour. A prisoner's behaviour should always be good. That is the purpose of the custodial sentence. The whole idea of
288
putting someone into prison is to make them better and to enable them to see the error of their ways and the unacceptability of their behaviour towards the community. So if a judge passes a sentence of 15 years, the public think, "Well, he might be there for 10 years, or it might be seven years". But they do not really know how long it will be.
The transition period would be difficult. But the general public would be happier knowing that if someone receives a sentence of 15 years, that is what they are getting.
As for Myra Hindley, as the Lord Chief Justice said, in a recent extract from his judgment to the Secretary of State:
"The applicant clearly feels that she is held hostage to public opinion, condemned to pass the rest of her life in prison, although no longer judged a danger to anyone, because of her notoriety and the public obloquy which would fall on any Home Secretary who ordered her release".
I feel sure that when the noble Earl, Lord Longford, says that she is a reformed character, he sincerely believes that; and I honestly believe that an awful lot of other people sincerely believe that. But I also believe that the general public would not let her survive for five minutes outside gaol. She is the most reviled woman in Britain, and she will never be forgotten or forgiven—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. Is the noble Lord seriously saying that respectable members of the public would murder her? Surely he cannot be making that allegation against the British public.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I am indeed saying just that. I am positive that someone would carry out the murder of Myra Hindley were she to be outside gaol. Her crimes towards those children whom she helped murder all those years ago will never be forgotten, whatever the rights and wrongs of her present situation.
Before anybody says that I am bigoted, I employ criminals in my own life. Just yesterday I was at a meeting in the other place with Apex Scotland. That organisation provides criminals with work, and has done a very good job too. So I am not bigoted. But it is my view that if Myra Hindley wishes to see the rest of her life, the best place she can be is inside gaol, and I mean that most sincerely.
So the answer to the interesting question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is: yes, we should now harmonise the procedures between mandatory and discretionary life sentences, as there is no chance of this country returning the death penalty to the statute book. But we should do so only when a life sentence really means life and not anything less; when 25 years means 25 years, and the punishment fits the crime.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I respect enormously the views, work and courage of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, displayed over so many years. I speak in his support. In doing so I should make it clear that I do not wish to express any personal view of the Hindley case. I have not studied it in great detail. I did read the recent

289
judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, and I have no idea what decision I myself would take if I had the responsibility to take it—which, thankfully, I do not. I wish to examine the treatment of mandatory life prisoners in principle.
Before doing so, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on a powerful and persuasive maiden speech. During my short time in this House I have become aware of how much this House values the contributions from the Bishops' Bench. I hope that we shall hear many more such contributions from the right reverend Prelate.
I have in a sense to declare an interest. For many years I have been a member of the council of the human rights organisation, Justice. I was for six years chairman of its executive committee. I wish not merely to declare that interest but to emphasise it because Justice published in 1996 a powerful report under the title, Sentenced for Life, which explains the history of the release process and proposes reforms.
The first question that might be asked is: how did the Home Secretary become concerned at all with the release of life prisoners? Historically, the release of life prisoners, like the commutation of the death sentence or the grant of a royal pardon was a matter of the royal prerogative and was exercised in the normal constitutional way through the Home Secretary. The power of release was put on a statutory basis by the Criminal Justice Act 1948, which provided for release on licence by the Home Secretary. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 the Parole Board was created. It was provided that no life sentence prisoner could be released unless the Parole Board recommended release to the Home Secretary.
It was later established by two important cases in the European Court of Human Rights that in relation to discretionary lifers that procedure was in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was the Weeks case, decided in 1987, and the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell, decided in 1990. It was held that the procedure for the release of discretionary lifers had to be a judicial procedure involving a judicial decision.
In response, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 produced a revised procedure for the release of discretionary lifers. That procedure is capable of some improvement, but is broadly speaking open and fair. Once the tariff for retribution and deterrence set by the judge at the trial has been satisfied, the prisoner has a right to apply to the Parole Board. The Parole Board considers his application. That is a judicial process in which the prisoner can make representations. He is entitled to see most of the material placed before the panel; to an oral hearing before the panel; to representation by a lawyer; and to legal aid. The board is required to give full reasons, and of particular importance is the fact that the Home Secretary is required to accept the recommendations of the board.
The procedure for mandatory lifers is much less favourable. If there is a reference, the prisoner may submit written representations but is not entitled to an oral hearing and has no right to legal aid. The
290
recommendations of the Parole Board are advisory only. and the final decision as to whether or not the prisoner is released is taken by the Home Secretary, who is entitled—or claims to be entitled—to take into account the public acceptability of early release.
One might ask: what justification is there for the difference in the treatment of those two types of life prisoner? In my view the answer is that there is no such justification. The seriousness of the offence cannot justify the distinction because, in fact, the discretionary lifer procedure applies to those who receive mandatory life sentences under Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997; that is, those who commit second, violent offences. So the discretionary lifer procedure under that Act may apply to a violent rapist. On the other hand, the mandatory lifer procedure applies to a wife who kills a violent or alcoholic husband in circumstances which fall just short of provocation, which would reduce the crime to manslaughter.
It is true that the European Court of Human Rights has so far held that judicial procedure is not required for the review of the detention of adult mandatory lifers. But it is coming steadily closer to changing that view. It said in 1996, in the Hussain case, that judicial procedure was required for the consideration of the release of persons who were under the age of 18 when they committed murder. That was duly enacted into British law in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. I understand that a case is on its way—though its admissibility has not been finally determined—to the European Court that raises the same question in relation to the sentencing of 18 to 21 year-olds.
But even if the European Court does not change its position it seems a matter of plain common sense that the release of all life prisoners should be subject to judicial and not to executive decision. We have already moved quite a long way in that direction. I must say, if I were Home Secretary, I should be more than pleased to get rid of the remainder of that burden. We should bring the mandatory lifer procedure into line with the discretionary lifer procedure, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has asked. The simplest way of doing that would be to get rid of mandatory life sentences. In 1991 this House passed an amendment to abolish mandatory life sentences and to make life sentences for murder discretionary, with a maximum of life. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, played a large part in achieving that amendment. It was, regrettably, removed from the Bill in the other place. That, however, is another debate for another time. On this occasion I simply say that, as long as mandatory sentences are retained, we should bring the mandatory-lifer procedure for release into line with the much more preferable procedure for discretionary lifers.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, once in a while—very infrequently—I have the illusion that my limited powers of advocacy, now virtually extinct, have made a convert. I greatly treasure those rare occasions, one of which occurred on 20th February last year. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the very distinguished Home Office Minister in the previous Government,

291
conceded (Hansard, col. 824) that not all murders were uniquely heinous. It was not a very great concession; it was just novel to hear it. It was not a very great concession because, not long before she made it, Trooper Clegg, who had murdered a passenger in a car by shooting at her, intending to kill, had been released after two and a half years in prison.
I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will share the view that murder is not a uniquely heinous crime. Why then are the release mechanisms when a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder different from those when a person is sentenced to life imprisonment in other cases, the judge using his discretion?
The differences are not supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, either when he was in opposition or since this Government have come to power. In the debate on 6th November 1989 on the recommendations of the Select Committee on life imprisonment, on which I had the privilege to be a member, he said:
"The point is that the duration of imprisonment should be decided by judges in an open process and not by the Executive behind closed doors, without even the authority of Parliament".—[Official Report, 6/11/89; col. 522.]
I brought him up to date during a Starred Question on 24th June last year (Hansard, col. 1463) when, having in advance of the question drawn his attention to the quotation I have just made, I asked him in terms whether he still agreed with the proposition that the decision as to how long a person should spend in prison was a judicial decision to be made by a judge in open court after hearing argument, subject to a right of appeal, and should not be made by a politician in secret without any right of appeal. To that the noble and learned Lord said:
"The only difference between my position as expressed then and now is that today I have a keener awareness of the arguments on the other side …".—[Official Report, 24/6/97; col. 1463.]
The present Leader of the House, when in Opposition, was of like view to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in 1991, to which reference has been made, which achieved the proposition that the automatic life sentence should go, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said:
"We may he told that the public require that Ministers and not judges should make those decisions. In my view there is absolutely no evidence to justify that belief, which I am sure is sincerely held. No evidence has ever been put forward to justify it. In fact, I believe that precisely the reverse is true. To be blunt, I believe that the public have an infinitely greater confidence in judges than in Ministers—of any government—to make decisions on the length of sentences".—[Official Report, 18/4/91; col. 1570.]
The matter came before the Home Affairs Committee in 1995, when it considered both the question of the mandatory life sentence and the position of the Home Secretary. The committee reached a preliminary conclusion on that occasion, in paragraph 103:
"the responsibility for setting the tariff and for taking decisions on release should be removed from the Home Secretary. The basis for this view is that it is wrong in principle for the executive (i.e. a politician) to have a role in decisions which effectively determine how long a person subject to a mandatory life sentence spends in prison, a role it does not have in discretionary life sentences".
292
The matter came before the committee again the following year, when it considered further evidence. The committee reached the same conclusion and confirmed that that was its view.
In paragraph 10 of Appendix 8, Justice made these observations:
"The present Home Secretary has told Parliament that he has a function additional to the assessment of risk: gauging the public acceptability of release. We agree with the Committee that this seems to be in response to a few notorious cases. It is trite to state that hard cases make bad law. The fact that there are some difficult decisions in the offing does not justify the assertion of a new power, and a new power created not by legislation but by Parliamentary statement. Further, we consider that 'public acceptability' is an inappropriate criterion for such individual sentencing decisions: it is both too loose and too susceptible to ill-informed public pressure…
"It is in our view unsustainable in a modern democracy to seek to retain such an excessive power over the freedom of a citizen, however grave his offence, in private, extra-judicial proceedings. This power is all the more anomalous…"
Justice then goes on to deal with the statutory power to recall from prison.
This matter was considered by an extremely expert committee, an independent inquiry into the mandatory life sentence for murder, commissioned by the Prison Reform Trust and presided over by the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. He specifically referred to the so-called additional power, "the third phase" as he referred to it, "acceptable to the public". The Committee said:
"The introduction of a third phase after punishment is complete, and dangerousness is no longer an issue, bids fair to alter the whole framework of the system…
"Experience teaches that when politicians resort to 'public opinion' as a basis for a change of policy or a fresh course of action, it is advisable to scrutinise the proposals with particular care.
"This proposed alteration of the rules seems to us to demonstrate, as clearly as anything could, the case for taking such decisions on the liberty of the subject out of the hands of politicians and putting them under the control of a body independent of both politicians and the Executive".
I submit that it is deeply depressing that, a government with the power that this Government have at the moment, should suffer from such a pathological fear of "going soft on crime", that the recommendations from the sources I mentioned should go unlistened to.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I listened with great interest and admiration, and with some awe, to what noble Lords said on this subject. They demonstrated more knowledge, wisdom and skilful argument than I could ever hope to illustrate. I also add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. I made mine what seems like only five minutes ago, and he made an excellent fist of it.
I am not a lawyer and have no legal training. My experience has been confined to working with people who cope with the practical outcomes of our system of justice and those who have to see through the realisation of the decisions that are made in court. I was originally a social worker in East London and helped to set up the first visitors' centre for prisoners' families at Pentonville. I was the co-founder, 12 years' ago, of the

293
Butler Trust, of which I am still a trustee. We give awards to people working within the prison services of the United Kingdom who have done outstanding work in some way or other and essentially concern ourselves with the standards of best practice in prisons today.
My interest is in what legal decisions mean, when translated into reality, for large numbers of people in our society. They directly affect all those involved in the prison services as well as the community-based services which work with offenders and the penal system. There are two issues. The first is public confidence concerning sentencing and release decisions for both mandatory and discretionary lifers; the second is the enormous impact on our prison and community services—both human and financial.
Now, like never before, justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. Where mandatory sentences are concerned, it is not seen to be done because they are made by the Home Secretary on expert advice, including the Lord Chief Justice, but in private without the benefit of hearing all the evidence of the court and against which there can be no appeal. When the executive and not the judiciary take such momentous decisions, how can political considerations play no part?
Furthermore, when it comes to decisions about release for mandatory lifers, they are not only determined by judgments on retribution, deterrence and future risk as with discretionary lifers, but in addition by the Home Secretary's own assessment of public confidence. How, I wonder, is that assessment arrived at? Is it being "tough on crime"? He also has the power to revise upwards the tariff or minimum sentence period. That includes the option of "whole life tariffs" when prisoners end their days in prison.
By contrast, the discretionary life sentence prisoner, whose tariff has been set by a judge and whose sentence and tariff are subject to appeal, will have his release on licence decided by the Parole Board following an open judicial procedure for release and recall. We have already heard mentioned one or two of the committees which looked into this matter. I noted no less than seven parliamentary or independent committees which have looked at the issue since 1975 and their findings were unanimous; that is, that the systems governing the tariff and release of mandatory life prisoners must be brought into line with those of discretionary lifers. The professionals of the penal world, therefore, are in agreement; it is the politicians who are maintaining and driving the current state of affairs and the punitive aspect of our system.
The realities are these. We have more than 3,500 lifers in our system at the moment out of a total prison population of over 64,000 in England and Wales. Thirty of those are destined to die inside. The rest will eventually pay their debt to society and come out of prison. They represent more than the entire lifer population of Europe put together. What does that tell us about our sentencing policies? Can we really accept that the population of Britain is so very much more criminal than anywhere else in Europe? I doubt it. The average length of time a lifer stays inside has been creeping up and is now around 15 years, costing an
294
average of £25,000 a year. It usually starts at around £40,000 and comes down to around £20,000 at the end of the sentence.
Those people become the responsibility of our prison services. When a prisoner goes inside to serve a long sentence, it often feels like the end of a story to the public at large. In fact, it is the beginning of another very long story for all those involved in the custody, containment and care of that person. We never hear about that; nor do we want to unless something goes wrong, like an escape or a riot. Prisoners are likely to become increasingly institutionalised and it is left to the prison services to do what they can to address their offending behaviour and all the range of problems that such dysfunctional and often inadequate people bring with them.
For example, one of the most difficult situations of all to work with constructively in prison, for both staff and inmates alike, is uncertainty, which is a key feature of life sentences. It does not take much imagination to realise the difficulties of sentence planning at the beginning or setting up pre-release schemes at the end under those circumstances. There tend to be management problems, particularly with young men serving long sentences when 15, 20 and 25 years are meaningless periods of time. They must then be prepared for life outside and the hope is to return them no more damaged than when they went in.
The difficulties and cost of maintaining those prisoners on release then follows and the cost in human terms to children and families is yet another element in the equation. I have seen mothers go through extraordinary charades to conceal from their children where their father is, and have seen the effects on children of the bullying and ostracism that having a father inside can involve.
Of course, we must have a system which can punish appropriately according to law across the range of punishments available to the courts. I simply ask your Lordships and the Government to consider: what price our retribution? Can it ever become too high? How can it be that we are so out of kilter with the whole of the rest of Europe? With men and women who have committed a range of types of murder between which in this country no distinction is made and for whom there is a mandatory life sentence, their tariff and their future lies in the hands of the executive and not the judiciary. How long, in all commonsense and justice, can we allow that to continue?
7.28 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as we are a few minutes ahead of time and I spent three years in charge of the Prison Service under the Home Secretary of the day, perhaps your Lordships will allow me not more than two minutes for each of those three years to make two small points.
The first is that people change in prison. The right reverend Prelate—whom I also congratulate on his maiden speech—referred to the rehabilitative role of prisons which has been much diminished. Nevertheless, people change in prisons and not to recognise that fact—

295
as my noble friend Lord Rowallan would not recognise it—is not only brutal but brutalising to the people in prison. I pay tribute to the enormous tenacity of the noble Earl who launched this debate in favour of those who, in his view, change.
But the more pertinent fact is a more simple one and it undercuts the arguments that we heard on the legal history of committees and legislation. It strikes me because the one aspect of imprisonment that I could not deal with as a Minister in the Home Office and a Member of this House was life sentences. That was deemed to be so political that it had to be answerable in the House of Commons. It was therefore the responsibility of another Minister of State under the Home Secretary—the Home Secretary had the duty of dealing with mandatory life sentences. I see that a former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is present in the Chamber. He may want to venture a view in the next few minutes. However, I cannot believe that it was ever an agreeable duty in that I cannot believe any Home Secretary would actually cling to it.
What we had—and it struck me as odd—was the whole of the judicial system in the hands of people whose careers were devoted to being insulated from political pressure and the tide of public opinion in order to give an entirely fair, independent and unbiased view on the issues under their control, except for the most serious cases which were handed to someone who had only attained his position through exercising very great skills in understanding political pressure, newspaper reports and so on, and who held on to that position only if he continued so to do. Therefore, those decisions, which were taken in the exact focus of public interest, were likely to be the most political decisions of all.
I cannot see that there is either consistency or justice in that. I hope that the Minister will listen to some of the powerful arguments that have been put in favour of the noble Earl's Motion.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising an anomaly which has no logic either in morality or in law. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on what he said. I was particularly impressed by the way in which he stressed the importance of the individual and how each individual needs to be considered within the prison system. He rightly said, in words that were echoed by my noble friend Lady Linklater, that the facts differ so much from case to case. I know that the Minister will remember many such cases, which can range from a wife giving way for a moment to stress and anger, all the way through to the deliberate execution of a bank guard with a handgun in the course of the carrying out of a robbery.
It is helpful to consider how we arrived at this position. The life sentence has never meant the imprisonment of a person for the remainder of his natural life. It is simply an indeterminate sentence. The duration of the mandatory life sentence was decided by the Home Secretary prior to 1983 subject only to two
296
fetters. One was that he had to have the advice of the Lord Chief Justice and, if possible, the trial judge. The other, after 1967, when the Parole Board was set up, was that there had to be a favourable recommendation from the board. Until 1983, the cases of all life prisoners were considered after four years by a joint Parole Board/Home Office committee which recommended a date for review. No distinction was drawn until 1983 between those serving a discretionary life sentence and those serving a mandatory life sentence. So we are not dealing with some long tradition when we address this subject. It is a practice that has grown up over a period of some 15 years. There is no lengthy legal history behind it. It has arisen in a series of steps.
On 11th October 1983, in a speech to the Conservative Party conference, the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, explained that there would be important changes in practice. Murderers of police or prison officers, terrorist murderers, sexual and sadistic murderers and murderers who used firearms in the course of robbery could normally expect to serve at least 20 years. As to decisions on the release of prisoners, he said that he would look to the judiciary for advice on the time to be spent by lifers for retribution and deterrence and to the Parole Board for advice on risk. The scheme he then proposed was that, after three years from the date of the life sentence, the judiciary would be asked to express an initial view on the appropriate period to be served for retribution and deterrence after which the Home Secretary would decide the date for the first review. After that announcement prison policies hardened. They crystallised into a two-tier approach to sentencing: the fixed period for retribution and deterrence became known as the tariff, to be served in all save the most exceptional circumstances. Only then could consideration be given to the progress of the prisoner, his motivation and the likelihood of his reoffending. That was the first step.
The second step occurred in 1987. Following the Divisional Court case of Handscombe, the Home Secretary was told that he should receive the advice of the judiciary on the tariff as soon as practicable after sentence and should not substitute his own views for those of the trial judge. It was also said that in discretionary sentencing the trial judge was to take account of the notional reduction of one-third remission on "an equivalent determinate sentence" in fixing the tariff. This was accepted by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who required the trial judge who was passing a discretionary life sentence to write to him. The date for first review would be three years before the expiry of the tariff period.
It was at that point that the treatment of discretionary and mandatory life prisoners began to diverge considerably. The then Home Secretary said that, since in mandatory life cases the sentence was not at the discretion of the judge, no question of "a notional equivalent determinate sentence" could arise. He therefore reserved the right in mandatory cases to take into account other factors, including the need to maintain public confidence in the system of justice, when determining the tariff.

297
This opened the door, unhappily, to the practice whereby a Minister can adjust the judicially recommended tariff upwards if in his view the tariff did not match the gravity of the crime. So we were moving away from judicial control, as the Divisional Court had desired in Handscombe, to a system whereby the Home Secretary could put in his personal view; and as it was his personal view, no doubt based on advice, it could well be an arbitrary decision.
The procedures were condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in the Thynne decision, to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart referred. That required judicial consideration of loss of liberty and the lawfulness of detention. Then, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, attempts were made in the Criminal Justice Bill in the 1990–91 Session to abolish mandatory life sentences and to ensure that judicial procedures, rather than the arbitrary decision of the Home Secretary, should govern the setting of the tariff and the decisions on release after the expiry of the term. Amendments were passed in this House with the support of two former Lord Chancellors, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and five Law Lords. But they were reversed on a whipped vote on strict party lines in the other place. I regret to say that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will remember that, because he was the Home Secretary at the time. The only concession that was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was that the trial judge was required to announce the tariff when imposing a discretionary life sentence. The differences between the treatment of the discretionary life prisoner and the mandatory life prisoner have been fully set out by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. There is no need for me to repeat them.
All this has led to a position in this decade whereby there has been a populist approach to crime and punishment, which has filled the gaols of this country to a degree unknown to our European partners, and continues to do so. To this day, hundreds of millions of pounds are being wasted on prison building rather than being spent on crime prevention, compensation for victims, rehabilitation programmes and much more constructive ways of trying to prevent offending. The posturing on the Conservative Government Benches was matched by the rhetoric of the Labour Opposition, all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, just in case votes could be lost in the election that was seen to be approaching.
Judges, whose sentences have increased under the pressure of that rhetoric—goal sentences have gone up right across the board—were characterised as soft, do-gooders and even liberals. In the attack on the judges, on civil liberties, on the Parole Board and on the humane traditions of penal policy to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, which were mounted by the last government, I regret to say that the Labour Party was not an effective, articulate Opposition. They were collaborators.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to Myra Hindley who has been in the middle of all this change of policy. I recall that I was present in court with my noble friend Lord Hooson, who represented Ian Brady,
298
when the jury came back in that case. I have to say that at the Chester Assizes, as it was in those days, it was the most horrific case that is remembered to this day. But this unfortunate woman—this wicked woman, if you like—has nevertheless been subjected to changes of policy over the past 25 years. The tariff of 25 years that was fixed by Lord Lane in 1982 was increased to 30 years in 1985, but she was not told about it. It was then changed to whole life in 1990, but she was not told about it. In 1994 Mr. Howard, the then Home Secretary, announced that those upon whom whole life tariffs had been imposed would not thereafter be able to gain release. There would simply be a review every 25 years to see whether a determinate sentence could be put into effect only on questions of retribution and deterrence. The tariff on Myra Hindley was set afresh as whole life in February 1997. It is not as though her crimes had become any more heinous; she had simply become demonised by the press and votes were seen to be in it. The present Home Secretary has confirmed that tariff, although he has said that he is open to the possibility that exceptional circumstances, including exceptional progress in prison, might render reduction appropriate.
There are no rational grounds for distinguishing between a mandatory and a discretionary life sentence. If it is discretionary, it means almost by definition that the person who is sent to prison for life for rape or robbery is a dangerous person, and far more so than so many people who have, under stress, momentarily lost control of themselves and committed murder. It is wrong to equate those two sorts of crimes at all. Murder, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, remarked in the debate to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred, can vary enormously in gravity.
The public interest demands a rethink altogether on penal policy. We must break away from the blinkered mindcast that we have had over the past few years. We must reduce the number of people who are sent to prison. There must be a fresh and a bold start in considering the best use of resources when dealing with offenders. The political sensitivities of Ministers must not be allowed to influence release decisions. I certainly echo the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose tenacity the noble Lord, Lord Elton, praised, when he said that no Home Secretary should choose between what is right and what is pleasing to the multitude. Let that be his message.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on his maiden speech. He pointed out that this was a matter of a sensitive nature, the discussion of which can cause strong opposing views. How true indeed, as it has been proved tonight and, I am sure, will continue to prove to be both here and outwith this Chamber.
I thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate and, like others, I pay tribute to his deep and enduring commitment to this subject. Disagree we may, but I always respect his sincerely held views.

299
The debate tonight is on a narrow point, but one which is of public importance. The question is, I believe, whether the Parole Board or the Home Secretary should exercise the final discretion as to whether or not a person serving a mandatory life sentence should be released. The debate is not about whether or not mandatory life sentences for murder should be abolished, although that issue has crept in now and again tonight. I note that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave a commitment on that matter at Question Time in the House on 15th July last year (at col. 907 of Hansard) when he stated in answer to a Question put by his noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke that,
"the Government have no plans to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder".
As the noble Earl pointed out earlier, the debate has arisen out of the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice and reported in The Times Law Report. The Lord Chief Justice stated that there was room for serious debate as to whether the task of determining how long convicted murderers should serve imprisonment as punishment for their crimes should be undertaken by the judiciary, as in the case of discretionary life prisoners, or, as now, by the executive. That was, he said, in large measure a political and constitutional debate, not a question for decision by the court. Those remarks were made, I believe, as a statement of fact and not a recommendation that changes should be made. Tonight's debate is indeed in the correct forum. The Lord Chief Justice has made no recommendation either that we should hold such a debate, nor indeed as to what the outcome should be.
Several noble Lords have referred to the history of the development of the rules governing the release of mandatory and discretionary life prisoners. In brief, the rules governing the release on licence of mandatory life prisoners are clearly set out in Section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. If the Parole Board recommends that a person should be released on licence, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, together with the trial judge, if available, release on licence that life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner. Section 35(3) provides that the board shall not make a recommendation under subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State has referred the particular case to the board for its advice.
The setting of the tariff in the first place is a matter to which the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred in a Written Answer published in Hansard on 15th December 1997 (at col. WA74) where he stated that,
"The Secretary of State attaches considerable weight to the judicial recommendations on tariff in mandatory life-sentence cases but is not bound by them and may set tariffs lower or higher than those recommended".
Those discretionary life sentences are, of course, subject to a different procedure. I shall not go into further detail. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, elaborated admirably on that point.
300
The view taken on these matters by my right honourable friends who served as Home Secretaries in another place and some of whom now serve in this House—and, as has been pointed out, one or two are with us this evening—has been both constant and consistent. It is that the Home Secretary's role in determining the release date of mandatory life prisoners should be retained. We believe that in this particular category of crime public interest and concern justify the Home Secretary's exercise of his discretionary powers to set and vary tariffs.
As I understand it, at the time of the abolition of capital punishment it was said in debate in both Houses that a unique penalty for the crime of murder would remain. This reflects the fact that the taking of human life is a matter which must not be devalued in itself. After all, it involves two intents: to kill or to do really serious physical injury. It was said in debate in both Houses that the public should be reassured that no murderer would be released except on the expressed decision of the Home Secretary who would then be accountable directly to Parliament if anything went wrong.
Tonight the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has stolen from me many quotations made by the Government when in Opposition, but I am glad that he has left me one to which I may refer. I note that a different view was taken in this House by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on 11 th March 1996, when he said:
"We have come to the view that the judges, the Parole Board and the prison system as a whole are responsible for the tariff for mandatory life prisoners rather than a politician, the Home Secretary".—(Official Report, 11/3/96; col. 683.]
I assume that the Government's position has subsequently changed in view of the statements and actions of the current Home Secretary. I do not criticise such an adjustment of policy, I welcome it.
The present Home Secretary made a statement in response to the case of R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson 1997. He made it clear that he would continue the practice of setting and reviewing adult murderers' tariffs. I hope that the Minister will tonight confirm that the Government's position remains the same.
7.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I commend the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on his tenacity. I believe that I should be entitled to particular spiritual reward because it is normally my leg that bears the imprint of his teeth marks when he has been so tenacious! I congratulate also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on his persuasive and attractive maiden speech.
I recognise that the judges have always been uneasy about the mandatory life sentence for murder. In 1965, when the Bill which led to the abolition of capital punishment was being discussed, the then Lord Chief Justice proposed that the penalty for murder should be at the discretion of the trial judge. His view did not

301
prevail. Most, if not all, of his successors have shared that view, supported by most, if not all, members of the higher judiciary. However, it is a fact that Parliament has not changed its view on that issue, which remains contentious, although it has had many opportunities to do so since 1965.
The noble Baroness is right in that in July of last year I gave an answer to my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke—and it remains government policy—that we have no plans to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder. The question which the noble Baroness rightly identified for this evening is not whether there should be a mandatory life sentence for murder, but the more focused, and therefore necessarily more limited, question: how should that sentence be administered?
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated, prior to abolition of the death penalty for murder, the Secretary of State had the discretion—and the burden, as the noble Lord rightly said—of deciding on life or death, reprieve or not. Parliament thereafter, consonant with that historical scheme, put on the Secretary of State the responsibility to decide whether or not a mandatory life sentence prisoner should be released. Initially, the only statutory requirement was that he should consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available. The Criminal Justice Act 1967, which introduced the Parole Board, required the Home Secretary to refer life sentence cases to the Parole Board for its advice before ordering release on life licence. However, it was always the Secretary of State who decided if, whether, and when to refer such cases and he was not bound to accept the Parole Board's advice to release. That has remained the position throughout.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly pointed out, the principal change occurred in 1983 with the introduction of a tariff system by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan. That has been amended following the decision by your Lordships' House in the case of Doody and others. A period is fixed at the beginning of the sentence to reflect the length of time to be served in custody for retribution and deterrence. The tariff, thus fixed, takes no account of future risk. It is the period regarded as necessary for punishment in all the circumstances of that particular case. It is set by the Home Secretary. The trial judge makes a report to the Home Secretary, with his recommendations. Every such recommendation is seen by the Lord Chief Justice who adds his comments and views. Those reports and judicial recommendations (excluding only references to future risk) are disclosed to the prisoner within a short time along with any other material which the Minister is to consider before setting the tariff. The prisoner can make recommendations which are then put before the Minister. That means that unless there is delay on the part of the prisoner, or an appeal against conviction, tariffs can be set reasonably quickly. We believe that that is an equitable system. Every murder case is therefore considered by the Lord Chief Justice and by the same Minister.
Perhaps I may put a counter argument to what has been the prevailing view tonight. In the case of Doody
302
and others, which extended the rights of mandatory life sentence prisoners, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill—I do not think that anyone can sensibly accuse him of lacking either experience or independence of mind and judgment—said:
"I can see no reason why the anomalous task of fixing a 'tariff penal element for an offence in respect of which the true tariff sentence is life imprisonment is one for which the Home Secretary and his junior ministers, informed by his officials about the existing departmental practice, are any less experienced and capable than the judges".
That is a fairly authoritative statement of a view which I readily understand runs counter to most of the views expressed this evening.
The judicial views—of the trial judge and of the Lord Chief Justice—are advisory only, but normally the tariff is set within the judicial limits. Of 622 tariffs in new cases in 1994–97 only 36 were set higher than either judicial recommendation, and 35 were set lower. Where the tariff departs from the judicial recommendation, the prisoner is given written reasons. I have set out the tariff position in some detail because it is important to have the factual background correct, including the fact that on virtually as many occasions as the recommendation from the judges was increased, there were decreases. I repeat that there were 36 increases, with 35 decreases.
The Parole Board has no function at all in relation to the setting of the tariff. It seems to me that the general thrust of the Lord Chief Justice's concerns in giving judgment in Myra Hindley's case related mainly to the Secretary of State's role in setting tariffs. The tariff simply determines when the case first goes to the Parole Board. The first review by the board starts three years before the expiry of the tariff. The board is asked to advise on whether the prisoner presents a sufficiently low risk to the public to be released or to be moved to open conditions. Four members of the board consider the case on the papers. The prisoner sees all the papers beforehand. He can comment on them in writing and personally to a member of the board.
Every recommendation for release is considered personally by the Home Secretary. I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. It is not a burden which Home Secretaries welcome. In a sense, it would make their thorny bed rather easier if they did not have that responsibility.
Ministers do not always take the same view of risk as the Parole Board. The Home Secretary has broad constitutional responsibilities for public order and not least for that sometimes rather difficult creature, maintaining the public's confidence in the criminal justice system. If the release of a prisoner at a particular time might undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, we suggest that it is reasonable for the Home Secretary to be able to defer that release. We believe that the Government, in the person of the Home Secretary, should continue to have the final word on the release of adults convicted of murder.

303
The position on discretionary life sentences is different. The circumstances of those sentences have been fully and, I believe, generally accurately recorded. The noble Baroness said that tariffs have been creeping up in terms of time served and that the average length of sentence is now about 15 years. In fact, the figure for 1997 is 14.2 years. That is the most recent figure available, but it is, of course, provisional. In the previous year, the average was 13.2 years, but the year before that was 14 years, and in the year before that it was 15.4 years. So the perception that there has been a gradual increase is not uniformly borne out by the facts. In 1993 it was 14.5 and in 1992 12.4. Obviously, different factors determine the number of years served, not simply the inevitable consequences of who said what at which party conference. I do not therefore trespass on your Lordships' time in respect of discretionary sentences.
A good deal of time this evening has expectedly and necessarily been devoted to the case of Myra Hindley. It is not proper for me to say much on that. My information is that the appeal against the decision of the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Hooper and Mr. Justice Astill remains to be heard. It is not constitutionally right that I should say too much. All I will say about Myra Hindley's case is that it turned out in 1987 that the two murders for which she was convicted and on which the tariff was based were the last two of five separate murders of children committed over a period of more than two years. All three Home Secretaries looked at the case in detail and concluded that a whole life tariff is warranted because of the gravity of the offences, leaving aside other considerations like risk.
Of the over 3,000 mandatory life prisoners in custody there are only 29 with whole life tariffs. As indicated earlier, the Home Secretary announced on 10th November that he would be wiling to review tariffs where there were exceptional circumstances including, I stress, exceptional progress in prison.
304
The noble Earl asked specifically whether the Home Secretary planned to consider seriously giving up his current involvement in tariff-setting for murderers. The Lord Chief Justice said, rightly if I may say so without presumption:
"There is room for serious debate whether the task of determining how long convicted murderers should serve in prison as punishment for their crimes should be undertaken by the judiciary .. or, as now, by the executive".
As the noble Baroness observed, that is in large measure according to the Lord Chief Justice a political and constitutional question. I omit some words because the judgment is well known. The Lord Chief Justice goes on to say:
"But the applicant [Myra Hindley] has, no doubt wisely, made no accusation that any Home Secretary has acted in had faith".
That is the sober conclusion at which the Lord Chief Justice has arrived and I believe that it is worth repeating. We believe that in some circumstances in the general public interest the Home Secretary needs to retain these powers. We are more than content to hold the serious debate for which the Lord Chief Justice has called. The first chapter in that debate, which will continue for a long time, has begun and ended this evening.
I should like to deal with one particular matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. He was concerned about the spelling out of sentences and whether the public was left in doubt. I am sure he will be pleased to learn that as recently as 22nd January of this year the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction to judges to ensure that courts spell out what sentences really mean in practice so that the offender, the victim and all those concerned with the case, including the wider public, know the effect of a particular sentence. I pay tribute to that step by the Lord Chief Justice, it being remembered that almost the first words that I uttered when I began this job were that we wished to restore a decent regard for the opinions of the higher judiciary. That adamantly remains the policy of the Home Secretary.
I have not satisfied everyone in this House, but that is the response that the Government give and presently maintain.
House adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.