Lords Sitting of 25 March 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 Norwich.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne—Took the Oath.

Lone Fathers: Support Services
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a personal adviser and the other advantages to be offered to help lone mothers off benefit and into work (as announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women on 4th July 1997 (H.C. Deb. col. 519)) will also be available to fathers who have made the commitment to support their children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, lone fathers, who comprise some 7 per cent. of all lone parents, will have the same support and services as lone mothers in moving from benefit into work.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she confirm that that applies to the fathers of children who also have a lone mother? Does the Minister agree that a father and mother both in work and both committed, through the Child Support Agency or otherwise, to support their children are much less likely to need support from the taxpayer? Does she agree further that a father who is in regular employment is a much more attractive proposition as a husband or partner? Therefore, to get the fathers back into work may well reduce the total number of single parents.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree entirely with both points made by the noble Lord. The non-resident father—that is the father of children living with the lone parent—is entitled to the new deals for the young unemployed under-25s, the long-term unemployed and if they are disabled.
I am sure that the noble Lord is entirely right. It is certainly the case that those areas where there are the highest numbers of lone parents are also the areas with the highest male unemployment, particularly in inner cities; for example, Manchester, Glasgow or Liverpool. I am sure the noble Lord is right to say that if we can encourage young men into work and at the same time strengthen their relationships with their children, that will be in the interests of everyone.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree, following upon the very important Question
1218
of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that there is a much greater benefit in encouraging young people to marry to look after their children rather than do so as cohabiting couples?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, what matters for all children is that they are brought up in strong, stable family relationships. I believe personally that that is best ensured within marriage. But it is also the case and can be equally true of strong relationships within cohabiting families. What matters is that children are brought up with the love and support of two caring parents. It surely does not matter whether the children are in married or cohabiting families as long as they thrive. However, the problems arise for children being brought up in fractured families where the parents are lone; where the children are in poverty; and where the father is absent. That is why, in terms of our policies, we are developing new deals and seeking to reform the Child Support Agency.

Fishing Quotas: Qualifying Vessels
2.39 p.m.
Lord Campbell Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received from the European Commission a reply to, or comments on, their paper, submitted in February, on the need for fishing vessels participating in the United Kingdom's quotas for catches to have economic links with the United Kingdom.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Commission has made some preliminary comments on the paper referred to by the noble Lord and we are now engaged in discussions with the Commission prior to its taking a formal view. As my noble friend Lord Donoughue has told the House previously, once the Commission's views are known, an announcement will be made on the way forward.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that fishermen's leaders are waiting anxiously to hear whether progress is being made because the impression was given that quota hoppers would be soon reduced after the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Commission's president? That was 10 months ago.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is an extremely complex area. The Commission has asked for clarification on some points of detail which are the subject of ongoing discussion. Once those issues are resolved, we are confident that the Commission will confirm that our proposed measures are compatible with Community law and the jurisprudence of the European Court. It involves the interpretation of various provisions in the treaties and the jurisprudence of the European Court. We are not the only member state currently seeking to introduce measures concerning economic links. The Commission must ensure that a

1219
consistent approach is adopted by all. In the circumstances, perhaps it is not surprising that the Commission does not wish to respond too hastily.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House what kind of economic links he wishes to see established? Is it not true that a number of those foreigners have bought United Kingdom licences from our own trawler owners? It is obvious that they have economic links in any event. Secondly, on the general question of deep sea fishing, what steps are now being taken to curb illegal landings?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as regards the demonstration of the economic link, we intend that all vessels will be required to comply with one of a number of criteria along the lines set out in the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the president of the Commission last year. Those could include having to land 50 per cent. of the catch of quota species into the UK; employing crew, 50 per cent. of whom are resident in coastal areas; incurring a certain level of operating expenditure in UK coastal areas; or any other measure providing sufficient economic benefit to populations in the UK who are dependent on fishing.
At the Fisheries Council only yesterday the European Commission reported on enforcement. To use the European jargon, there was an orientation debate in which we supported the introduction of new measures to achieve more effective and consistent fisheries enforcement. The conclusion was that there was general support for improved enforcement and the Council welcomed the Commission's intention to come forward with concrete proposals.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, have the Government considered the idea of a regional management regime for fisheries? That would mean that the fleets based in ports on the coast of a particular region—say, for example, the Irish Sea or the Bay of Biscay—could participate in its success as stakeholders. Indeed, they would have a vested interest, especially as regards conservation. Moreover, that would help stop the practice of vessels like UK-flagged quota hoppers fishing in the Irish Sea and landing their catches far away, because they would not be entitled to participate in such a regional management system.
Lord Carter: My Lords, those ideas were presented by the National Federation of Fishermen's Associations and there were some pilot regional meetings to discuss them last year. Again, only yesterday at the Council—which was an extremely successful one so far as concerns the UK—there was agreement that the initiative should be developed and extended in 1998. Those regional meetings will contribute to the UK's objective of increasing the involvement of fishermen in discussions on the future of the common fisheries policy and developing the regional dimension of that policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister satisfied in his own mind that the Spanish fish inspectorate has left Madrid and has actually reached Spanish ports?
Lord Carter: Yes, my Lords; so far as I am aware, that is so. However, they are extremely slow travellers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to everything that the Minister has said. However, will he accept that it is a little difficult to appreciate what sort of actual progress has been made since 1st May last year?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I said earlier, it is a complex issue. This is the first time that the Commission has actually stated how it describes the economic link and how it should work. We are waiting for a detailed response, but I believe that we have made much more progress during the past nine months than the previous government made in 17 years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recall the previous government attempting to protect the positions and the livelihoods of British fishermen through the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was overturned by the judgment of the European Court of Justice through the Factortame ruling? Can my noble friend say whether the present situation and the present talks take account of that? Can we also be assured that the judgment will not apply in this case, or that it can be overruled?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend knows, the Factortame judgment is still in front of the Court of Appeal on the issue of liability. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to comment further at this stage. Moreover, it is much too early to discuss the likely size of the compensation package because no detailed claims for compensation have yet been received.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, before 1st May last, the then Opposition said that this was an easy and not a complex question? Does the noble Lord further agree that the Spanish are not playing ball in this; indeed, they are indicating that they will challenge any decisions made by the Commission? Further, as my noble friend Lord Campbell said, does the noble Lord agree that it is 10 months since the exchange of letters between "Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques"; it is two months since the Government submitted their paper to the Commission; and one month since, as a result of Written Questions tabled by me, publicity for that submission was dragged out of the Government? Indeed, does the phrase "stringing along" perhaps come to the Minister's mind? Who is stringing us along: is Tony being strung along by Jacques, or is Tony stringing British fishermen along?
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is extraordinary that, after only a few months in Opposition, noble Lords opposite seem to think, all of a sudden, that everything is easy

1221
and that can be done very quickly. I have already made clear that this is the first time that the Commission has set out what it means by "economic links". We are engaged in discussions with the Commission. I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased when we are able to bring the results of those discussions to the House in the very near future. Indeed, I am sure that he will be extremely pleased with the outcome.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, kindly provided me with a copy of the UK paper dated December last. Is the Minister confident that the scheme will be any more acceptable to the European Court than the previous British attempts to solve the problem, as features from those schemes reappear in this one? For example, I have with me the Law Report of October 1991 when the Court pronounced on the matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I said, the protocol negotiated by the previous government said that there was absolutely no chance of acceptance. The Commission is expected to agree that our proposals are compatible with the EC treaty and in accordance with European case law. Therefore, any measures which are taken should withstand successful legal challenge.

Millennium: Computer Compliance
2.49 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the advent of the year 2000 will not involve paralysis as a result of the widespread inability of computer systems to adjust to the new date.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all plans by government departments to tackle the millennium bug problem have been made public and are being closely scrutinised. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as part of his wider strategic role, published on 3rd March the results of the first review of these plans. The President of the Board of Trade provides support to the private sector through her department's Action 2000 initiative. Its aims are to help companies solve their millennium bug problems. She also chairs a Cabinet committee which is driving forward action across the public and private sectors to ensure that the national infrastructure is not damaged by the millennium bug.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he satisfied that sufficient is being done to ensure that the arrival of the millennium is not attended by massive chaos resulting from the fact that few computer systems were originally designed to cope with the arrival of that year? If the utmost care is not taken in the limited time available, the millennium could turn into a sour joke.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would be foolhardy if I were completely satisfied—to use the word which the noble Lord has used. All I can say is that we appear to be ahead of the field compared with other countries. For example, we were the first to raise this issue in NATO. We have taken the lead in the G7 and in other international organisations. I think it is generally recognised that we are doing more both in the public and the private sectors to tackle the problem than most other people.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that anyone who buys a PC now can be satisfied that it is fully year 2000-compliant? Will he also confirm that there is software available in the public domain on the web to check whether the BIOS (basic input operating system) of an old PC is year 2000-compliant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm the noble Lord's second point. Software at under £30 is available which will enable a private user to check his PC and even to find out what to do in the event of a problem. All public purchasing has been millennium bug-compliant since September 1996. I am told that there are still some suppliers who refuse to give cast-iron guarantees to the private sector that what they are selling is millennium bug-compliant.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I think the House will well understand why my noble friend cannot give cast-iron guarantees on the generality of the problem. But can he at least assure us that those computer control systems which operate in the Palace of Westminster will be adjusted before the terminal date?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that question should be addressed to the chairman of the Library and Computers Sub-Committee rather than to the Government. However, my understanding as a member of that committee is that we are well advanced in our plans for tackling the millennium bug.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, some six months ago I wrote to several Ministers in the DTI and several Cabinet Ministers, including the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, enclosing a report from the parliamentary group, EURIM which highlighted concern about information and communication technology skills arising out of the combination of the year 2000 problem and the need to make provision for EMU. At that time we flagged up the concern we had that legislators needed to take account of the ICT consequences that will arise out of future legislation proposals. Can the Minister tell me whether any formal monitoring proposals have been set up to consider problems that may arise for the private sector out of future legislation? Obviously, pensions is a classic case. As regards the public sector, is there any reason why we should not, in addition to the information on financial consequences and human resource consequences that appears at the front of Bills, also refer to information and communication technology consequences?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount raises wide questions far beyond the issue of the millennium bug itself. That is not to say they are not valid and important questions. Certainly the extension of the remit of the Action 2000 working group which I mentioned, which has been set up by the President of the Board of Trade, would be considerable if it took into account all the matters that the noble Viscount has mentioned. We ought to concentrate for now on the millennium bug. However, the points made about future legislation are certainly valid.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether in the time now available the difficult problem of the embedded micro-processor chip can be effectively dealt with? Have the Government found that this is all likely to be rather more expensive than they indicated last November when the noble Lord repeated a Statement made in another place? I believe that the figure then quoted was £370 million. On review, is that figure still valid?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards the review I mentioned in my first Answer, which was published on 3rd March, the figure of £370 million is now £393 million. Frankly, I do not believe that figure either. I am sure that it will change as further inquiries are carried out. As regards embedded chips, that applies to real time clock chips and to BIOS firmware. These are cheap components; but, as the noble Lord says, they are deeply embedded. I think that probably the best solution for most users will be the kind of low cost programmes to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, which can identify the problem and apply a durable fix.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given the difficulties that the noble Lord opposite has mentioned and the fact that he is unable to guarantee that everything will be all right, will he say why the ministerial group has met only once since 1st May 1997? Will he also say why Taskforce 2000, which was set up by the previous government under the energetic leadership of Mr. Robin Guenier, has been replaced by Action 2000, which is now led by a part-timer who, I believe, was responsible for the fact that the latest telephone numbers have to be changed now every four years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the ministerial group has met several times. I am a member of it and I have not been able to attend a single meeting because of other responsibilities. The noble Baroness is right to say that Taskforce 2000 has been replaced by Action 2000. It has a part-time chairman in Don Cruickshank who is of course the director-general of Oftel. However, as the noble Baroness may be aware, it has recently appointed a full-time chief executive, Gwynneth Flower, who has been the chief executive of the Central London Training and Enterprise Council. The budget for Action 2000 has been increased from about £1 million to about £10 million. It is not a question that we are not taking this matter seriously.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sure the whole House welcomed the original Answer of the noble Lord, and particularly the statement that he made that this country is leading others in the precautions it is taking. I hope he will bear in mind the fact that it is possible for this country to be immensely affected by confusion imported from and generated elsewhere.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course that is right. One of the reasons it is perhaps more important for us to be ahead of the game is because we are so much a trading nation and so much of our national infrastructure is internationally dependent. I must confess that although I am sure we are doing what we can, I am by no means confident of the outcome. One of the things we have to consider is what happens if things go wrong. Perhaps we could have a kind of civil defence programme to be brought into force on 1st January 2000.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, would the noble Lord like me to help him reassure the House by telling him that when I borrowed a computer from the computer room the other day, I was assured that all House of Lords computers were millennium bug-free?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I thought that I had already given the assurance that all purchases by Government have been millennium bug-free since September 1996. There are other things that can still go wrong.

Curriculum Review
3 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the pending curriculum review, consideration will be given to the inclusion of money management and personal finance.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, decisions about the need for any changes to the curriculum will be taken when we have considered advice from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, following its review of the national curriculum.
The Government will shortly be announcing the membership of and terms of reference for a national advisory group on personal, social and health education in schools. The group will in principle be able to consider personal finance and other aspects of financial literacy as part of its work.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I am very glad to learn of the developments that are taking place.
Does the noble Baroness agree that in an environment in which people increasingly are being asked to take responsibility for their own welfare they should be

1225
equipped with the knowledge to make the appropriate choices? Is the Minister aware of the activities of a group known as the Personal Finance Education Group? It has the support of a number of large institutions in the financial services industry, including the Financial Services Authority. It is currently propagating the need for increased education in this area.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, the Government very much accept that preparing young people in this area is enormously important. Indeed, perhaps if I had been better prepared I might have made a little more money throughout my life than I have done.
We shall be interested to learn from the Personal Finance Education Group. Officials with observer status have represented the department on it and want to work closely with it. The Government are also aware of the good practice schemes involving education business partnerships which help prepare people for the realities of economic life. They are always interested in hearing about successful schemes of this kind.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, in view of the Minister's remarks about the necessity for preparation, does the noble Baroness accept that teachers responsible for the operation of such a scheme will have been brought up in the 1960s and 1970s when the idea of savings and personal finance was not a major subject of the curriculum? Now that young adults are expected more and more to start saving early, as soon as they start earning, should not more importance be placed on the training of teachers on this important subject?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I entirely accept that. Through the standards fund the Government want to find ways of providing better training for teachers in this area, in particular in-service training. We shall be looking at that. The subject can best be covered in personal and social education. I have no doubt that the advisory group that the Government are setting up will wish to look at teacher training as part of its remit.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems of revising the curriculum is the number of subjects that people wish to put into it? Is it not most important that space be preserved for subjects which help children ultimately to earn an income rather than the problem of managing it when they have one?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I entirely agree.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, between the two debates today, my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that has been made in another place on the Greater London Authority White Paper.
1226
I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Allen of Abbeydale set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Alton of Liverpool to one-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Social Security Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Clauses 9 and 10,

Clause 40,

Clause 11,

Clause 41,

Clause 12,

Clauses 18 and 19,

Clauses 4 to 8,

Schedule 1,

Clause 13,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clause 42,

Clauses 14 and 15,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 16 and 17,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 20 to 24,

Clause 35,

Clause 59,

Clauses 25 and 26,

Clause 43,

Clauses 27 and 28,

Clause 44,

Clauses 29 to 34,

Clauses 36 and 37,

Clause 39,

Clauses 45 to 58,

Clauses 60 to 69,

Clause 38,

Clauses 73 and 74,

Clauses 70 to 72,

Clauses 75 to 80,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clause 81.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, having carefully studied the amazing sequence which the Minister has inserted on the Order Paper for discussion of the clauses and schedules of the Social Security Bill, may I ask the noble Baroness how she justifies this confusing disorder? It is not the first time in recent weeks that we have had such a Motion. We had one on the Crime and Disorder Bill, for example, and it did not help very much. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how she justifies jumping to and fro with clauses and schedules? It really cannot help the Committee stage to go smoothly.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps I may say that with her customary courtesy the noble Baroness was kind enough to send me a note which purported to explain the listing which now appears on the Order Paper. It transpired that further changes were necessary. One has only to look at the Order Paper to realise that it really is a rather extraordinary mess and will be rather difficult to deal with at Committee stage. Nonetheless, I think that its present form is the best that can be achieved.
In the light of the Statement that we shall have tomorrow—we may well have a great deal more social security legislation in the future—will the noble Baroness give an assurance that we shall not be faced with a similar situation again? Does she agree that the initial drafting of the Bill most certainly should have been in a more logical order?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have very real sympathy with the points made by both the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Higgins. The Bill is complex. It introduces unified decision-making and appeals arrangements across the range of departmental business. That means that many of the provisions are mirrored in a number of different clauses—on housing benefit, child benefit and vaccine damage.
To help the flow of debate, the order for consideration brings together clauses which cover the same issue, even though they may appear by clause number in different parts of the Bill, but in relation to different aspects of the department's business. For example, Clause 10 covers the revision of benefit decision. Those provisions are mirrored in Clause 40 in relation to child support decisions so they have been brought together for the purposes of debate.
We have not changed the order in which the main issues of the Bill are laid out. Part I deals with decision-making and appeals; Part II deals with national insurance matters; Part III deals with various benefit issues; and that order remains. We have grouped the clauses and schedules on the same subject in a sensible way.
I have two further points. First, the proposed order does not mirror the way in which the Bill was handled in the Commons Committee because the structure for the Commons Committee was even more complex, with even more clauses moved around. This grouping mirrors the way in which the Bill was handled at Report stage in the Commons.
1228
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, kindly indicated, this was agreed in consultation with the official Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Opposition Front Bench. As regards the complexity of the drafting, and as regards lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen, I suspect that as a distinguished lawyer the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has more insight into that aspect than I have.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' leave to speak again, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation, express my sympathy with her, and hope that the Government will prevail upon the parliamentary draftsmen and those instructing them in the months to come to endeavour to simplify the Bill in order to bring the same matters together to a greater extent so that we do not have this darting to and fro.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given what the noble Baroness said, why cannot exactly the same effect be achieved without debating the clauses and schedules in a certain order? I accept that schedules are seriatim, although interposed between rather odd arrangements of clauses. Why cannot exactly the same effect be achieved by the grouping of amendments?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the first point, I am happy to do my best. We all want that. It is not a problem that is new to this Government: it has been experienced in the past. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is not only for the convenience, but to the transparency of business in this House that everyone is secure as to where we are going and why we are doing this.
There is a difficulty in legislation. Matters can either be grouped by, as it were, topic, like headings for departmental business, or by issue, as in appeals or reviews. The problem that there are two ways of dividing matters has arisen in relation to this measure.
To turn to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. This approach was regarded on Report in the Commons as the most convenient and transparent way of handling this Bill. That is why we are continuing those procedures.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prison Service
3.10 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to call attention to the problems facing the Prison Service in England and Wales; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the list of speakers for this debate is indeed most impressive. We have talked a good deal about crime in recent weeks, but this is our first opportunity since the present Government took office to discuss overall policy relating to prisons, a matter of very considerable importance. Let me begin with some of the good things.
There has been a sharp reduction in the number of escapes. Police cells have not been used for some time; the practice of putting three prisoners in a cell designed for one has been ended; and "slopping out" is no more. Then, behind all that, it looks as though there has been evolved a reasonably satisfactory working relationship between the Home Secretary and the Prison Service. The previous administration drew a distinction between policy and operations, which the uncharitable (I say this with great diffidence in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, who, happily, is to speak later) tended to describe as meaning that, if matters went right, it was policy, and therefore a matter for Ministers; whereas, if they went wrong, that was operational and therefore a matter for civil servants. I think that this Government have returned to a more traditional attitude towards ministerial responsibility. It would be enormously helpful, however, if the Minister today could take the opportunity to spell out the details of the present relationship. I gave notice that I should be making that request.
The Prison Service itself has no control over the numbers in prison. Its responsibility is to keep in custody those committed by the courts. I think it is generally known that the number so committed has been steadily increasing in recent years, and that the total is now the highest in modern times. I wish to discuss why that is so, and touch on future prospects. I shall refer also to one or two of the problems of running the prisons, some of them so overcrowded. I am afraid that I shall not have time to touch on possible alternatives to imprisonment.
The prison population in England and Wales on 16th March was just over 65,000. Five years ago, it stood at under 42,000. A projection by Home Office statisticians in January suggested that the figure could rise to nearly 83,000 within seven years. Using brilliant new techniques, the statisticians worked out a worst-case scenario of 92,600, which would, I think, mean 24 new prisons at a cost of £2 billion. I cannot persuade myself that that last figure is realistic. However, previous forecasts have consistently turned out to be too low and we always have before us the example of the United States where the prison population has risen so phenomenally.
Recently, we were told that tagging could make greater inroads on the total than had at one time been supposed. But no one would claim that that is the complete answer. The Government cannot tell the courts what sentences to impose. However, given the alarming figures to which I referred, they must presumably have some strategy for the future. A principal purpose of today's debate is to try to find out what it is.
It is remarkable that this inexorable rise in the prison population has been going on at a time when recorded crime, at any rate in certain important categories, has been going down. The previous government, admittedly, took some positive steps to increase the numbers in custody; for example, by tightening up on bail, discouraging too great a use of cautions, and creating new offences, including, towards the end of their time
1230
in office, mandatory sentences for certain repeat offenders—provisions which, to my regret, have been implemented in part by the present Government.
But the most important influence on the courts, it seems, was the encouragement by Ministers and by the press of sending more people to prison, and for longer. Judges and magistrates alike responded to that encouragement. The statistics show that a higher proportion of convicted offenders, both in the Crown Court and in magistrates' courts, have been sent to prison, and also that the average length of sentence imposed has steadily increased. We have achieved a quite remarkable result; namely, that our courts are filling the gaols by imposing the toughest sentences in Europe, whereas large swathes of the populace believe that the courts are out of touch and soft on crime.
The Home Office 1996 British Crime Survey confirmed that most people thought that sentences were too lenient. However, it also showed a widespread ignorance of what was actually happening. For example, most people thought, wrongly, that recorded crime was increasing, and that a large proportion of crime was violent. Very few people seemed to know that practically every man convicted of rape, and something like four out of five convicted of mugging, were sent to prison. It is not altogether without interest that, when members of the public were themselves asked to try their hand and suggest an appropriate sentence in a real case of burglary, they tended to be more lenient than the judge.
This is a most serious matter. Is there not something to be said for consulting the experts about mounting a professional and properly thought-out campaign to try and get the facts better understood and some of the misapprehensions removed? Or is the risk of being thought "too soft on crime" too great?
There are some particular categories where it might be possible to reduce the numbers. For example, I wonder what expectations the Government have of reducing the numbers held on remand—some 11,000—as a result of their efforts to speed up trials? Then there are the young, about whom others will be speaking. And there are the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I hope that the working group involving the Prison Service and the NHS about which we were told the other day will have a better fate than previous inquiries.
Perhaps I may be forgiven a personal reminiscence to illustrate that the difficulties with the NHS are of long standing. Nearly half a century ago, a junior Home Office Minister and I waited on the then Minister of Health, one Aneurin Bevan, to see whether his new National Health Service could help us over a problem at Dartmoor. That was my only meeting with the great man. I am sorry to say that nothing much happened, but it was an interesting experience.
I turn now to the problems within the prisons. It seemed difficult enough in all conscience when, once upon a time, I myself had some direct responsibility. But we did not have large numbers from the ethnic minorities; we did not have nearly so many serving life sentences; and we certainly had no one who had been told that he or she should stay in prison until death.

1231
AIDS had not been thought of, and tobacco, rather than drugs, was the principal problem. Alas, things have changed and having to cope with reductions in the budget has not made it any easier for today's prison governors.
People are coming out of prison and back into society in their tens of thousands every year. Are they to come out bitter and resentful against society, brutalised, addicted to drugs and perhaps having learnt new tricks from other criminals? How far is the Prison Service able to discharge its role of looking after those committed to custody with humanity, helping them to lead law-abiding lives after their release?
The overriding problem is overcrowding, particularly in local prisons. To quote just two of the worst examples, at the beginning of the year Birmingham prison, with certified accommodation for 707, had to crowd in 1,032 prisoners. Preston had 414 places and 671 prisoners. The impact of overcrowding obviously varies from prison to prison, but in general it makes it more difficult to find space and resources for training, work and education. It means shifting prisoners around, sometimes far from their families. It causes tension and instability and heightens the risk of disturbances.
I know that the Prison Service tries hard to increase the time for what are described as "purposeful activities", but the figure overall of just over 23 hours a week which it has achieved is still a pretty modest total. Behind it there is a lot of frustration.
Then there are drugs. A Home Office Minister wrote to The Times the other day saying that things were getting better, comforting us with the news that yet another review was going on, this time of prison drug strategy. But the fact that last year nearly 1,200 visitors to prisons were arrested by the police in connection with drug-related offences and that in the recent nine-month period over 16,000 prisoners were found guilty on adjudication of offences disclosed by mandatory drug testing suggest that there is quite a long way to go. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, can give us an assurance that the staff themselves do not on occasion depend on the drug barons for keeping some kind of order.
In a short speech I can touch on only some of the issues. However, in conclusion. I wish to say this. Long-term imprisonment, as a punishment, is not all that old. Time was when the assize judge went round to clear the gaols, not to fill them. But he had available sentences of death and transportation: a choice, as someone put it, between the New World and the next. Now there is no alternative to imprisonment for serious offences.
Just over a century ago, the Gladstone report evolved the concept, tucked away as it was in the small print, that imprisonment should have as its twin aims deterrence and reformation, to which over the years has been added the concept of retribution. There have been many inquiries, not a few White Papers, quite a bit of legislation and some judicial directives, all of which have put varying emphasis on these ingredients. There
1232
have been periods of near despair. Many of the public would simply like to see the offender locked away and not think about what happens next.
But the way in which offenders are dealt with is one of the tests of a mature and civilised society and of its quality of justice. I hope we shall hear something today of the views of the Government on the role and purpose of imprisonment. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the deeply impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. If new Members dissatisfied with their place in the speaking order were to come to me to ask for advice I would say: "You've only to stay here half a century and you'll get a better position".
When I opened the first debate on the prisons in this House in 1955, I never expected to find myself following a former Permanent Secretary of the Home Office and preceding a former Home Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, is not the only Home Secretary speaking in the debate.
To me, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will always be associated with the name of R. A. Butler, as we knew him, or Lord Butler, a great name in the history of penal reform. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, was close to him. I am not sure of the precise relationship. But that was a golden moment in the history of penal reform when Lord Butler came in. Suddenly the atmosphere was changed. It was not a party matter. Mr. C. H. Rolph wrote a famous article in the New Statesman saying that it was an all-party effort. It was a completely new atmosphere not only in the eyes of those involved over some years. To me, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will always be associated with that. Lord Butler was succeeded by a whole series of enlightened Home Secretaries, some of them speaking to us today.
So it went on. Then we reached the age of Howardism. I do not wish to say anything personal about him. I was going to call him the "late Michael Howard", but I believe he is still going strong in some other capacity. Anything I say will be subject to what I always recall the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, saying about a Peer whom he criticised: "There is nothing personal in my remarks about him". Nevertheless, there is something called "Howardism". No one will question that, for good or ill, there was a new policy, a whole new approach to penal reform which was introduced in 1993 by the Home Secretary, Mr. Howard, with the full approval of the Cabinet. It was a new approach.
What is the result? It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale: the prison population has been increased by 50 per cent. in the past few years and it is going up and up. Even on a fairly optimistic scenario, it appears that it will have doubled within 12 years. For what reason? There is no increase in crime, so what is the reason? History will find it difficult to understand how it could have occurred. Of course, one may say that it is the courts. Yet we have the great judicial leaders here. The noble and learned Lord,

1233
Lord Ackner, will speak. The inspiration did not come from the top people at any rate in the judiciary. It came, I am afraid, from the atmosphere introduced by Mr. Michael Howard.
Then we come to the question of whether that atmosphere has been modified at all during the time of the present Government, to which I am, of course, obsequiously loyal. What are the two outstanding facts in relation to the prison population? They have been brought out before, but they cannot be repeated too often. On the one hand, it is the colossal and increased actual and prospective number of people in prison and, on the other hand, there is no increase in crime. Those are the facts, due to this new philosophy that prison works. That was the famous phrase which won so much applause at the Conservative Party Conference.
I do not intend to make a party speech. We had six Conservative Home Secretaries before Mr. Howard—all wonderful people, including the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who is to follow me and is now chairman of the Prison Reform Trust. They were all high-minded people. What does the Prison Reform Trust say about Howardism? No doubt we shall hear that in a moment, which will be more interesting perhaps than anything I can say.
Nevertheless, Howardism was introduced. What did it mean in practice? There are two aspects of it. On the one hand—the noble Lord, Lord Allen, did not mention this—there were cuts in the Prison Service. I do not know the absolute numbers. Because of the vast increase in the number of new prisons it is difficult to find out. I have been trying to find out how many new prisons are predicted, but no one can tell me. However, a great many new prisons are involved.
I go to prisons twice a week—I was due to go to one this morning but the taxi never turned up. At any rate, I go to prisons twice a week and everybody there is aware that there have been cuts. In all existing prisons we find people complaining about the cuts. As soon as anything goes wrong they say, "It is due to the shortages". What is being done about the cuts not only in prison staff in existing prisons but also in the probation service, which is experiencing severe cuts also? I shall return to that.
I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Hoyle responding because he is even more sympathetic than my noble friend Lord Williams, if that is at all possible. It is not possible for my noble friend Lord Williams to be with us today, but in his time he has denounced Howardism. If we ask anybody in existing prisons whether they notice any difference between the policy of this Government and the policy of the last government, they will say that they see no difference at all. Whether one speaks to the staff or to the prisoners, that is the answer; that is, that they see no difference at all. If one believed in the last government's policies over the past three or four years, one will think, "Jolly good show. Keep it up. That is what the public wants".
That seems to be the situation at the moment. There is no difference between this government's policies and the previous government's policies. The one thing that I will give them credit for is that we are told that in the new Bill tagging will produce some reduction in the numbers in prisons. That is something. But, by and
1234
large, when one visits prisons one finds no difference in atmosphere between the period of this government and the fateful last years of the previous government, which is in total contradiction to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and his predecessors.
There have been education cuts. We talk of rehabilitation, yet we cut the education service in prisons. This is a time of unprecedented boom when this country is richer than ever; it is more than twice as rich as it was at the end of the war. Yet for some unknown reason the education service is being cut. The Minister will have a hard task to explain why the education service is being cut. He may say that it is all subject to a comprehensive review. That may be so. But why is education being cut?
One comes to the more fundamental question. How is this attitude to be altered? The Minister and the Home Secretary must come forward and try to persuade the public that Howardism was wrong. One is either on the side of Howardism or one is not. I shall leave that to the Minister.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, it is a great privilege to congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who opened the debate. It would be hard to better the shrewd and reasoned way in which he tackled the problems.
There is simply not enough debate about this hidden corner of our society, the prison system. I cannot recall any Prime Minister of this country ever visiting a prison. Prisons only enter the news when there is a riot, an escape or some story which can feed the myth that our prisons are places of luxury and leisure. Yet it must be right to debate the fact that there are 64,500 men and women in prison in England and Wales today and that that number is rapidly increasing. Why? What are the alternatives and what are the ways in which those thousands spend their time?
Too often the debate is shouted down at the beginning by those who argue that we are debating the wrong subject; that we should be discussing crime and not prisons; that we should be discussing the victim and not the offender. Like my predecessors and successors as Home Secretary, I have been thoroughly in favour of victim support; but I have never understood the logic of the argument that we do some favour to the victim by making a hash of dealing with the offender. Indeed, if we deal with the offender wrongly, the offence is likely to be repeated so that bad sentencing and bad prisons add up to more crime, not less.
On the question of overcrowding, this Government inherited a sharply rising prison population and a substantial prison building programme which I believe will deliver four new prisons this year. Can the Minister say what is the Government's forecast about the match between the two—people being sentenced to prison and prisons becoming available? It cannot be a scientific forecast, but they have estimates and we should like to know what those are for men and also for women, because the pressure on women's prisons is particularly tense.

1235
In relation to regimes, there has been a sharp improvement in the quality of prison regimes since I was Home Secretary. It would be better if there were not so many people in prison. But since those prison sentences have been, and are being, passed it is better that the conditions of serving a sentence should be improved. It is better that there should be no slopping out—my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking had a key hand in that—and it is better that prisoners should not be held in police cells, but in modern prisons such as the prison at Belmarsh near Woolwich, which I visited last week.
However, that improvement in conditions is now at formidable risk. As usual, it is Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons who sums up the subject week by week in vivid and accurate terms. Last week he published a report on his last visit to Dartmoor where he wrote—he has written this prison by prison, month by month in different phrases—
"The Prison Service is, at present, labouring under two conflicting pressures—the inexorable rise in the prison population and the equally inexorable demanded cut in financial resources. That a prison such as Dartmoor should be required to close three trade training courses and have its educational provision cut by half, and that it should not have enough prisoners of the correct categorisation to be able to work on the admirable farm, would seem to be situations defying common sense, not least in the face of an impending population increase which can only add to the 148 at present unemployed".
That is but one report on one prison, but it can be multiplied many times. Can the Minister say what he now foresees as regards regimes? I know that this Government appointed a director of regimes. That is a bureaucratic move. I do not use that as a term of abuse, but it does not actually improve the situation on the ground. What comfort can the Minister give us about the priority being given to the questions of education, work and training? I went to one London prison recently where there is education provision. The question is not the provision, but the fact that the prisoners do not turn up half the time because there are not the staff to escort them—the staff are busy doing other things. In fact, education is residual in that prison and that is a prison where 70 per cent. of the inmates failed in some way through the education system. Quite apart from reality, it is a matter of public safety that as many as possible of those who are imprisoned should come out from prison able to read, write and count so that on release they have some chance of obtaining and holding a job.
Perhaps the Minister could say something in relation to three specific categories of the prison population. First, there are 3,000 women in prison. The increase has been twice as fast as for men—I am not sure why. We in the Prison Reform Trust set up, under Professor Dorothy Wedderburn, a committee of inquiry into women's prison systems. I hope the Home Office can bless that—I know that it does bless it—and that we receive such help as is needed.
Secondly, those on remand number 12,000 out of a total prison population of 64,500. The Government are full, as all governments have been, of excellent intentions about cutting the law's delays and they are trying again to set deadlines, as we all have done in our
1236
time. It is not so easy. In Scotland there is the 110 day rule, which is the time by which cases, except in exceptional circumstances, are to come to court. I cannot remember what arguments were produced before me as to why we could not apply that rule. I am sure they were produced. Momentarily they persuaded me, although I am not sure they would now. I should be grateful if the Minister could produce those arguments for the House so that we can see whether they persuade us as well.
Finally, there are 500 asylum seekers, a category where the policy is confused. It is a difficult subject. As a result, at Campsfield in my former constituency, and in other places, there is a lot of confusion and there are bad ways.
We should study what happens in America, but not follow it. More than 10 million Americans will see the inside of a gaol or prison cell in any one year. America has three times as many prisoners as it did in 1996. It cannot be right to define the success of our criminal justice system by the number of our fellow citizens being put behind bars. There are alternatives. Some work and some do not. The Home Secretary is right to experiment and encourage. I underline the word "encourage". He and his colleagues need to raise their voices somewhat on this issue. So do we all, but their voices are somewhat louder than ours and can reach public opinion and those who pass sentences. They will get into trouble with some newspapers if they take that course but they have a big majority and they should have broad backs to put up with that. The Home Secretary and his colleagues will find that if they follow the road of humanity and common sense sketched by my two predecessors in the debate they will find that they will not lack support when they need it.
3.41 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to spend my time focusing on what I believe to be the main problem faced by any prison system in a democracy. It is necessary to look at the purpose of imprisonment, at the elements of the punishment, and to identify those elements which are not intended. These are sometimes more counterproductive than all the positive measures in place.
Let me start by talking about prison as a punishment. Historically, people were imprisoned while awaiting the carrying out of sentence. In recent years, imprisonment has become the punishment. When the sentence of imprisonment is passed, I presume that the sentencer has these features in mind: the convicted person is to leave home and live in state-provided accommodation; personal clothing, and implicitly identity, is to be removed and replaced by prison uniform; employment and financial security are to be disrupted, usually on a permanent basis; reputation is to be lost; personal relationships are to be suspended; family and parental relationships are to be disrupted; the person is to become subject to the prison rules; a boring life is to be lived among people with whom one would not necessarily wish to be associated; and temporary lifestyle is to be determined by the authorities.

1237
Those features are probably all intended to be the nature of imprisonment. After all, this is the most severe punishment available to the courts on most occasions and it must be unattractive. But then this has already been described as an expensive way of making bad people worse. I find that too gloomy a view, though it is, in part, very true.
Reflecting on my time as the social worker at Inverness Prison, I recall that the local prison at Porterfield did a good line in people who came once or twice and never again. Meanwhile, there were also a number of prisoners who were there for their eighth time. For those who came but once, the experience was a sufficient crisis in their lives to promote desirable change in their lives. In the main, these were people who saw a marked difference in their lives outside from that briefly lived inside. There was an acute sense of loss while inside.
However, when it comes to those "revolving door" prisoners, we find a very different story. For a wide variety of reasons, these folks found little difference in the misery of their lives either side of the prison walls. As marginalised people—that marginalisation is the product of their own behaviour towards others—they have far less to lose than most people. As an example, social work discussions with offenders about the effect of, say, a theft on a victim are always more difficult when the offender has little experience of ownership, and the concept of revulsion at the violation of personal space becomes even more esoteric. But then the effect of fear of crime, which imprisons so many people in their homes, is something many offenders do recognise. Unfortunately, their response is to dole out more of the misery. It is also a feature that they often have experience of being the victim of crime but, again, draw the wrong conclusions and dole out more of it to others.
I should like to finish by concentrating on what I believe to be the unintended products of imprisonment. These are widely varied and only some can be redressed by governments. On liberation, the offender is even more marginalised by most people and is more likely to find friendship among delinquents. The period of unemployment that follows is a real trial of temptation and resolve. The discharge grant lasts only one week but the first benefit payment will be in the third week. Prisoners who are single householders are likely to have lost their homes and possessions because housing benefit during imprisonment has recently been drastically reduced to a few weeks. The resettlement task is being distorted by the demands of community notification. I am sure that there are other effects.
My purpose is to highlight the task of preparing the prisoner for return to the community. There must be a line drawn under the sentence for those who do not offend again. I fully accept that many prisoners have no intention of going straight and that others have few skills other than criminal ones. The task of rebuilding civil life after imprisonment is a big one, and one that needs to start on admission, for most prisoners.
Although it will be seen as unfair to the law-abiding unemployed and homeless, it is expedient to secure accommodation and employment for ex-offenders.
1238
The logic lies in the effect of their behaviour on others if their behaviour is not altered. Reconviction rates for employed ex-offenders with secure homes are, not surprisingly, much lower than for their homeless and/or unemployed equivalents.
While inside, the prisoner needs to begin to believe that life outside will be better if changes are made in lifestyle. This is more likely to be achieved if the prison is sufficiently staffed to assist in this task. I acknowledge that the first priority in prison is to maintain order and discipline. That has to be so. It is inevitable that the first words of advice from the staff to a new prisoner will constitute a coping strategy for life inside. But it is necessary for there to be time for discussion about, and the development of, a coping strategy for the return to wherever. The post-release coping strategy will be adopted more easily if the offender believes that there is, realistically, more chance of success than there was before going inside. The elements of success will include pre-release contact with those who will give support in the community and also training opportunities or at least a daily work routine. The other element is the way in which the prison is run and the facilities that are available for useful self-improvement. For many, prison is such a miserable experience that it produces apathy or, worse, anger against the community.
It is old hat that there are no votes in prison expenditure. I believe that statesmanship demands that an effective Prison Service be maintained. That is clearly not possible while the service is so starved of funds that it can barely fulfil its first task of locking up at the end of a peaceful day.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, this is a subject which has long been of concern for the Churches and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for his speech and for making this debate possible. Indeed, I wish that he had had more time to develop some of the themes that he could only touch on. Your Lordships will know that it is a statutory provision that a Church of England established church chaplain is present in every penal establishment. They, together with their Roman Catholic and Free Church colleagues, are appointed to every prison establishment. Every prison also has a visiting minister from non-Christian faiths.
The chaplain has statutory duties. He has to interview every prisoner on reception; he has to visit daily all prisoners on punishment or in healthcare; and he has to interview before discharge, and of course conduct Divine worship. Chaplains also answer applications from prisoners and exercise a pastoral ministry to the staff.
Most of them also have a key role to play in education within the prison. The Alfa Course in Christian Education is being used in 75 out of 133 prisons. A new programme has been introduced by the chaplaincy at The Verne Prison in Weymouth to reduce recidivism. Chaplaincies at Highpoint, Swaleside and Brixton are planning to introduce that programme into their establishments.

1239
The Churches have been glad to be part of the progress in penal reform over the past decade and yet at the moment Britain locks up a greater proportion of its population than any other country in Europe except Portugal, and the proportion is rapidly rising. It is true that the Government are taking action in many areas which lead young people to commit crime and to end up in prison with custodial sentences. School exclusions, truancy and youth unemployment can all lead to crime. I welcome government action which takes away the pressure to behave badly.
Nevertheless, all that action, we hope, will produce results in the future. What is happening now is massive overcrowding and cuts in expenditure on education and constructive activities. Chaplains in prisons report that young people feel brutalised by a system which is just not working. Young people are often received into prison late in the day and left overnight with the minimum of staffing. There is concern, too, about the increasing numbers of suicides in prison.
In the vast majority of prisons dedicated prison staff are working against great odds to maintain all the hard-won improvements of the past decade. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave a lecture in 1996 to the Prison Reform Trust and entitled it "Restoring Relationships". He maintained that crime is a reflection of damaged relationships, which is not what God intended for us. One-third of all prisoners have been in care without the support of family relationships. Crime also damages relationships between the victim and society and the offender and society. Punishment is needed to repudiate the crime, but, as the Archbishop said, punishment must be subordinate to the aim of restoring relationships.
Thankfully, there has been much progress. Visitor centres have been established in many prisons; prison education has been extended and treatment programmes are now available for all serious sex offenders. All this helps in keeping contact with families, in addressing offending behaviour and in developing unrealised potential. Yet much of this is now at severe risk. Chris Scott, chair of the Prison Governors' Association, has spoken of the effects of overcrowding. Prisoners are moved around to less crowded prisons, far from their families. It is obviously more difficult for them to visit. Visits are getting shorter, visiting rooms are more crowded and prisoners' relationships with their children are becoming more difficult.
Education is another concern of the Churches. The rise in constructive activities from 1990 to 1994 has now gone into reverse. In the past two years there have been cuts in 71 per cent. of prisons and young offender institutions. That is a direct result of cuts introduced by the Home Office two years ago. In some prisons like Wandsworth the number of education hours has halved in two years. Again, that affects the chaplains' work. Sometimes chaplains have to talk to prisoners through locked doors as there are no staff to unlock the doors. Evening classes are cut and more is expected of volunteers.
1240
Your Lordships will know that most establishments have groups of volunteers recruited and supervised by the chaplains. Onley Establishment for Young Offenders has visitors numbering well over 100. But it is unfair of a system to take advantage of those who give their time and abilities freely. They say, "We will be there, of course, but please do not take advantage of us".
Chaplains work alongside the prison staff in seeking to bring a change in attitude in prisoners and to support prisoners and staff in their needs. They know how much relationships with families matter. They know how much education can raise personal esteem. All this is put at risk by the current state of expenditure and overcrowding. I believe that prisons are close to crisis. We should be abdicating our responsibilities if we did not address the situation with real urgency. Through the chaplaincy service the Churches are ready to play their part in that action.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in joining in the well-deserved congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on introducing this debate, I find a pleasure tinged with nostalgia. In my few years as a Minister at the Home Office there were various campaigns to accelerate the speed with which we replied to correspondence. I remember that the first of these was in two or three phases. At the end of each phase one had some satisfaction over the genuine progress made. At the end of each phase I would then receive a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asking "May I please have an answer to my letter written six weeks ago?". So I hope that replies to his questions today may be more fruitful and swiftly answered.
The effort that has been made in the Prison Service should not go without congratulation and comment. The very first time that I spoke from the Dispatch Box opposite as a Home Office Minister was to answer a Question by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as to the future of Her Majesty's Prison Service. As I had been the Minister responsible for only five days. it was something of a task to answer. I discovered that I was inheriting an estate in which not one brick had been put on another for any secure adult accommodation that century. Since then we have had an enormous programme of prison building, started by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, accelerated by Leon Brittan and carried forward since then. That has been based on the needs of humanity as well as security.
One has to ask whether the effort is perhaps not in the wrong direction. One can measure it. The Audit Commission report Misspent Youth identified the cost to society of all measures to combat all crime in this country at £1,000 million a year and, of that, £40 million was attributable to the Prison Service. The proportion of that criminality which fell to young people of 21 or under was two-fifths, and one-quarter of them were only 18 or under, and count as children. Identifying each of the young offenders in that group who was caught cost the police force £1,200 and every successful prosecution of one of those children worked out at an additional

1241
£2,500. Only 6 per cent. of those charged actually finished up with any remedial treatment. If I remember correctly, three of them went to prison.
It is clear that the response of the Prison Service to this tidal wave of criminality, of which we are sometimes unaware, is absolutely necessary, but in my view it is in part avoidable. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government are, in the Crime and Disorder Bill, setting up a coherent, motivated system to respond to youth offending. I am sure that the motivation is correct. I fear that it may become bureaucratic, but I encourage the Government in their effort.
I should like your Lordships to look for a moment at that effort through the eyes of somebody who is either about to become an offender at a young age or is already such an offender. That person, who will already almost certainly be either acutely frustrated with society or in rebelling against it, will see the social worker, the probation officer, the schoolmaster, the policeman and the magistrate as "them"—that is, as part of the system—as yet something else with which he or she has to cope in life. Those people will be seen as something "directed at" the young person. Therefore, I ask Her Majesty's Government in their planning of this laudable effort not to forget the enormous value of the voluntary sector, which is composed entirely not of policemen and schoolmasters but of people's aunts, uncles, friends and brothers. They are not "them"; they are "us" to those young people. That is my first point.
Secondly, those people come cheap. That is an unpleasant way to put it, but it is true. As the right reverend Prelate said, they will be there, so we should not let them be exploited. One way of protecting them from exploitation is to ensure that those people, who have the enormously valuable skill of getting on with youngsters, getting inside their skins, understanding how they think and getting them to empathise and to see the necessity of co-operation in society and the need for rules and hierarchies, should not then have to spend two-thirds of their time trying to get the money to make their organisation work so that they can make their skills available. I declare an interest as chairman of a trust that I set up four years ago, the DIVERT Trust, to help people to do exactly that. My organisation has to spend a great deal of its energy in getting money so that it can give small amounts out into enormously effective small schemes.
What must the content of those schemes be? What do those children lack? We must remember that they all started in the cradle as we did and as our children and grandchildren did. They all started out defenceless and potentially wonderful or wicked. I believe that in the earliest years of their life a great many of them have lost parental love and in the later years of their life they have lacked any form of adult love in substitution. In the language of the social services and the newspapers, "love" is a much traduced word. I suppose that the nearest one can get to expressing it in an official report would be the "caring" service. But I have seen time and again that the fact that an adult actually cared personally and passionately about how a young person got on in life breaks like a revelation on a young person heading
1242
for a disastrous career of wickedness or crime, or both. What such young people have been lacking has been adult care.
Therefore, in this unstructured but heartfelt speech, I ask Her Majesty's Government to look for where they can find that adult care and to give it to those who really are the poor of the earth who have been starved of understanding, adult sympathy or love and who consequently become disruptive pupils, who are consequently put in the corner, dealt with last, put on detention and who then fall further behind and become frustrated by their academic failure. Those people desperately need understanding support before they become criminals—before it costs £3,000 or £4,000 to identify them and untold millions of pounds to lock them all up in prison. Get to them first; get to them cheap with people who love them. That is what the Government should try to facilitate in our society today.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in a recent debate. I learned to my astonishment that out of the total population of 65,000 people in prison, no fewer than 3,500 were serving terms of life imprisonment. They are called "lifers". I thought that as many noble Lords would be speaking with greater ability than I on questions of overcrowding, rehabilitation and the like, I would find out a little about those 3,500 persons.
First, an average of 80 or 90 lifers leave prison each year, but they enter prison at the rate of 300 per year, and that number is bound to increase—quite significantly, I believe—because of the lack of wisdom of this Government in agreeing to implement Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act on the automatic life sentence.
I sought to discover whether such prisoners were in a different category in the sense of how they react to prison. As a generalisation, they have a greater sense of resignation, and a sense of helplessness and of frustration because they have special difficulties of their own to put up with. I list them under six headings.
First, there is delay in the provision of information. The initial assessment of a lifer cannot begin without official information about the current offence, previous convictions, trial judges' comments, psychiatric and post-sentence reports from the Probation Service. That is not gathered together until two years on average after sentence. The initial life sentence plan cannot therefore be completed until information arrives which allows for a baseline risk assessment to be made. The consequence of that delay is that the Prison Service does not begin to work with the lifer until two or three years of the tariff have already passed.
Secondly, there is a lack of structure in the period spent in local prisons. Lifers wait in custody to come to trial perhaps for a period of a year. After sentence, they also wait for a year before a vacancy arises in a main centre. Nothing useful is happening with that time; nor are lifers being helped to come to terms with their offence and its impact on theirs and many other lives. Reference has been made to suicides in prison. For the lifer, the risk of that is four times greater than for other prisoners.

1243
Thirdly, I deal with the effect of the increase in prison population. This affects the lifer in the following ways. He has to compete with the determinate-sentenced prisoners for places in the courses that they need to undergo. Those with determinate sentences take precedence because their sentences are fixed, whereas lifers have open-ended sentences. There are no vacancies in C category prisons which lifers have to pass through before they reach open conditions. The C category prisons are full to bursting point with short and medium-term prisoners, and governors cannot keep free lifer places so that they are available when lifers arrive. Governors are under pressure to achieve full occupancy. The population is therefore backed up to the main centres and, before that, to the "locals". There is no flexibility—no fast-track—to assist the one-off lifer to move through the system.
Fourthly, there is a shortage of resettlement locations. Lifers are released from open conditions. There is only a limited number—about 12—from which lifers can be released, and very few of these are in urban areas. There are not enough places to move out the number who may merit this. Lifers wait for every move that they make. and every wait is dead time and effectively extends their sentence. I am told that only 40 per cent. of lifers achieve their release in accordance with the tariff.
Fifthly, I deal with budget cuts. Governors have discretion as to where to make the savings required to achieve these cuts, but the easy targets are probation staff and psychologists. There have been losses in both specialisms, particularly probation staff. It is these staff who deliver the offending behaviour work treatment without which lifers in particular cannot progress.
Lastly, I deal with lifers and the risk to the public. There is an assumption that lifers must be risky offenders. This applies to discretionary lifers as they are sentenced on the basis of a pattern of offending or a mental disorder. But it does not necessarily apply to those who serve a mandatory life sentence who represent the whole spectrum of risk. At present all lifers are subject to the same system. They start in category B main centres and progress laboriously through category C and on to open conditions and eventual release. They progress by being seen to work on their offending behaviour through attending programmes, counselling sessions and other group work. Whereas this is no doubt entirely appropriate for high risk sexual and violent offenders, it is not so for those lifers whose offending is unlikely to be repeated. I refer to the one-off type of murder case rather than those with a pattern of behaviour.
I believe that there is some light at the end of this rather depressing tunnel, inasmuch as the Chief Inspector of Prisons, from whose department I have obtained this basic information, is in the process of carrying out a review. I hope that the review will be seriously considered by the Government and implemented, even if more resources are required.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, this debate is both important and unique. It is important in the sense that it would be very difficult for it to take place today in the House of Commons. Labour Back Benches would not want to be seen to be critical of the Home Secretary and the Home Office and the Conservative Back Benches would not want to be seen to be weak on crime. In such a debate the victim is common sense.
It is unique that seven noble Lords speaking today at one time or another have had responsibility for these matters in the Home Office: the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, a distinguished Permanent Secretary, who made an admirable speech in opening the debate; three former Home Secretaries; and three Ministers who had responsibility for penal matters in the Home Office. I believe that all of us who have had those responsibilities agree that there is no easy solution to what we are debating.
It was a mistake of the previous government to believe that just one phrase—"prison works"—was necessary. The phrase has a spurious and superficial logic. It is superficial because if a criminal is in prison, clearly he cannot be committing crime outside. It is spurious because it does not take into account the effect of overcrowded prisons on the criminal and the fact that 99.9 per cent. of all criminals will one day be released. Society will then find that prisons do not work. If the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, believes that I have come latterly to this judgment—it is a policy that he is now following—I hope that he will read the speeches of my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell and myself in the House of Commons as members of the previous government which made exactly those points.
When I was Home Secretary the prison population was just over 40,000. Today the figure is 65.000 and may increase to 83,000. We should understand what that means for the prison system. No element of the public sector will be subjected to such strain and tension. The enormous responsibility placed on prison officers, prison governors and the administration of the Home Office is almost unbearable. That seriously damages the regimes of prisons.
As Home Secretary I received the Woolf Report. I believed it to be the best report on prison regimes since the war. It allowed me to bring to an end slopping out but also to increase significantly the fund for education and training. It is deplorable that those funds have been cut in recent years. Anyone who has visited prisons knows that obviously they contain some real villains who should be there because they are dangerous and violent men. However, what strikes one when one visits a prison is the utter inadequacy of the great generality of prisoners. They are failures in life. They are even failures as criminals in as much as they have been arrested and are serving sentences. Usually they are very poorly educated. I believe that one of the main functions of prison is to give prisoners the rudiments of education—reading and writing—and some kind of skill so that when they are eventually released there is a possibility, which can only be a possibility, that they will go straight. There is no doubt that given the present

1245
strains in the Prison Service the time for training and education has been cut. The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to Wandsworth where the time for training has been cut by half. My noble friend Lord Hurd referred to the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Dartmoor where the time for training has been cut by half. I find that utterly unacceptable.
The present Chief Inspector of Prisons is a very forthright figure. He was appointed after Judge Tumim. Judge Tumim was supposed to be very virulent and outspoken. 1 suppose that when someone who had served in the services was appointed Chief Inspector of Prisons the Home Office breathed a sigh of relief. Perhaps the department thought that he would understand its problems. However, his reports make Judge Tumims' appear rather mild. I hope that those reports are read by Ministers in the Home Office.
Particularly worrying is the rise in the number of young offenders who are subject to custodial treatment. That cannot be good for them. It is well known that in three of our leading young offender institutions bullying is endemic and very difficult to deal with. Young offenders subjected to that will come out infinitely worse than when they went in.
What can be done? There are four issues. First, we shall no doubt hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that the prison building programme is expensive. It will take longer to complete than his brief says. It will happen. It will happen through private prisons, not that the Labour Party thanked me for introducing them when 1 did, but I pass that by.
Secondly, there will be an attempt to improve tagging. We tried tagging; it failed technically. I hope that this time it proves more successful; I suspect that at the end of the day its effect will be only marginal. Thirdly, the Government should look into the unacceptable fact that there are 11,000 prisoners on remand awaiting trial. That is because of the law's delays. It is for the Home Office and the CPS to find ways of reducing the number. It is unacceptable today.
Fourthly, one has to accept that there should be greater use of non-custodial sentences. I know that the courts in recent years have been encouraged to increase custodial sentences, largely as a result of government exhortation. I hope that the exhortation will be the other way in the future. An endless amount of research in this country, America, Canada and Europe shows that offenders who receive properly supervised sentences within the community reoffend less than those who have been in prison. I can quote examples, particularly in car crime, where the experiments in London, Manchester and Birmingham of treatment in the community have reduced the level of offending.
I hope that the Home Office will take those matters into account and not just search for populist tabloid headlines. If reporters who write about prisons being luxury hotels were to spend just a month in one of them they would realise that that description is far from the truth. I hope that the debate has focused attention in the House and in the wider community upon the real crisis affecting the prison system. I hope that the Government will realise that they cannot continue in the way they have set at the moment.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen, on his formidably impressive speech. I hope noble Lords will forgive me any repetition, on the grounds that we cannot underline enough the importance of the issue that he has raised.
Prisons are an integral part of society—as much a part as our schools, hospitals and churches—and our prison system is in a state of crisis. In 1910, Winston Churchill as Home Secretary, famously told the House of Commons:
"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country".
The explosion in our prison population is one of the most alarming aspects of society today. As we have heard, it is over 65,000 and has grown by 60 per cent. in the past five years. But this has not been a result of new legislation, or an increase in crime—indeed, recorded crime fell by 8 per cent. between 1993-95—but as a result of a combined change in attitude by the judiciary, the politicians, the public and the media. There is an organic relationship between those groups, each responding to what it perceives to be the expectations of the other.
Judges and magistrates arrive at their decisions by interpreting the law in individual cases and responding to what they perceive to be the demands of the public. Politicians exert an influence on them through their promotion of such policies as "Prison works", or "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime", which reflect what they perceive to be the voting public's expectations. We are all, to some degree, sentencers.
The last element in the sentencing cauldron, as the catalytic link between all three, is the media. Only yesterday the Prime Minister said:
"The mass media alter taste, perceptions and national culture with stunning rapidity".
They remain the most powerful source of news and opinion on crime and punishment, and they, too, have undergone an attitudinal change, particularly towards the judiciary of which they have become much more critical. They offer, however, little real insight into the nature of the penal system, and the tabloids in particular tend to concentrate on the sensational. There is very little prominent counterbalancing information, discussion or argument on offer from the prison service itself or other agencies. There is an urgent need to reach both the hearts and minds of the public and sentencers to dispel ignorance and enlighten debate.
The previous government demonstrated the powerful effect of political influence when promoting custody not merely as an effective penalty but the effective disposal. Between 1992-96 the proportion of indictable offences resulting in custodial sentences went up from 16 per cent. to 23 per cent. in the Crown Courts, and doubled from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in the magistrates' courts. Not only were sentences tougher, they also became longer—with the inevitable result. Now 4 per cent. of the current prison population are

1247
women—and their rate of increase is twice that of men. Nearly 40 per cent. of the population is mentally disordered (70 committed suicide last year; that is, more than one a week) and now 11,505 are children and young prisoners. As we have heard, we have more people in prison than any other country in western Europe apart from Spain and Portugal, and more lifers than in the whole of western Europe put together. What kind of a record is that? Has our population suddenly become significantly more criminal? Are we safer, can we sleep more easy in our beds? Are we, through tough sentencing, making any impact on the causes of crime? I think not. We are seriously out of kilter with our European neighbours and with constructive sentencing.
The argument for tough sentencing is that the public must be protected. Yet less than a quarter of sentenced males are in prison for crimes of violence. Three-quarters of the prison population represents no threat to us personally. Of course we all need protection, particularly from dangerous criminals, but sentencing must be more relevant and the use of custody more appropriate. Used inappropriately, custody actually contributes to further crime. For example, of teenage ex-prisoners 90 per cent. are reconvicted of a crime and of all released prisoners 51 per cent. reoffend within two years. As we have heard, community-based alternatives to custody are overwhelmingly more effective in reducing reoffending as the 1996 Audit Commission's report showed. Not only are they more effective, they are cheaper. In the 1980s there was a concerted drive to divert offenders into those alternatives, but that trend has been tragically reversed and the cost in financial and social terms is immeasurable.
Over my 30 years working in the penal field, I have watched the prison service struggle to improve the quality of the service it discharges to us, the public, while the demands made on it make its task harder and harder. I have also seen the deeply damaging effects prison can have on people inappropriately imprisoned, particularly the young, the mentally and women—all vulnerable, all needing to be elsewhere.
The pressure of rising numbers is drastically reducing, and in some cases destroying, the positive programmes of care which do exist in prison life. The Butler Trust is one such example. I was there only on Monday while 35 people were given awards for distinctive and distinguished work within the prison service, despite it all.
It is simply not possible to contain, control and care for such large numbers in the present accommodation and maintain constructive regimes in all prisons. Everything suffers: education programmes, lack of work, prisoner/officer relationships, facilities for vulnerable prisoners and so on. There is evidence of it everywhere. Even with four new prisons in the pipeline—at a cost of £90 million each, not including running costs—we are simply compounding the problems. We must have fewer people in prison, not more, and it is the duty of all of us, as sentencers, to play our part in bringing that about.
1248
I very much fear that in our treatment of crime and criminals today we are dismally failing Churchill's great test of the civilisation of this country.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating the debate and giving us the chance to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, describing his wide experience of the Prison Service.
Recently, we have heard of problems at Wormwood Scrubs prison. One of the matters I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention is the board of visitors. I served at a young offenders' institution on the board of visitors for many years. Members of boards of visitors are appointed by the Home Secretary to ensure that the well-being of prisoners is adhered to and that all is satisfactory in the establishment which they serve.
When I read that the report from the board of visitors at Wormwood Scrubs had been sent to the Home Secretary, it made me wonder whether it should also have been sent to the Minister responsible for prisons. In fact, would it not be better if all reports and requests from boards of visitors went to the Home Office and the prison department? I believe that boards of visitors, which are independent bodies, are an important safeguard. When they raise problems they should be noted, Ministers informed and action taken.
One of the serious problems which seems to be increasing in many establishments is bullying, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. This should be stamped out, whoever does it—staff or inmates. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the vile practice of bullying. I believe that boards of visitors need a clear line of communication with the Home Office and the prison department, as prisons have become very overcrowded, pressurised places. This puts immense stress on governors at times when problems emerge. Those problems need sorting out before they escalate and become disasters.
I served on the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority when the closure of many large psychiatric hospitals was being planned and care in the community was being discussed. No one disagrees with care in the community if it is backed by plenty of resources and support. Without that backing—I said it then and I say it now—many psychiatric patients who do not take their medication and who do not have support will land up in prison, having caused problems for the community and themselves.
That problem hit me when I visited Brixton prison some time ago and Holloway prison recently. Brixton prison had a ward full of schizophrenia sufferers and Holloway prison had some very disturbed women with mental disorders. It seems that prisons are landed with some very big human problems. Many of the prisoners who are mentally ill need skilled staff to look after them. Do the prisons employ enough trained psychiatric nurses? There is a problem recruiting nurses in National Health Service hospitals. I ask the Minister whether it is even more difficult in prisons.

1249
It is encouraging that in 1995-96 the Standing Health Advisory Committee to the Prison Service chose as one of its major themes the provision of mental healthcare in prisons. May I ask the Minister, who I am sure will do his best to answer, what progress has been made for the through-care and after-care of prisoners who are released with psychiatric problems?
Many people believe that the Health Care Service for Prisoners is a small, isolated service and an unattractive place to work. The work can be fascinating, with great variety. Prisoners retain the right, as set out in the United Nations declaration, to have healthcare equivalent to that available to those outside prisons. But for many prisoners, that right is not met and the chain of responsibility and accountability to ensure that it is met has become more uncertain now that individual prisons are responsible for purchasing healthcare. The position would be clarified if responsibility for healthcare were separated from the custodial function and transferred to Ministers at the Department of Health. The response to the inspectorate's 1996 review overwhelmingly favoured integration of the National Health Service and the Health Care Service for Prisoners. France has recently shown that the integration of prison health services can succeed. Can the Minister say what are the Government's views?
There is a big public health issue, with the increasing prison population. During the past week, we have heard of the increase in cases of tuberculosis and I read in The Times on Monday:
"Interpol expert predicts a flood of drugs. Britain is facing a drug crisis that will see open warfare on the streets between rival drug gangs".
Heroin on the streets has reached an all-time low. It is a very serious world problem. Drugs coming into prisons is only a reflection of what is happening in society at large. It is terrible when one hears that a prisoner has become a drug addict in prison, having been clean before sentence.
Last night, I attended the launch of one of the drug agencies undertaking drug prevention work and rehabilitation within prisons and the community. "Addaction", which stands for addiction and action, has gathered together many experts. Illegal drug use is a huge problem and I congratulate the Government on appointing a drugs co-ordinator and a deputy. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give your Lordships an update on how prisons are coping with the problems of HIV prevention, drug rehabilitation and through-care covering the whole country.
One of my greatest concerns is the cut in the provision of education and rehabilitation in prisons. It involves teachers, psychologists, trades instructors and probation officers. To leave prisoners locked in cells for hours on end is asking for trouble. Boredom must make many of them desperate. I am sure that the encouragement of prison industries and useful work, with freedom from red tape so that prisons can give prisoners hope and skills, would help to counter the hopelessness and the degrading practice of drug taking.
Skills and useful work and some money earned within prison, so that prisoners have something to go out with to set them up for a useful life, must enhance
1250
self-esteem. I remember visiting a prison shop in Italy and being very impressed by the high quality of the goods for sale. Governors should have the freedom to organise such facilities with their local communities. I hope the Minister agrees that unless one prepares prisoners for a life outside and gets them into a routine for work many will just give up and find themselves back inside.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on introducing the debate. He is not only one of the most outstanding civil servants of the past seven decades, but also a legendary former Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. As such, he is pre-eminently qualified to call attention to the problems facing the Prison Service.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, the explosion of women prisoners from 1,353 at the end of 1992 to 3,068 on 13th March—the highest level since 1905—is especially worrying. Such numbers make it imperative to examine and improve the lot of women prisoners.
Fortunately, that is the view of Sir David Ramsbotham, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, who last May issued a key report entitled Women in Prison: A Thematic Review. His first recommendation, which he stressed again and again, was the appointment of a director of women's prisons to be responsible for the management of the female estate.
On 21st January, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn announced the appointment of Linda Jones as assistant director of regimes with specific responsibility for women prisoners. A myriad of problems greet her. In his report, the chief inspector listed 160 separate recommendations to reform women's prisons. I quote the fourth recommendation:
"A thorough needs analysis of the female prisoner population should be conducted so that relevant national policies can be formulated towards health, education, food, employment. physical education. contact with families, security, tackling offending behaviour, bullying, alcohol, childcare, counselling and resettlement",
and there are 159 more recommendations.
Last Friday, I visited Holloway and I was struck by the number of foreign women prisoners. The first two whom I met in the library were Nigerian and Russian. Incidentally, the latter asked me to thank British taxpayers for supporting so many women in prison. The first prisoner whom I met in the kitchen, preparing fish for lunch, was Puerto Rican.
In his report, Sir David emphasises the substantial percentage of foreign nationals in prison. He recommends that on reception, a list of suitable translators should be available who should be trained to explain the rules and procedures to women who cannot understand English. Furthermore, all prisons receiving women from court should keep an up-to-date supply of materials on legal and bail issues, translated into languages needed by the prison population. As many of the foreign nationals are in prison for drug importation

1251
and are not themselves users and rarely present control problems, the chief inspector recommends that foreign nationals should not be excluded from open prisons.
While I was talking to the principal officer of the medical unit, there was a sudden alarm and a pounding of prison officers' feet down the corridor. A woman in the detoxification unit had tried to hang herself. Fortunately her life was saved. Statistics show that there were three female self-inflicted deaths last year. The chief inspector reported that over 40 per cent. of the women interviewed had intentionally harmed themselves and/or attempted suicide. He also pointed to research which showed that one in five women reported attempts at self-harm in prison, while 44 per cent. reported thoughts of suicide while in prison.
Sir David recommends that staff should listen to women who harm themselves, help them to understand their motives and find ways to cope. Staff should be trained to work with women who harm themselves and professional support should be provided for the staff. As to suicide, managers in women's prisons should ensure the proper use of the suicide prevention system.
In the report, mention is made of the 33-bed detoxification unit and the 33 bed short-term rehabilitation unit at Holloway. The chief inspector estimates that the £500,000 devoted to those beds represents 80 per cent. of the total figure allocated centrally for drug intervention for women prisoners in England and Wales. He recommends that a consistent detoxification strategy should be implemented across the 15 prisons holding women.
Of course, I should like to hear from the Minster about developments in regard to all the recommendations that I have touched upon arising from my visit to Holloway. I should like to ask my noble friend about two further matters. Between April 1990 and March 1995, 269 babies were born in prison. At paragraph 12.116, the chief inspector said that, in view of the vulnerability of women in prison, the Prison Service should advance the date to achieve the "changing childbirth" recommendations from 2001 to December 1997. Has that been done?
At paragraph 12.111, Sir David recommended that full access to screening for breast and cervical cancer should be available by July this year. Will that target date be met?
The new assistant director for women prisoners has a mighty task. At the same time, she has a remarkable opportunity for she can better the lives of many thousands of women. I wish her all the luck in the world.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I wish to say a few special words of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for bringing forward this debate today. He has long been a most distinguished and wise adviser on those matters, and I always felt particularly lucky, on becoming Home Secretary at rather unexpectedly short notice way back in 1972, that it was the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who
1252
was still the Permanent Secretary. I have always felt a great deal of gratitude as well as friendship towards him as a result of that experience.
The last time that the noble Lord initiated a debate on prisons in this House was just over four years ago, in February 1994. The purpose of his debate then was to draw attention to the problem of overcrowding in our prisons in England and Wales. I supported him strongly in that debate and I wish to do so again today.
In that debate four years ago, we warned most strongly against the dangers which can be caused by overcrowding in prisons. We were alarmed by the likely effect in that direction caused by the new penal policies which were being introduced by the then government. Whatever may be the merits or otherwise, in the long run, of those policies, experience over the past four years has shown that those warnings were only too well justified so that we now have a prison population which has increased by—is it? —60 per cent. in a very few years.
While the Prison Service today is far from being in a state of collapse—and we must be careful when we talk about our problems not to exaggerate the problems and failures or to forget the successes that the Prison Service is having—we must not ignore the fact that recent reports have shown that the state of affairs in at least some of our main prisons is a cause for grave anxiety—and "grave anxiety" are not exaggerated words.
I believe strongly that it is serious overcrowding, in both its direct and indirect effects, which is the biggest and most dangerous problem facing the Prison Service today. That must be tackled, and tackling it must take priority over other considerations if we are to serve the public, as we need to, in reducing crime in this country over the next few years and decades.
Penal policy must deal with punishment and criminals who commit serious offences must expect to go to prison. But we are in danger of forgetting—or at least the public and certainly the media are—that the ultimate objective of penal policy is to reduce crime and not just to punish current criminals. The prison regime must support and help us in that process and not do the reverse. However, if the prison regime goes wrong, we must realise that it can be,
"an expensive way of making bad people worse".
In using that phrase, I am not creating it myself. I am quoting from a White Paper published in 1990 by my noble friend Lord Waddington who was Home Secretary at the time. He does not perhaps, in some quarters, carry the same taint of being soft on crime that I may have done in the past, however unjustified I may think that to have been.
That is the danger we face at the moment. Over the past few years there has been a sharp increase in the number of people going to prison. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, remarked,
"People come out of prison".
So, in the next few years, we face the prospect of an equivalent increase in the rate of people coming out of prison. If they come out of overcrowded prisons where they have been the victims of a lack of active training

1253
and preparation for release, we shall find that they will very quickly return to crime and that we have in fact turned many bad criminals into, perhaps, worse criminals; and certainly not into less bad criminals.
Therefore, action must be taken. But what must it be? I believe that we must restore urgently the cuts recently made to the Prison Service. For example, in relation to the employment of probation officers in prison; and in the educational service. Not to do so would be sheer madness—like not looking beyond the end of our noses and would just be a matter of storing up criminal trouble for the public in the future. It is not weakness and softness; it needs strength and firmness to do so.
After that, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Baker, with whom I strongly agree, we should speed up the process of justice in order to reduce the number of remand prisoners. There is a way in which we could alleviate the pressure of the numbers in prisons without in any way weakening the penalties for bad criminals. Then, as a number of speakers have said, I believe that we should make a more determined attempt to increase the use of non-custodial sentences. Here we have a big educational problem with the media and the public. Non-custodial treatment of the right kind is not a weak, soft option. There are plenty of ways of showing that if only we set about doing so in an organised way.
Finally, I should like to suggest that we ought to consider radical change in the form and content of custodial sentences. The size of the prison population depends not only on the number of people sent to prison but also on the length of time they are kept there. I am not recommending a reduction in the length of sentences, but I am recommending a change in the way in which we make use of the period of sentence. It seems to me that the greatest danger to the public comes when former prisoners are suddenly released from prison one morning, without having had proper training and preparation for a return to freedom and for life in the community. I believe that every prisoner released from prison should be subject, as part of his sentence, to a period of supervision and training, and that he should also be subject to recall to prison if he breaks the conditions of his release.
Therefore, I should like to see a reduction in the proportion of the time of a sentence spent in custody; but I should also like to see every sentence concluding with a substantial and significant period on release, under supervision and under licence, with proper training, together with the power to return the prisoner to prison if he breaches the terms of his release. If we really followed that course, I believe that we might go a considerable way towards reducing the fear of the public of softness and reducing the danger to the public while, at the same time, limiting the number of people in prison.
4.54 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to be able to speak in this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale. As a former prison commissioner and with a working life of great
1254
distinction in the public service, chiefly in the Home Office, no one can speak with more authority on this most intractable of society's problems. Moreover, we have the participation of what I can only describe as an all-star cast. Indeed, looking at the speakers' list makes me feel that I am the only person speaking this afternoon who has not actually worked in the Home Office, but I can perhaps claim ancestral connections. Such a star-studded list of speakers pays tribute to this record and also underlines the importance of the subject.
Perhaps I may briefly reminisce. It was during a debate on alternatives to custody some years ago, also led by my noble friend Lord Allen, that I made my maiden speech. On that occasion, speaking as the then deputy chairman of a large and busy Bench in the South, I recall pointing out that,
"there are many in prison who ought not to be there".
That was perhaps not the most original of thoughts, but things that are true are worth repeating.
Although there have been certain peripheral but nonetheless welcome changes for the better in the meantime—for example, the end of slopping out and the greater use of community sentences as an alternative to prison—the main thrust of what was said then remains depressingly similar. It is a huge subject that we are discussing this afternoon. Accordingly, I propose to refer to just one part of the problem: people who are in prison but who do not need to be there—that is, if you take as your principal objective in sending people to prison the need to protect the community.
First, we have a whole range of young people, boys and girls—some 3,000—between the ages of 15 and 17 who are often remanded into senior prisons because of acute shortage of secure local accommodation. The girls are invariably mixed with their seniors because of the absence, unlike the boys, of separate facilities for them. That is an issue that I know my noble friend Lady Masham is much concerned about and one which has been debated at length during the proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Bill, which is now awaiting its Third Reading in this House. Then we have those prisoners whose mental condition makes it quite unsuitable for them to be committed to what I might describe, for want of a better phrase, as a general prison.
Perhaps I may briefly quote one example. Last week, a 69 year-old former miner, Thomas Hughes, hanged himself in Cardiff prison. He had been in custody since October but the appropriate hospital would not admit him due to his infirmity and age. Can we really believe that? He had also been passed as being fit to return to prison. I should point that he had paraphrenia, senile dementia and Parkinson's disease. What, in the name of the sanity that he so desperately sought, was he doing in a prison cell?
A recent report states that research indicates that 19 per cent. of sentenced prisoners and 25 per cent. of remand prisoners have problems associated with mental illness. If you add into these statistics those suffering from drug dependence and abuse, the figures rise to 39 per cent. and 63 per cent. respectively. In fairness, it must also be said that transfers from the Prison Service of mentally disturbed prisoners to hospitals rose from

1255
94 to 746 in the 13 years from 1983, but there are still far too many in general prisons. What is needed, and needed urgently, is an increase in the secure mental hospital estate. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm today recent media reports of a thorough overall of the arrangements for secure mental accommodation and plans for the building of new units. It will also be necessary to increase provision for community care in this area by local authorities. May we please have some assurances on this today?
I turn now to those in prison because, as offenders, they have, as it were, come to the end of the sentencing road. All the other options have been tried and found wanting. For example, take those who have been found guilty of wilfully refusing to pay a fine. This is always the example which is used to illustrate the unsuitability of some sentencing decisions. In fact, there were only 159 men and seven women so imprisoned on 31st January last. So eliminating this undesirable practice would hardly lead to a dramatic drop in prison numbers. But that, of course, is no reason to accept the situation and not try to replace it with something better. The small total is almost certainly due to the fact that most fine defaulters, who have hitherto throughout the proceedings claimed extreme penury, miraculously find the necessary when gaol looms. It is difficult to think of any alternative sanction which would carry quite the same message and part the offender from his cash so effectively.
Similarly, there is the repeat driving offender. In the past few days the press has carried the story of a man convicted some 15 times for driving while disqualified. How do you stop that? A community sentence, however desirable—I have to say that I am one of its warmest advocates and have been for years—will not prevent such a person getting into a car once again at some future date with possibly disastrous consequences. Despite these reservations I must repeat that there are still far too many in prison who need not be there if—as I repeat—one accepts the premise that only those who pose some kind of threat to society should be so sentenced. Such people, once inside, should enjoy a strict but fair regime in which the rehabilitative objective, by way of education, trade training and character formation should be no less important than the need for retribution and the public's protection.
Prison policy is far too important to be a political football dribbled between parties. As a result of recent policy changes over the past few years—mostly dictated by a political agenda—we have seen the prison population increase dramatically until, as we have been told repeatedly this afternoon, it now stands at the staggering figure of 65,000 and continues to rise inexorably. We all know what that means: overcrowding—when will there be three to a cell again?—more time locked up, less time for education and skills training, more juggling to find prisons that have those elusive spare places, probably many miles away from a prisoner's home territory and therefore from his family and the necessary probation support.
1256
How do we break this pernicious cycle? We could, of course, make greater use of community sentencing. Every effort must be made to find suitable and constructive alternatives to custody. I add my voice to that of my noble friend and refer to something that has been mentioned already; namely, the education of the public about the facts of prison life. For too long now the public have been prepared to pontificate about the need for a tough penal policy, egged on—it has to be said—by certain sections of the press, without the knowledge and appreciation of many of the points at issue. In this context it is an eye-opener to study the reactions of those who visit a prison for the first time and the impact it has on them, sometimes for months afterwards. Therefore, the issue is one of education too.
Until we as a nation confront the issues inextricably linked to sending people to prison, so long as we bandy about phrases such as "prison works" and turn our backs on the reality, so shall we have a rocketing prison population and an all-too-ready tolerance of conditions within prisons which should not be acceptable in a civilised society as we approach the millennium.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I echo the tributes which have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He was the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office when I first arrived as a junior Minister more than 25 years ago. He was my mentor then, and has remained a wise friend and guide for many years afterwards.
Short speeches are the order of the day. I shall therefore compress my remarks into developing a single proposition. It is that the more frequent resort to imprisonment is closely linked to public opinion or, more accurately, perceptions of public opinion by those who have a hand in the making of policy and in sentencing in the courts. Recent legislation culminating in the Crime (Sentences) Act of 1997 has become increasingly punitive in orientation. The emphasis has been on custody rather than on non-custodial sentences which often have a better track record in reducing re-offending.
New offences have been created criminalising conduct not previously penalised by law. Maximum determinate sentences of imprisonment have moved steadily upwards. More discretionary life sentences have been passed. Then, only last year, in an historic wrong turning, mandatory minimum sentences were introduced for the first time in our law—other than the penalty for murder—for three categories of offender. Two of those provisions are now in effect: the mandatory life sentence on second conviction for one of a list of eight offences of violence—some more serious than others, as we debated recently in this Chamber in Committee on the Crime and Disorder Bill—and mandatory minimum sentences of seven years' duration for a third conviction for a Class A drug trafficking offence. In themselves those mandatory sentences have not been responsible for the surge in the prison population. Many offenders would have received lengthy custodial sentences in any

1257
event, and the impact of the new sentences will not be felt for some years ahead. However, they are symptomatic of the penal climate.
It is this climate of opinion to which sentencers in the courts throughout the country are subject. Like politicians, judges and magistrates are conscious of what is expected of them. The assumption is that the public want more punitive sentencing as a demonstration of toughness. So more offenders are sent to prison rather than receiving community sanctions. That perception does not always correspond with reality. It is illustrated by one of the many interesting and important findings in the most recent British Crime Survey of 1996, which found that only 20 per cent. of the public—when questioned closely—wanted tougher sentences. What would really submerge the already dangerously overloaded prison system would be the implementation of the third category of mandatory provision in the 1997 Act: namely, a minimum of three years' imprisonment for repeat burglars.
There has been an increase approaching 5,000 in the prison population over the past year. We should compare that figure with the estimates published in the financial memorandum which accompanied the Crime (Sentences) Bill of 1997. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, spoke of the importance of making forecasts. The forecast at that time of the financial effects was an increase of 11,000 in the prison population some 12 years after the implementation of the three categories of new mandatory minimum sentences. Almost half of that total has been achieved in the past 12 months. In retrospect, at any rate—and I was not alone in thinking so at the time—it was absurdly optimistic (indeed almost a deception) to have published such an estimate as a prelude to what became the Crime (Sentences) Act of 1997.
A change of public attitude is necessary if the disastrous mismatch between the demands made on the Prison Service, about which we have heard so much today, and the resources available to it, is to be corrected. A good place to start—I say this directly to the Minister on the Front Bench opposite—would be to repeal the unimplemented provision of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, a great many points have been made already and it is difficult not to repeat them. I propose to confine my remarks to two types of diversion. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke most movingly of one diversion: guiding young people away from activities which will get them into prison and instead into worthwhile local activities. That was an initiative of Lord Ennals when he was Minister of Health. He gave enough funds from government for an institution to be set up which acted with great competence. Unfortunately, the generosity of Lord Ennals with government money was not followed by his successors. However, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, took up the work and has been doing it magnificently ever since by means of private fund-raising. It would be a worthwhile expenditure of public money if the
1258
Government were to do again what Lord Ennals did, and to help the noble Lord in his valiant fight to keep this funding going.
We have heard that the prison population has risen to 64,500. The last figure that I had was 63,000, but that was two years ago. It gave a statistical figure of great interest: 120 prisoners for every 100,000 people in this country. I think that we must regard that as a shocking figure. It should shock us into action rather than words. That statistic indicates that we are at the bottom of the league in Europe except for Portugal.
I realise that the primary attack on those appalling numbers should concentrate on the young. For goodness sake, let us start with the young. I have heard the view stated in this House that prisoners are failures. If we can stop this ghastly procession of failures going through our prisons and coming out worse, if anything, than when they went in we should do a great service to the nation. We should also do a great service to the younger generation which is on its way to prison—alas!—unless brilliant ideas are put to work among young people in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Elton. graphically described to us. In brief, those are efforts to divert mostly vulnerable young people from crime by helping them to take up other activities in the community of more value both to themselves and to the community. That is one diversion I wish to bring to the attention of the House.
The second diversion concerns mentally disordered offenders who so far have somehow not received much attention in this House. Until now I have, perhaps innocently, believed that in law only people in their right mind at the time of the offence may be sent to prison. Why are so many mentally disordered offenders in prison? A report entitled An unsuitable place for treatment was published in February this year. It cites research studies which indicate that 19 per cent. of sentenced prisoners and 25 per cent. of remand prisoners have problems of mental disturbance. I believe that those figures are very similar to those given recently by my noble friend Lord Tenby. The figures are considerably higher if problems of substance dependency or abuse are included. That leaves, roughly speaking, a margin of between 19 per cent. and 39 per cent. of those in prison who are mentally unstable, mentally disturbed.
I ask a very simple question of the Government. Why should not this considerable section of the prison community be sent to proper places for treatment? In other words, they should be sent to secure hospitals in the first place. In recent years the Prison Service has made some progress in arranging for mentally disordered people to be sent from hospitals to proper places for treatment. In 1983, 94 such transfers were made. The number has risen substantially to 746 for 1996. So why, I ask, should these people have been sent to prison in the first place? What a relief for hard-worked prison staff it would be if those considerable numbers of prison inmates were diverted earlier to secure hospitals where their disordered symptoms, their mental problems, could be addressed professionally by the health services and. one would hope, by the social services.

1259
Finally, in connection with mental disorder, I believe that the case is now made for the Prison Service to be served by the National Health Service instead of the prison mental service. I believe that the ironing out of the sentencing of mentally disturbed prisoners should be addressed very soon.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am the third successive speaker in this debate from this side of the House who had the pleasure to serve as a Minister in the Home Office when the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was Permanent Secretary. Like my noble friend Lord Windlesham, I benefited enormously from listening to his wise advice at that time, just as I believe we have all benefited today from his great experience in the House.
Much of what one would wish to say in a debate of this kind has already been said. But surely it is clear beyond doubt that we face a crisis in prison numbers today: a figure of 65,000 in prison, compared to 40,000 some five years ago. A prison population that is rising at the rate of 6,000 a year must cause concern. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, reminded us that the projections are for a figure of 83,000 or even 92,000. It is an alarming situation. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has done, to tell the House their proposals for tackling this situation.
There is nothing new in this. The noble Lord, Lord Allen. will remember that, in 1970, he presented a paper to the then incoming Conservative Government in which we were told that the prison population had reached the alarming figure of 40,000 and that, if nothing was done about it, it would get bigger and bigger over future years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will remember, we attempted to do something about it. We implemented a prison building programme to attempt to meet the overcrowding that existed. But in the Criminal Justice Act we placed great emphasis on non-custodial penalties. We introduced the principle of community service. I believe it to be essential that the Government again today place greater emphasis on non-custodial sentences.
Sixty-thousand people in prison means appalling prison overcrowding, and that inevitably affects the regime that can occur in prison. It must be remembered that one of the aims of imprisonment is to attempt to rehabilitate the offender, but it is very difficult to achieve that end if a person is locked up for most of the 24 hours of every day.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who is to speak later, will remember that, as members of the same committee, we took as our main theme that one of the purposes of prison must be to prepare people for release. If, after leaving prison, people commit further offences, then imprisonment has failed—and very expensively. I therefore hope that we shall hear from the Minister today that thought and emphasis is being given to an examination of possible alternatives to non-custodial sentences.
1260
My next point has been made by earlier speakers. What is the reason for the vast increase in the prison population? It is not that more people are being convicted and sentenced. It is the fact that a higher proportion of those who are being convicted are being sent to prison, and for longer periods. Anyone who has anything to do with the system knows that that is so. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, the irony is that, at the same time, the public are invited to regard the judges as being in some way soft in the sentences that they pass. It is vital that the Government should attempt to give a lead in clearing up the misunderstandings that exist in relation to the penal system, sentencing policy and the length of sentences passed by the court, and that they encourage shorter rather than longer prison sentences.
That leads me to support the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Windlesham in relation to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. In what is almost their first measure, this Government will increase the prison population by implementing the mandatory proposals in two of the three ways that that Bill provides. Should they be foolish enough to introduce the third, then the prison population will increase even further.
However, I welcome the fact that they have decided not to proceed with changing the system of early release. The whole purpose was that people should spend a recognised proportion of their sentence in prison, and should then be released, under supervision, for the remainder of that sentence. It is a provision that works.
Finally, like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I also attended the meeting yesterday evening. It is a disturbing thought that 70 per cent. of crime committed in this country is said to be in some way drug related. The offences are either directly to do with drugs, or they are to do with obtaining money for the purpose of feeding an addiction to drugs. If the Government could succeed in their fight against drugs, if they could put more emphasis on that fight, and particularly against drug abuse by the young, they would do more to reduce crime, and therefore reduce the prison population, than would any other measure that might be introduced at present.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this very important debate, which has attracted such distinguished speakers. I cannot hope to match their distinction and experience. My only locus is that, as a councillor in the London Borough of Islington, I feel a certain representational responsibility for the prison at Holloway, although those there have no vote.
The governor of Holloway believes that there are women in Holloway who should not be there. On a programme last night, he responded to the example of a woman who had evaded a £14 taxi fare. She could not afford the £400 bail, and was therefore remanded in Holloway—at a cost of £1,600 for four weeks' remand. That does not seem a good bargain.
There are simply too many women in prison. As has been remarked, the figure is over 3,000, and is the highest this century. In the period of just over five years

1261
since December 1992, the figure has more than doubled. Two-thirds of women prisoners are mothers, with an average of three children each. Only a quarter, when they are imprisoned, have their children looked after by the child's father or by their partner; 56 per cent. have them cared for by family and friends; and 10 per cent. of the children go into local authority care or foster care, or are adopted. That obviously places a huge strain on the mothers, and especially on the children, storing up who knows what social problems for the future. Since there are only 14 female prisons, there is often a long distance between the prisoner and the children. Do the Government accept that, if a woman prisoner poses no risk to the public, she should be permitted extra temporary release and home leave to visit children?
The conditions for women prisoners give rise to concern. Holloway and Risley, a mixed prison, were included in the "black list" of nine worst prisons identified last September by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. There was said to be very serious intimidation and violence at Holloway. One of the problems was that the security crack-down following the Parkhurst and Whitemoor escapes apparently affected women, who rarely escape in comparison with men. There is believed to have been a security "overkill" that has affected women. Issues such as chaining, handcuffing and strip-searching have given rise to concern. Will the Minister give an assurance that the policy is that no women prisoners should now be chained; and, if so, is that policy made clear to prison governors?
The secretary general of the Prison Governors' Association has said.
"It's quite clear that a number of women in prison arc there as a direct result of poverty and abuse".
It might be said that they are not merely failures, but victims. A 1991 study found that 56 per cent. of women in prison have mental health problems; half have been physically, sexually or emotionally abused in childhood. Thirty-eight per cent. have been in local authority care, compared with 2 per cent. of the general population. We are mainly imprisoning damaged women, not evil women.
As has been remarked, there is a severe shortage of secure places for women in special hospitals, so prison remains the last resort. Forty per cent. of women inflict self harm which is called "cutting up", or attempt suicide due to their history of abuse, family relationship problems, depression and stress. Many have drug and alcohol problems. There need to be more addiction programmes to address the problems, but prisons are overwhelmed by overcrowding difficulties.
I welcome the study of the Howard League, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of teenage girls in prison. I welcome the forthcoming study by the Prison Reform Trust referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd.
The governor of Holloway also believes that women are judged more harshly than men in the criminal justice system. The statistics on it are rather complicated and I shall not attempt to go into them. Seventy-one per cent. of women in prison have never been to prison before and half have no previous convictions. Only 20 per cent.
1262
of those were charged or convicted of violent offences. Thirty-eight per cent. of women prosecuted are charged with not having TV licences. According to the Prison Reform Trust:
"Every week around five or six women come into Holloway for non-payment of the TV licence and one in 20 women in Holloway is a fine defaulter".
My conclusions are threefold. First, as others have said, the Government need to lead and not to follow public opinion in creating a climate which will encourage the use of alternative sentences to prison. That is particularly the case for women. I wish to pay tribute to the recent record of the Prison Service and of prison staff. There is much enlightened thinking, particularly on conditions for women prisoners. I have quoted Mike Sheldrick, the governor of Holloway. There are many humane people in the Prison Service and the Government need to encourage them by taking a lead in setting a climate of opinion in the public, the media and the judiciary. They should not just stand hack and let it happen.
My second conclusion is that we need more research into why women enter the criminal justice system, why 71 per cent. who are sent to prison have never been in prison before. We need research into the problems of fine defaulting and whether, where the original offence is non-imprisonable, the sanction of imprisonment should not be imposed for fine arrears. I should particularly like a response from the Minister on that. Issues surrounding the separation of mothers from children need to be further researched, as well as the provision of mental health treatment and drug and alcohol treatment services, together with the most effective regimes to reduce re-offending. Finally research needs to be carried out on re-settlement problems. One noble Lord mentioned the issue of housing benefit which we shall discuss under the Social Security Bill next week. If women are to be resettled after prison, the problem of backdating restrictions on housing benefit will become a live issue.
In conclusion, we need a review of the conditions for women in prisons. Like the noble Lord, Lord Acton, I welcome the appointment of Linda Jones as assistant director for women. I hope she will be able to conduct a review. I understand that one of the problems is that the equality of treatment for women prisoners does not always work to their advantage.
I finish on a quote which I understand is a joke among women at Risley: "Equal treatment means that if the men want pie and chips and the women want salad and lighter food, we get pie and chips". Equal treatment does not always mean fairness for women.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing the debate. I am afraid that I know nothing about prisons. I speak purely as a layman, as I see things happening.
In 1939 the prison population was 11,000 out of a total population of 47 million; that is 0.2 per cent. As we have heard, it is now up to 65,000 out of a

1263
population of 583/4 million, which is 1.2 per cent. There are six times as many people in prison, yet the population has only increased 0.25 times. Are we getting naughtier or are we simply putting more people in prison as discipline and respect for elders and property disappear in this modern society of ours?
Alternatively, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, can we reduce the whole problem of having too many in prison by simply taking out of the prison population per se groups of people who should not even be there? By that I specifically refer to the young, of whom we have a population of 3,000; remand prisoners numbering 12,364; and the mentally ill, totalling 20,000, 2,586 of whom should be in hospital. The remaining 17,500 are languishing somewhere in the prison system. That is a total of nearly 50 per cent. of the entire population of prisons.
As my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said, the result of the overcrowding—which is the crux of the problem—is cells with three or four in them which were designed for one; the sane mix with the insane; the remand prisoner mixes with the old lag; the young and impressionable mix with the old and incurable. The consequence is more potential youth crime. More and more prisons are being built, one three miles from my home. Unfortunately, too few regard prison as a chastising punishment never to be repeated. Too many regard prison not as punishment but as a safe haven which provides free food, a free roof over their heads and no financial problems. Unfortunately, again, very few—but too many—regard prison as a livelihood. I shall say more on that in a moment.
No one knows how long people will be in prison as we still work on an early release system for good behaviour. Good behaviour should be de rigueur in prisons. There should be add-ons for bad behaviour. The prisoner is in prison to be prepared for a normal life outside in the community where he is expected to behave in a normal fashion. So sentencing by our judiciary should mean what it says. Ten years should be 10 years, 20 years should be 20 years, and life should he life.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, said in evidence to a Home Affairs Select Committee on 11th March this year:
"British prisons are controlled by drug barons, packed with the mentally ill and in chaos".
He told MPs that as many as 10 drug dealers per prison were operating with immunity and using enforcers to collect their debts.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt the noble Lord. He said that he knew nothing about prisons and he made that evident all too quickly. Is he really saying that the 3,500 people serving life sentences should be there for life?
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, under the system I propose, yes. Under the current system with the judges life may not be that. I am saying that if a judge considers
1264
someone so dangerous that they should be in prison for life, that is what they should be there for. If the judge thinks that they should be there for only 20 years, that is fine. It would be his decision, not mine, nor that of any other members of the general public. After all, it is the judge who is present at the trial and who hears all the evidence.
Sir David Ramsbotham went on to say that 30 to 40 per cent. of young offenders need not be in prison at all. An estimated 20,000 inmates—almost a third of the prison population—suffered from some form of mental illness. He also said that foreign nationals were a "hideous drain" on the service and should be sent back to serve sentences in their own countries.
If we got rid of all those groups which he talked about, we would presumably lose many of the prison population and make it easier for everyone to govern prisons. Half the prisoners who commit suicide have had previous psychiatric illnesses. Gaoling the mentally ill—and remember that one in five schizophrenics is in gaol and one in 10 of us has a chance of being a schizophrenic during our lifetime—nearly always worsens their condition. It is inhumane to lock them up with the sane—it is inhumane for them, inhumane for the sane inmates and inhumane for those who look after them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said, in 1997, 70 inmates with mental problems killed themselves in prison. In 1994 a Mr. Edwards was killed in Chelmsford gaol by a mentally ill cell-mate on a three-day remand for psychiatric assessment. Sixty-three per cent. of remand prisoners, according to a Home Office-funded survey published in 1996 in the British Medical Journal, had a psychiatric disorder and 50 per cent. of those needed immediate treatment.
With figures of that magnitude it is clear that we are building prisons to house the mentally ill when what is needed are new secure psychiatric facilities. It has not been progress to close asylums and simply open prisons. Our prisons are for the detention of criminals; they are not hospitals. Three years ago the Government assured us that the number of secure beds was being doubled by the National Health Service. But nothing has happened. Prisons are being built at an astonishing rate, but nothing is being done to help the mentally ill in their tragic plight. They are often locked up for 19 hours a day because no one is available to give them the help that they need. If they need to be assessed, very often they are there for even longer. In Holloway, the average remand time for patients referred to one consultant is 28 days. That increases to 63 days when two consultants are involved.
One of the problems is that prisoners cannot be treated against their will in the prison system, except for urgent treatment given under common law. That crucial difference means that prisoners cannot be treated even when they have been found guilty of an offence, even when their diagnosis is not in doubt and even as they await transfer to hospital. When the doctors finally agree to give them beds, it is done under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. That means that they are sent back to prison for a further 28 days, which is the time

1265
the Act permits for the bed to become available. Yet had that been done in the community, under civil law they would have been admitted within 24 hours.
Home Office Circular 66/90 says that mentally disordered people should never be remanded to prison simply to receive medical treatment or assessment. Circular 12/95 asked for chief police officers to develop arrangements for examination by psychiatrists in police custody at selected police stations. And yet the courts, the police and the prosecution authorities continue to flood prisons with mentally ill people.
We must separate out the mainstream prisoner from the remand prisoner and the mentally ill prisoner. Then one hopes we can allow prison officers, psychiatrists and everyone else involved in the rehabilitation of prisoners a chance to provide for the future of those people when they return to the community in order that they can integrate properly and, through the auspices of bodies like Apex, find employment, having duly served the punishment that society gave them.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, in the early 1950s the noble Lord to whom we owe this debate was deputy chairman of the Prison Commissioners. In the same decade I developed some much lower level interest in prisons through giving a series of lectures in Durham gaol. I have rarely enjoyed audiences so attentive and appreciative and I was struck by the educational opportunities that prison life presented. However, with other things to do, I assumed that the opportunity was being duly seized upon by the authorities concerned and left it at that. News emerging as a result of funding reductions in the past couple of years showed me that I was wrong. The provision for education and training gives reason for deep concern and that has been echoed around your Lordships' Chamber this afternoon.
In 1995–96 the average cost per inmate per year was around £25,000. That is a tidy sum and one might have expected that a tidy bit of it went on education and training, so that prisoners could emerge better equipped to earn a legal livelihood. But in fact the amount for education and training was not a tidy sum; it was a tiny sum—2 per cent. or, in gross terms, £37 million out of a total prison budget of £1.75 billion. But Mr. Richard Tilt's bad news has since got worse. In the following year, despite a steep rise in the prison population, the amount allocated for education and training fell from £37 million to £34.5 million. And even in the current year the figure is still £750,000 below the £37 million of two years ago.
Therefore, with a rise of 25 per cent. in prison numbers, the fraction spent this year on education is down from that wretched 2 per cent. to a mere 1.8 per cent. Given the fact that educational provision is patchy across the system, the news for some prisons is even worse. Reference has been made this afternoon to Sir David Ramsbotham's newly published report on Dartmoor in which he notes with dismay that this prison suffered a cut of 50 per cent. for education.
1266
Surely economising on education and training displays a mystifyingly disastrous sense of priorities. Here we have 65,000 inmates disproportionately male; disproportionately young; disproportionately from unhappy family backgrounds; and—disproportionately ill-educated—as well as being disproportionately prone to inflict misery, damage and fear upon the communities from which they come and to which they will return. That is 65,000 people who, before imprisonment, tied up huge resources in police manpower, domestic security devices and closed circuit surveillance in our streets and businesses. They include the people who make pensioners on housing estates too terrified to emerge from their homes; who menace tourists in the streets, and who push drugs at school gates. Yet, instead of recalling the apparent optimism of yesteryear when prisons were called "houses of correction", recalling indeed the current publicly proclaimed mission of the Prison Service to help inmates lead law-abiding lives after release, we grossly neglect the areas most obviously directed to achieving that objective—education and training.
Of course I do not underestimate the difficulties. The inmates tend not only to be deeply ill-educated, but deeply hostile to education and they present the service with other problems too. There is a high incidence of poor mental health, to which reference has been made. Sir David Ramsbotham has estimated that it may well amount to one-third of the prison population. We have the ubiquitous problem of drugs, under the control of apparently uncontrollable drug barons who have a powerful presence in every prison. There are the logistic problems of inmate range: from lifers, through sex-offenders and inmates of foreign nationality to the large numbers merely on remand. Nor must we forget the special problem of inmates who are virtually children within the young offender institutions. And though I have stressed that the vast majority of inmates are young males, there are record numbers of females—as we heard this afternoon—posing their own problems for the system. For example, when a pregnant prisoner goes to a maternity unit she involves a special detail of nine warders who work in shifts of three.
One therefore must not and does not underestimate the factors militating against attention to education. It is easy to understand why the pressures of mere day-to-day management tend to preclude longer-term, more ambitious strategies. But, easy to understand or not, any such preclusion is a profound and tragic mistake.
The Prison Service must be given clear direction plus adequate resources to overhaul training programmes and remedial education such that programmes are developed for all prisons and all categories of inmate. The goal must be to compile an individual profile immediately on reception and then to assign each inmate to appropriate classes and training programmes, with incentives to inmate enthusiasm related directly to a privilege system right up to the privilege of early transfer to the Category D institution that prepares prisoners for release.
Nor should it be thought that such profiles and programmes are inappropriate for remand prisoners. Indeed, it can be argued that these are the very inmates

1267
for whom educational provision is most immediately suited. Let us not forget that many inmates are ill-educated because they were excluded from school or excluded themselves from school by truancy. Their incarceration makes them, literally, an apt captive audience for the education they missed. And if they are not already motivated enough to make up for lost opportunity, a mixture of prison discipline and attractive incentives should change their minds.
Now of course a good deal of what I should like to see already goes on, but very patchily and curiously in isolation. Prison governors are too busy, or perhaps too parochial in their interests, to spread or adopt the good practice that exists. But I have been impressed by the marvellous initiative by two officers in Brixton to address the problem of deaf prisoners. There are the prison charity shops with which the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, is associated and which operate in Bromley, Peckham and Rugby. There are high intensity training programmes like that at Thorn Cross in Sheffield; the pre-release employment schemes which are working well at Springhill in Buckinghamshire and at the contract prison Buckley Hall near Rochdale; and of course there is excellent work on NVQs in many prisons, as well as programmes for teaching basic literacy and arithmetic.
But in too many prisons, such educational resources as exist are squandered on tokenistic exercises that smack of political correctness or on a plethora of superficial topics with no more constructive goal than to keep a few inmates amused.
In any case, it is not just a matter of resources. Fundamental structural changes are necessary—and on some of these I would welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. For example, the probation services within and outside prison should be unified so as to facilitate strategic planning with continuity to ensure implementation of educational and training objectives. And just as Sir David Ramsbotham has added his voice to those keen to see the NHS assume responsibility for the health of prison inmates, so I would like to see the Department for Education and Employment involved in prison service education. Of course, like the NHS, the DfEE may well be said to have enough on its hands already. But it could not do better than address the very important fraction of our population that could benefit from education in prison.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on introducing the debate. It is interesting that his concern has been endorsed by three previous Home Secretaries, the noble Lords, Lord Hurd, Lord Carr and Lord Baker, and by at least three former junior Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham, Lord Elton and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow.
The debate has clearly demonstrated that the treatment of crime and criminality continues to cause concern to all those who care about the criminal justice system. It is not easy to reconcile the different views
1268
because, on the one hand, we have the tabloid newspapers and those who express views like, "Hang them" and "Flog them." Against them are those who are concerned as practitioners and policymakers in the criminal justice system. What we need to do is ask some very basic questions. Do we over-react and make excessive use of prison as a means of dealing with offenders? Is the resultant overcrowding hindering prison reform? Has prison lost its objective of rehabilitation, training and treatment? Has that been replaced by the simple objective of deterrence?
I declare an interest. I have been a magistrate; I have been a member of a board of visitors for 14 or 15 years; and I was involved at one stage with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in reviewing the parole system. All that has given me an insight into the criminal justice system. More importantly, I have also been responsible for picking up some of the pieces as vice-chairman of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.
The debate is not about the causes of crime but about the inability to focus clearly on the effectiveness of punishment and treatment. As long as we continue to use prisons solely as a deterrent for society's ills, reforms that are badly needed will take a secondary place. The heavy emphasis on being tough on crime without a corresponding strategy for crime prevention must be a recipe for disaster.
It is clear from the figures that we spend nearly £10 billion a year on our criminal justice agencies but less than £240 million on crime prevention. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, is right. The most important problem facing prisons is the over-use of custody. If the aim of the criminal justice system is to take criminals out of circulation, then of course prison works. The more the emphasis on locking up people who commit crime, the greater the pressure on prisons to cope and the greater the pressure simply to contain people in prison with less emphasis on improving conditions to provide activities or to deal with problems in individual prisons.
The number of men, women and children in prison has increased by 60 per cent. in six years. Last week we were told that there are more than 65,000 people in prison. Of course the Government have inherited much of the problem, but there is an urgent need to re-focus attention on the justification for imprisonment. No one can dispute that prison, for public safety reasons, is appropriate for serious and violent offenders. But community penalties are more effective for non-violent offenders. It is in this area that we should make less use of custody. I believe that, as a civilised society, we should aim not merely to contain prisoners but to prepare them to lead law-abiding lives on release.
Figures have been cited. I shall add to them. At present, 53 per cent. of all prisoners, 75 per cent. of young offenders and 89 per cent. of juveniles are re-convicted within two years. Is prison working for this group of people? The answer must emphatically be no. We need to re-examine our attitude to prisoners who face especially acute problems. They include young offenders, a high proportion of whom have been in care and who are unlikely to be released to a stable and

1269
supportive environment; women prisoners, many of whom are the primary carers of young children and whose family links can be badly damaged by imprisonment; and mentally disordered offenders, who pose an additional problem in terms of successful resettlement. In fact their condition can be worsened by imprisonment. Black prisoners often serve two sentences—one prescribed by the court and another by the extent of discrimination they suffer in the closed environment of prison.
We need to re-emphasise the objectives that prisons need to achieve: a positive plan of action for life outside prison; decent, good quality, stable accommodation; employment, training, education and meaningful activities; a source of income (a job or access to appropriate benefits); strong social and community ties; help in dealing with addiction and health related problems; and help in dealing with the reasons for committing crime.
Speaker after speaker in the debate cannot be wrong. At the root of everything is the sharp rise in the prison population. The Home Office had to revise sharply its projection of future population size. I was not in your Lordships' House at the time but on 9th June 1997 the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that if the present trend continued the projections were likely to he a substantial underestimate and that the prison population could rise to 68,4(X) by March 1999. We are very close to that figure now. I suspect that the Crime and Disorder Bill which is going through this House at the present time will also have a large upward effect on the revised figures. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, will be able to comment on the implications of some of those policies.
It is accepted that overcrowding leads to poor prison conditions. Prisoners spend more time in cells. Access to activities is limited or reduced. Prisoners are moved away from their home areas and cells now hold more inmates. Of course, we can build more prisons and fill them up more speedily. What is unexplained about our country is why we incarcerate more prisoners for every 100,000 of the general population compared with France, Germany, Holland and Sweden. I feel ashamed when we are often equated with the prison situation in Turkey, which is one of the worst if one considers that part of the world.
Despite all the overcrowding we are fortunate that there are dedicated staff in the Prison Service who continue to provide a valuable service to those in their care. Perhaps I may quote the Butler Trust. It is right to point out that the quality of the relationship between prisoners and those who work with them in custody is one of the single most important factors in reducing re-offending and breaking the cycle of crime.
We must express our concern about the incidents in Wormwood Scrubs. I am aware of the internally-run Prison Service inquiry. It would be improper for me to comment on the incidents complained of. I shall avoid the temptation of quoting from the report of the board of visitors. What the incidents have demonstrated is crystal clear. The present machinery of relying on the office of the Prison Service Ombudsman to resolve discipline and
1270
grievance issues is wholly inadequate. Equally, an internal inquiry has little to commend it because it does not provide a level playing field for those who feel oppressed in a closed environment.
Public confidence and the confidence of the victims can only be established if there is machinery which is meaningful and independent and which has the power to recommend disciplinary action and disciplinary charges to those who manage our prisons.
The example cited is often that of a body similar to the Police Complaints Authority. There is much to commend it. I have served as a member of the Police Complaints Authority for over three years. Its chairman and dedicated members have gone some way in building the confidence of both the police and complainants in the machinery that the state has established. It has the confidence of the Home Secretary—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I agree with the general line the noble Lord is taking. I was at Wormwood Scrubs last Friday. How can one improve on the board of visitors?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I take that point into account. What happened at Wormwood Scrubs, including the report of the board of visitors, hardly addressed the situation affecting the inmates.
I conclude by saying that reform is long overdue. By the very nature of the crimes they have committed, prisoners have lost many of their rights. But what they have not lost is the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Equally. those who run the prisons must he afforded the same dignity and respect. The courts have determined the sentence that a prisoner should serve. We must not create conditions which oppress beyond what the courts envisaged. If we fail to uphold these values, we lose our status as a civilised society.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join others in offering my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing this debate which has attracted one of the most distinguished lists of speakers for some time. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Baker who referred to the fact that it has attracted three former Home Secretaries and three former Ministers of State at the Home Office with responsibility for the Prison Service. My noble friend was admirably non-partisan when he referred to the fact that they were merely former Home Secretaries or Ministers of State. He did not refer to the fact that they were all former Conservative Home Secretaries and Ministers of State.
It is with some sorrow that I saw how few were prepared to speak from the Government Benches other than the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who described himself as "obsequiously loyal" and the noble Lord, Lord Acton. It would have been useful to have heard the views of some of the other former Home Secretaries or some of those who have been relatively active on the Crime and Disorder Bill, which has considerable implications as regards prison policy. Perhaps the noble

1271
Lord, Lord Hoyle, will encourage their participation on future occasions; or perhaps he would rather not because they may not be as "obsequiously loyal" as the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Certainly I shall encourage them to participate in the remaining stages of the Crime and Disorder Bill. particularly on matters relating to sentencing and the possibility that children as young as 10 or 11 years of age should be sent to prison, as the Government are now recommending in that Bill. I was surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, did not address that matter.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I had no time!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Earl did not have time, but I am bringing the matter to his attention. Perhaps he may wish to address it on some other occasion.
As I said, although there were a number of speakers from my own Benches, there is considerable debate within my party. I cannot agree with everything that some of my noble friends said on this occasion. I begin by saying that although there was a general theme running through many of the speeches that prison does not work, I certainly believe that it does and can work. On many occasions prison is a necessary punishment for the offender and to protect the public. I accept that the prison population has risen dramatically over the past four years. I forget the precise figures, but I believe there has been an increase of about 40 per cent. in the four years to June 1997. Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm that figure. But one should remember that during that time crime fell by 10 per cent. I believe that the two are linked. It is a point that has been made on a number of occasions by senior police officers that locking up those who repeatedly offend can have a major effect on the levels of crime in certain areas.
I have one particular point that I wish to make as regards prison working. It was my understanding that re-conviction rates for those who have served a prison sentence were somewhat lower than for those who had served some kind of community service order. Certain noble Lords have quoted figures to the contrary. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, with all the authority of the Home Office behind him, can give the figures and tell us what are the different levels of re-offending as regards those who have served a prison sentence and those who have served some kind of community service order.
In no way do I wish to decry the use of non-custodial sentences. I believe that all of us agree that they play a major part and that they are a very useful weapon in the armoury available to those who sentence people who have offended. It would be useful to know what are the official, correct figures for re-offending for those who have received some kind of community service order and those who have served prison sentences.
I would like to say something about our record during our years in government. We opened a large number of new prisons. I believe that some 28 new prisons, youth offender institutions and remand centres were opened between 1987 and 1997. Some 11,000 new places were
1272
created. I believe that a further 7,500 extra places were provided through the development of existing sites. Therefore, will the noble Lord be prepared to comment on the news I received only yesterday that the Government are to close the Colchester Young Offenders Institution? That was a new initiative started only last year to help to bring in some expertise with staff appointed from the Military Corrective Training Centre. Can the noble Lord comment on why it has been closed so early and before we have seen a study of the regime? When a study is carried out will that be made public?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in the course of his interesting remarks, will the noble Lord tell the House whether he is defending the record of Mr. Michael Howard in the last phase of the Conservative Government or the records of the three Home Secretaries who preceded him? Those records were totally different. Black is white occasionally, but not very often.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I had the honour to serve in the same government as Mr. Michael Howard. I was part of that government and I agreed with what the government were doing. I believe that my noble friend Lord Hurd also served with my right honourable friend Mr. Howard for a time and I believe that during that time my noble friend would have agreed with the policy of that government.
If I may continue, I turn now to the question of—
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will allow me to intervene. Before making such a remark again perhaps he will consider one of my last speeches in the House of Commons on this theme, to which my noble friend Lord Baker referred.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if my noble friend will bear with me, I was referring to the time when he was speaking as a member of the government rather than as a Back-Bencher. I was also referring to my time in government and to the fact that I was a member of the same government as Mr. Howard and that I supported what he was doing then. I still do.
In the short amount of time now available to me I turn to the question of expenditure on the Prison Service. It has been suggested that we cut expenditure. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in particular, that the prison budget almost doubled in real terms between 1979 and 1997. Those who argued that we cut expenditure should address their questions to those on the Government Front Bench. I refer to a Written Answer in another place on 31st July last year when Joyce Quin, the Minister responsible for prisons, referred to a cut in the prison budget, stating that planned expenditure for 1997–98 was £1,774.5 million and £1,733.3 million for 1998–99. That was following a planned expenditure increase under the Conservative Government. It is the current Government who are intending to make those cuts.

1273
I had intended to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, a number of questions. I shall have to save most of them for another occasion or for correspondence with either the noble Lord or his noble friend Lord Williams. My most important point relates to the contracting out of court escort services, privatisation and the private finance initiative in relation to prisons. Before the election we heard Mr. Straw telling prison staff that privatised prisons would be taken back into the Prison Service as soon as contractually possible. Since then, we welcome the Government's conversion to PFI. We gather that four new prisons are to be built under that initiative. I should like confirmation from the Minister, first, that that will continue and, secondly, of the enormous savings that PFI can bring to the Prison Service. Perhaps the Government will confirm that there is evidence that in terms of running costs private prisons are up to 20 per cent. cheaper than those in the public sector and that even greater savings can be made with regard to capital costs.
On the contracting out of the court escort service, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, will remember that the first court escort service to be contracted out reduced escapes by some 82 per cent. and produced savings of some £12.9 million up to April 1997. When we left office, eight such contracts were in place with a total value of £465 million. The first contract was awarded to Group 4 in April 1993 and it will run until 2003. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether that particular contract with Group 4 for court escort work in the East Midlands and on Humberside, which I believe is due to run out next month, will be renewed? There are great savings here and it is right that the Government should confirm that such contracts will be renewed.
I see that my 10 minutes are up. I have a number of other questions and I shall write to the noble Lord with them. I am sure that I will receive answers in due course.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I have quite a lot to deal with in the time available to me because so many questions have been asked in this very considered debate. If I may say so, the way in which noble Lords have examined this subject in detail has shown this House at its best. I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that, although he may have lectured me on the number of Labour Members behind me, I have received more support for our policies than he received for his comments about Mr. Michael Howard and his policies from his noble friends who are former Home Secretaries and Ministers. Perhaps the noble Lord would prefer it if his noble friends did not speak in future in debates such as this—
Lord Henley: My Lords, on this side we welcome open debate within our party on such matters. There was silence on the other side, except from the obsequiously loyal noble Earl, Lord Longford, because none of the others dares to speak unless they have received the blessing of Mr. Mandelson.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, that comes a little strange from the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, but I shall leave that argument at that.
1274
I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to this debate. The Government are committed to the work of the Prison Service. One of our first actions was to take back formal responsibility for the service. It is now the responsibility of the Home Secretary. That was a most important step. All Ministers at the Home Office now answer all parliamentary Questions about what happens within the service. That is a change from what happened under the previous regime.
As all noble Lords have stressed, we are all aware of the pressures created by the dramatic rise in the prison population over recent years. It has been rising steeply since early 1993. In 1993 it stood at 44,600 and is now just over 65,000. When my name was first put down to respond to this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow—we have known each other for many years—said to me, "I see you are now an expert on prisons'. I told him that I had been in many of them but I assure noble Lords, not in custody; merely as a visitor. My prison visits, however, come nowhere near the number of my noble friend Lord Longford. His record is second to none. Whenever he speaks on the subject in your Lordships' House, he does so with the benefit of his great experience.
As has been said, it is for the courts to decide who should be committed to custody and for the Government. through the Prison Service, to provide the necessary accommodation. The Prison Service has performed commendably to manage the rising prison population, but that should not be confused with an acceptance of the present state of affairs. In terms of accommodating the rising prison population, the situation is far from ideal. As has been said throughout the debate, overcrowding of prisoners brings its own pressures, with "overcrowding drafts" and prisoners facing the sudden breaking of family ties. Pressure on the services within prisons is also increasing. Overcrowding impacts on the constructive regime which not only all noble Lords, but also the Government, want to see.
We, as a government, recognise the pressure and we have taken some action. We have already audited the resources of the Prison Service and we published the outcome last July. It revealed that the Prison Service was not resourced adequately. We continue to monitor the trends in prison numbers. In the light of the latest prison population projections, the Home Secretary has made available an additional £112 million in 1998–99 to increase capacity and support regimes. I must point out that that represents an increase of 7.5 per cent. on the 1997‒98 figure.
However, we are not interested solely in accommodating rising numbers; we are committed to developing positive and constructive prison programmes. Constructive regimes are essential to the aims of our policy on criminal justice because in themselves they protect the public. Noble Lords have said today that if there is a constructive regime and people do not commit further offences when they leave prison, that protects the public. We want regimes that address offending behaviour and rehabilitate offenders. Such programmes, however, must be relevant to life outside to which prisoners will return. They must also maintain relationships between the offender and his

1275
family and the community. We attach the utmost importance to developing constructive, challenging and well-ordered regimes.
Before I turn to some of the points raised in the debate, in particular those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, I should like to deal with two matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He asked two questions which I am able to answer. The two-year reconviction rate for prisoners released in 1993 was 53 per cent. The equivalent for community service was 54 per cent. I suggest that there is not much difference. He also asked me why Colchester had been closed. The reason was that it was too expensive. It cost £30,000 per place. But we are committed to continuing high intensity retraining at Thorn Cross, which I witnessed first hand while in Warrington, and development regimes for juveniles.
Noble Lords have discussed the sentencing policy that is presently in operation. As I said right at the beginning, it is a question of what the courts decide. There is no doubt that judges and magistrates react to public opinion as it is perceived in the newspapers. Nor is there any doubt that the former Home Secretary's belief that prison is the right thing and that more and more people should be put in custody has had an effect. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, more prisoners are being sentenced to longer and longer periods of imprisonment.
If that is occurring—this point has been raised by noble Lords on both sides of the House—what consideration is being given to alternative non-custodial sentences? First, we believe that for serious offences people should be in prison, but we should also look at what can be done to prevent people from going to prison or keeping them in the community wherever possible. It is in the public interest that a person does not go back to prison. It also means that the pressure on the prison population is reduced. As noble Lords have pointed out, in the Crime and Disorder Bill there are tough new community penalties for drug misusers and juvenile offenders, including drug treatment and testing orders, action plan orders and reparation orders. We are also keen on making greater use of modern technology in relation to tagging and curfew orders.
Two pilot schemes in Norfolk and Manchester allow courts to impose community service orders or curfew orders on fine defaulters and persistent petty offenders. We are also considering the extension of curfew orders to juveniles and the imposition of driving disqualification. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is taking a close interest in the inquiry now being conducted by a Select Committee of another place into possible alternatives to prison sentences. My right honourable friend will be considering its report and any recommendations that it may make.
It has been said many times today that this country has the largest prison population in Europe. Yes, we do. However, we should also bear in mind that other countries—for example, France—have a larger proportion of prisoners who serve shorter sentences. We are continually looking at alternatives to custodial sentences. We believe that prison should be used only where it is necessary and justified and where the offence
1276
is serious. There will always be some offenders for whom that is the only response. However, we do not want prison to be used if non-custodial sentences are appropriate. That is the cornerstone of the Government's policy in relation to this matter.
A good deal of time has been spent considering government policy in relation to sentencing policy. We are looking for an effective sentencing system to ensure greater consistency. The Court of Appeal is preparing sentencing guidelines for all of the main criminal offences. We are also looking at a number of different orders to keep people out of prison.
What has been the effect up to now on people in prison and what can be done in relation to it? We are concerned about it. Despite the extra £112 million, the Government accept that the situation will be extremely difficult if the present trend continues and more and more people are placed in custody. For the moment, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has provided the service with an additional £112 million, which means that spending on the Prison Service now amounts to £1,816 million. We shall continue to make use of the prison ship "Weare", build six more houseblocks, fund conversion of accommodation to cells to hold extra prisoners in new prisons and carry out absolutely essential repairs to the prison estate. It is a question of modernisation and bringing new prisons on stream.
The £112 million provides for new places in prisons. Two hundred and ninety new places were announced at the time of the audit. It will lead eventually to 1,250 more places and the placing of an additional 2,280 prisoners in existing accommodation. It also provides for additional staffing and funding of regime activities. We hope that in the short term this will help the Prison Service cope with the population rise.
This strategy relies on population projections from 1999 onwards. Does it mean a population of 82,000 or more than that? We are determined to ensure that there is adequate accommodation for those who need it. We shall ensure that we keep up with it. In the meantime, we are considering all of the methods that have been discussed today—for example, curfew orders—to keep people out of prison. One noble Lord referred to three or four prisoners sharing a cell. We have dropped down to two to a cell, and as far as I know there are not four prisoners to a cell. Certainly, we do not want to go back to the use of police cells.
The size of the prison population is a problem. It is one that will continue. There has been a huge rise to the present figure of just over 65,000. We have also seen the projections. I am as concerned as are other noble Lords by the number of female prisoners. They increased from an average of 1,580 in 1992 to 2,675 in 1997. Even so, they still formed only a small proportion (4.58 per cent.) of the prison population. I was pleased to hear the welcome given from all sides of the House to the assistant director, Ms. Jones. We all wish her well. There is a problem for her to tackle.
The unfortunate increase in the number of women prisoners has not been due, as has been suggested today, to their being licence offenders who have not paid for

1277
TV licences. I believe that there are only three women in prison in relation to such an offence. Unfortunately, a number have been due to drug offences.
I shall turn to what is happening about drug offences. They form one of the real problems in prisons with which we have to deal. We are trying to deal with that problem. Mandatory drug testing is taking place. If I have any good news for the House it is that the testing has shown a reduction of 19.9 per cent. to 17.1 per cent. in the number of samples which have tested positive for cannabis. Similarly the percentage of random samples showing opiate use has fallen from 5.4 per cent. to 4 per cent. Many people have been troubled as to whether prisoners are now switching from cannabis to heroin because it does not remain in the urine for so long. Up to now the testing does not show that such a change is taking place.
We have been asked about trying to prevent drugs entering prisons. That is always difficult, because prisoners must see their families. We are using sniffer dogs and searches. Unfortunately they have to include visiting children. We are doing all that we can. We do not want to move to closed visits, but governors have the right to introduce closed non-contact visits where there is drug misuse.
We have also said that those prisoners who wish to live in a drug-free environment will have VTUs available to prove that they are drug free. If they wish to prove that they are drug free and are prepared to be tested, we are trying to give them the opportunity for that. We are introducing a range of treatments to a selection of establishments. We are trying, as far as possible, as has been said today, to provide the necessary treatment for prisoners.
The same applies to mentally disordered prisoners. They pose a great problem to the Prison Service. As has been acknowledged today, we are trying to get as many as possible out of prison where there is accommodation available in the NHS. We have also been asked whether we accept that the prison health service should come under the NHS. The Chief Inspector of Prisons made that recommendation. It is being studied at the moment by Ministers. In the meantime, we are concerned to ensure that mentally disordered prisoners receive the attention that they need.
Education has been mentioned. We are keen on education. We are keen to give prisoners more opportunities for education. A more relaxed regime is being introduced. We are also introducing into the prison service the Welfare to Work programme. As noble Lords will be aware, that is part of the Government's general initiative to give 18 to 24 year-olds the skills necessary. That is even more necessary for young offenders. We are going to run a pilot programme for 18 to 24 year-olds in 11 prisons. It is scheduled to start in April when the New Deal goes through. It is being financed by £1.5 million of windfall tax. We are hoping to put 2,000 18 to 24 year-olds through the scheme. When such people leave prison we shall be giving them the advice necessary to ensure that they obtain employment. I am sure that everyone here
1278
will welcome those developments and initiatives in relation to education, and what is being done in relation to those who are mentally disordered.
My time is nearly running out. I hope that I have shown that the Government have already acted. They are committed to further action to ensure that the Prison Service can deliver our key priorities. As I have said, the Prison Service has a key role to play within the criminal justice system. It is already doing much to deliver our commitments, including those on developing constructive regimes and on tackling the problem of drugs in prisons.
The Government are confident that the Prison Service will continue to build on that work. Given an increasing prison population, no one pretends that that does not create severe problems. However, the Government are determined that those who commit serious crimes will go to prison, but, as I said, we are considering methods other than prison for other offences. For those in prison, the Government place emphasis on education, training and rehabilitation so that we ensure, as far as possible. that former prisoners have the opportunity to live useful lives within our society away from crime.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, by overrunning his time, the Minister has left me with only a minute or two. I shall content myself with saying that it has been a fascinating debate in which we have had some learned and knowledgeable contributions. I am afraid that I am not content with the answers that we have received on some of the most important issues, but I shall read what has been said. I only hope that in Whitehall, or, perhaps more accurately, Queen Anne's Gate and Clelland House, they will read what the others have said. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Greater London Authority White Paper
6.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister in another place.
"Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about our proposals for a Greater London Authority.
"Last July, we published a consultation paper setting out our proposals for an elected, strategic authority for London. Over 1,200 individuals and organisations responded, and we have listened carefully to their views. Today we are publishing our detailed proposals for a radical new type of local government. For the first time in the United Kingdom, people will have the opportunity to directly elect their Mayor—The Mayor of London.

1279
"Londoners will also be able to elect a small, streamlined, strategic assembly. The new authority will have new powers devolved from central government. It will work with the boroughs and not duplicate their work.
"This is another step in our programme of constitutional reform. We are establishing new devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales, with the full consent of the people of Scotland and Wales. We are now taking a significant step in decentralising government by establishing these new arrangements in London.
"These proposals fulfil our manifesto commitment to restore democratic city-wide government to London. It is almost 12 years since the GLC was abolished by the previous government. There was no consultation then; no Green or White Paper, and certainly no referendum. Public opinion polls at the time showed overwhelming opposition to the abolition of the GLC. It was sheer arrogance of the government to abolish the GLC without the consent of Londoners.
"However hard people have tried to fill the gap, there is no substitute for democracy. No voluntary committee, no consultants' report, no Cabinet committee can substitute for London democracy. London needs leadership with a clear mandate from the people, to tackle the problems that have built up over the years; problems like traffic congestion, decaying infrastructure, air pollution, crime and social exclusion. This Labour Government have decided to give Londoners the choice to have a voice. Londoners will vote on our proposals in a referendum on 7th May and if they vote "Yes", as I believe they will, we shall introduce the necessary legislation.
"Many of the world's great cities have thrived on powerful, directly elected mayors; cities like New York, Toronto, Cologne, Wellington and Rome. Now, for the first time, a local authority in Britain will have a directly elected mayor and a new form of assembly acting as a check and balance to the mayor. Uniquely in this country, there will be a separation of powers between them.
"I also intend to bring the arrangements for policing in line with those in the rest of the country. Since the days of Robert Peel, the Metropolitan Police have been responsible only to the Home Secretary. The time has come for this to change. We must make the police accountable to Londoners. We are therefore establishing a new police authority. The mayor will appoint 11 assembly members to the board of the new Metropolitan Police Authority.
"The Mayor of London will be a powerful figure, with an electorate of over 5 million voters—more than any other individual politician in the country. They will expect the mayor to deliver real improvements to their quality of life. The mayor will therefore need considerable powers.
1280
"The mayor will directly control two powerful new organisations responsible for transport and economic development in London, will control large resources—currently more than £3 billion—and will be a powerful voice for London at home and abroad.
"To balance the powers of the mayor, there will be a new type of council and a different role for its members. The new assembly will think and plan strategically for the benefit of all Londoners. It will examine and test the mayor's policies and performance. It will be able to approve or amend the mayor's budget. The assembly will also have a wider role; it will have wide ranging powers to investigate issues on behalf of Londoners.
"We believe this new form of London government demands a new type of voting system, tailor made for London. We want the mayor to have a clear mandate. With an electorate of over 5 million and a potentially long list of candidates, we must have a system which ensures that the mayor has the backing of the largest number of people possible. We believe that the supplementary vote system—known as SV—for the election of the mayor will achieve this. This allows voters to mark their first and second choices of candidate, and will therefore give the mayor a strong mandate to implement his or her manifesto.
"The assembly will have a different role and the way it is elected will need to reflect that difference. It needs to ensure a direct link with local constituencies and also broad representation of all Londoners. We believe the system must also enable women and members of ethnic minority groups to be more fairly represented.
"The assembly will therefore be elected by a system similar to the one being used for the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly—the additional member system. This means that 14 of the assembly's members will be directly elected from 14 constituencies (by first-past-the-post) and 11 others will be drawn from London-wide lists to reflect the proportion of votes the parties receive.
"The GLA will have eight significant areas of responsibility. It will develop and manage an integrated transport system; create jobs and promote economic regeneration; tackle crime; ensure Londoners have adequate fire and emergency services; improve London's environment; devise a strategy for land use planning; promote London's arts. sport and tourism; and improve the health and quality of life of Londoners. Each of these has an impact on the others, so it will be essential for the mayor to tackle London's problems in an integrated and sustainable way.
"A number of important organisations under the mayor's control will assist in this task. We will create a new London development agency which will implement the mayor's economic and regeneration strategy. It will have powers to attract new investment, create jobs and tackle the problems of rundown areas. It will be one of nine similar regional development agencies we are creating across the English regions. It will be responsible to the mayor

1281
and not to the Secretary of State. As the first democratically accountable development agency, it will be a trailblazer for the other regional development agencies.
"An efficient, integrated transport system is essential for the health and prosperity of the capital. Transport for London will be responsible for the Underground, London buses, taxis, most main roads, river transport and the Docklands Light Railway. It will also have a say in how other commuter railways are run. The mayor will appoint the chair and board, and will set its budget and be responsible for its strategies and performance.
"I have already set out our proposals for an accountable police authority. We want to ensure that in tackling crime we bring together all those London organisations who have a part to play.
"Londoners have confirmed that they would expect the mayor to oversee the fire service. The mayor will therefore appoint assembly members and London borough councillors to a new fire and emergency planning authority.
"The state of London's environment is an important element in its competitiveness and crucial to the quality of life and health of those who live in, work in and visit London. The mayor will have substantial new powers and responsibilities, working with the boroughs and others, to improve air quality, tackle noise and London's growing waste problem and improve the quality of life of Londoners in other ways. This will contribute to improving the health of Londoners and encourage tourism and inward investment.
"Matching economic regeneration, social, and environmental needs will require the best use of the resources available. The mayor will be responsible for drawing up strategic planning guidance. Boroughs will continue as local planning authorities but their development plans will have to conform with the mayor's strategy.
"Culture, tourism and media and the related leisure services are the second biggest component of London's economy—currently totalling £9 billion. London's culture acts as a magnet to visitors both nationally and internationally. It is essential that the quality and diversity of the capital's cultural achievements is maintained and improved.
"A new forum will be established by the mayor. which will include existing cross-London cultural and sports organisations. It will play a major part in developing the mayor's strategy; and government funding for tourism in London will be channelled through the mayor.
"Madam Speaker. you will understand from what I have said that we are creating new and radical institutions to give London the means to solve its problems and maximise its potential. We will also require new ways of working to ensure that the GLA is genuinely accountable to the community it is elected to serve. The GLA will be an open, accessible authority. The assembly will meet regularly and in public. The mayor will have to notify the assembly of
1282
all major decisions and give reasons. Each month. there will be a "question time" where the assembly questions the mayor and senior officials. Twice a year, there will be a "people's question time", where the mayor and assembly can be questioned in public and by the public. And every year, the mayor will deliver a "State of London" address, which will be debated in an open, public forum. This is just the starting point. We expect the GLA to develop other imaginative ways to consult and to involve people in its decisions.
"Our aim is also to simplify the structure of governance in London. A number of organisations will be absorbed wholly or in part by the GLA. This will mean change, but we will work closely with the affected organisations. I would like to reassure staff that transfers will be within the public sector and will be on existing terms and conditions. We will be looking at the pension arrangements, with the view to ensuring that the GLA offers broadly comparable arrangements within the public sector.
"The financing of the GLA will come from a range of sources. The GLA will inherit existing funding for the services it provides for Londoners. The grant. council tax, business rates and credit approvals currently amount to some £3.3 billion. The mayor will decide how this money is spent. The assembly will approve the mayor's budget and there will be safeguards to protect service standards. The greater part of the authority's funds will be spent on transport, economic development, policing and fire services. The mayor, assembly and their small staff will cost about £20 million a year, less than 1 per cent. of its budget.
"The Government will also spend up to £20 million in preparation for the GLA, including providing its headquarters.
"These are exciting and radical proposals which I am proud to present to the House. They are a significant part of the Government's programme of constitutional reform. They correct one of the previous government's most foolish, undemocratic and reckless acts. They secure the role of the boroughs. They place responsibility for taking decisions at the right level. London will have an elected mayor for the first time in British history. Above all, these proposals provide a choice and a voice for London and return government to the people of London."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and, indeed, for the publication of this White Paper within the time limits which we were promised when we discussed the referendum for London Bill. The White Paper is a long document and it gives rise to a number of questions. I say to the Government that questions do not necessarily mean hostility, and I hope that the Benches opposite will accept that. Furthermore,

1283
the fact that we may not raise particular questions this afternoon does not mean necessarily that everything in the White Paper is accepted.
The structures proposed are unique, at least for the present. Since they may represent a system of government for some 7 million people, we should be quite clear about what we are creating. Therefore, I hope the Minister can say whether the proposals are for the provision of regional government for Greater London, or does she see it as the restoration of an upper tier of local government? Certainly the proposals for the regional development agency for London and its relationship with the authority are remarkably similar to the possible relationships which regional development agencies elsewhere would have with the regional chambers, if those were established.
On the other hand, the White Paper emphasises in a number of paragraphs that the authority is to be a local authority for certain purposes. If the Minister does not see it as regional government, perhaps she could tell the House whether she envisages, in the event of matters moving on and regional government being established in the rest of the country, a further structure to add to those which are already being created and imposed in London.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us also what consultation there will be with existing local government in London in relation to the powers proposed for the authority. The Government have said repeatedly that they do not want to take away powers from the London boroughs. But the White Paper speaks of many matters which are currently within the boroughs' areas of responsibility. To save the time of the House, I merely refer the Minister to paragraph 3.11 of the White Paper. Is it not the case that the White Paper's proposals, in so far as they relate to roads, represent a massive shift of responsibility away from the boroughs to the new authority and the restoration of the old position as under the former GLC, including, it seems to me, a loss to the boroughs of their transport policy programmes?
I do not know whether it is the intention that there should be parallel or dual roles in all those matters. But no doubt the Minister is aware that that was at the root of many of the problems which arose under the previous arrangements between the GLC and the London boroughs. It was particularly so with regard to development control. Therefore, I must say to the House that I believe that the proposal to allow the mayor a role in development control is extraordinarily unwelcome. The power to direct a refusal is a return to the old days of the GLC and its dual role in planning, which caused much concern to business in the capital and resulted in much lost time and lost opportunity costs.
Central to those proposals is the balance of power between the mayor and the assembly. Does the Minister believe that the proposals will create a strong mayor or a strong assembly? It is not good enough to say that we are creating a system of checks and balances. The Green Paper spoke of mechanisms to resolve conflict between the mayor and the assembly. What are those? Where does the real power lie? Who has the last word?
1284
In paragraph 1.15, the White Paper refers to the assembly's prime duty to hold the mayor to account, and its scrutinising role of all the mayor's activities and the two new authorities responsible for transport and economic development; and it refers to its key role in setting the budget, which it can either agree or reject. I wonder how that squares with the description of the mayor as a powerful figure needing considerable powers, as set out in the Statement. If the mayor is to be the powerful leader described, how will he deliver in the event of that conflict? If all the decisions of the mayor can be overridden by the assembly, how will the mayor achieve the aspirations which have been expressed for the office?
How is the assembly to be funded? I thought that for something of that importance the Statement was remarkably short on the detail. It appears from the White Paper that, like its predecessors, it is to be a precepting authority, although the leaflet to be circulated to the public talks somewhat coyly of the public being asked to make perhaps a 3p. contribution at Band E council tax level.
Apparently the capping regime is to apply to the new authority. Indeed, to revert to my first question, do all the provisions relating to a local authority and its finance apply to the Greater London Authority? Does the estimate of 250 staff in the White Paper include the staff to be taken over from the London Planning Advisory Committee and other bodies?
The Statement made an early and unequivocal reference to the devolution of central government powers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what powers the Government Office for London is going to give to the Greater London Authority and what are the specific functions of central government that are being given to the mayor and the authority?
Furthermore, perhaps we can be told how much money is likely to be transferred from the boroughs to the new authorities. If virtually no functions are to be transferred from existing authorities, which has been the promise, how will they cope with any loss of funds if that is not accompanied also by a reduction in their obligations?
The proposals for the police authority for London mark a significant constitutional change in the position of the Metropolitan Police. I ask the Minister to assure the House as to how the national responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police will be met and looked after and how its funding will be protected.
Lastly, the method of election of both mayor and assembly will need careful consideration. I regret very much the absence of any direct link with the towns and cities of Greater London in these proposals. Does the Minister not agree that there is a great danger that their voice will not be heard in the assembly? Does she not agree that the directly elected members will have constituencies of some 0.5 million by population and that it will be extremely difficult for them to be represented in what is, in the view of some, a local authority because it is extremely difficult to represent constituencies of that size?

1285
It seems to me that the assembly should have been constituted as we tried to achieve when the referendum Bill went through; that is, 33 representatives, one from each borough to ensure that the local voice is heard. The proposal before us seems to be a deliberate attempt to obscure and defeat the legitimate interests which the towns and cities of Greater London have in the capital. To suggest that that has been done to ensure a non-parochial view is somewhat demeaning and, if translated into parliamentary terms, would suggest that no national view could be taken in the other place because of the danger of local constituency interest prevailing. That is an element which I believe to be thoroughly bad and will create an atmosphere of detachment on the part of the assembly and seriously weaken democratic accountability.
Inevitably, there are important questions which remain unanswered and will not be answered until the Bill is published. We, from these Benches, said that that would be the case and it is so. The White Paper is a welcome contribution to the debate, but it makes quite clear that there is a lot of further work to be done. Therefore, the referendum will go ahead, with the Government pressing for a yes vote but with an incomplete case for the people of London. In that respect, it is a poor start to what was supposed to be a new deal for London.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. On these Benches, we welcome all progress towards democracy and an effective strategic authority. But I agree very much with the comments that the organisations mentioned by the Minister simply cannot fill that gap. I simply add to the list the indirectly elected committees which have been struggling with London-wide issues over the past few years.
We too have many reservations, but I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that the questions do not necessarily indicate hostility. The greatest of my reservations is the degree of centralisation both in the role of the mayor as compared with the members of the assembly and, indeed, in the control of the mayor by central government. The level of prescription which I read in the White Paper indicates what I believe is a sad lack of confidence on the part of the Government. Terms such as "diversity", "plurality" and "partnership" are very much the language of government these days, but they require a letting go by central government which I do not see in these proposals.
There is inevitably much interest in the amount of financial discretion or, as it appears, constraint, on the authority. I heard the Minister for London say on a radio broadcast this morning that the mayor's ability to get things done was not to be the ability to tax and spend. I agree that those things are not the same; but nor are they unrelated. I note the ceiling on expenditure—continued capping by central government of local government—and also the floor to expenditure. I hope that the Minister will give us any other example that there may be of a floor to spending by local or regional
1286
government. Indeed, we discussed the matter privately before the noble Baroness repeated the Statement, and I can assure her that I spell the word "floor" as floor.
If the floor is to ensure a minimum standard of service, why is there a concentration on the process rather than on the outcome; in other words, why are there not to be obligations about the level of service rather than on the amounts of money to be spent? Indeed, are there to be any fund-raising powers which will be free of central government control? Will there be any guarantee that the funding for the new authority will not result in a loss of money to the boroughs, other than a direct transfer of funding which relates to functions which will be transferred such as those of the London Planning Advisory Committee? I couple that with the comment that we on these Benches want to see powers taken from central government and not brought up from local government. Further, with regard to business rates, can the Minister say whether the authority will have an obligation to consult businesses in the same way as boroughs do at present?
I note from the White Paper that there is to be a precepting power in respect of the Metropolitan Police. Of course, that organisation operates outside London. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will confirm that people in Hertfordshire, for example, will be taxed but without representation. If that is the case, does that not suggest that the issue of coterminosity of the Metropolitan Police with London deserves further review, if not in the context of this Bill, then, at any rate, at some time in the near future?
For me, the Government's approach is in part encapsulated in the line to be found both in the leaflet and in the White Paper, which says that the,
"Mayor and the Assembly would have very different roles and responsibilities";
In other words, and as the Statement makes clear, these proposals are not so much one whole with constituent parts, but rather two different operations. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that members of the assembly will not have any policy-making powers. I shall take one example which concerns me, although it is perhaps not a headline point. The mayor alone is to have responsibility for strategic planning guidance. I have to express my concern that, unless the mayor is very imaginative as regards the way in which the boroughs are to be involved, such a top-down approach could lead to many difficulties.
I believe that I am correct is saying that the role of assembly members will be more that of a scrutiny committee, comparable to a Select Committee. Indeed. I have concerns about what effective mechanisms there would be to hold the mayor to account. I recognise that my approach is quite distinct from that of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who was more concerned about freedom for the mayor, away from the constraints of assembly members.
As has been mentioned, the members of the assembly will be elected by an additional member system with a closed list. Can the Minister say how that will achieve greater representation of women and ethnic minorities,

1287
as predicted by the White Paper? That leaves aside, of course, the fact that, when creating the lists, the parties may attend to such issues as, indeed, I hope they will.
Can the Minister confirm that the wording of the Statement, of the White Paper and, more importantly perhaps, of the leaflet is not quite correct as regards the ability to vote in the referendum and in local borough elections? The wording refers to the fact that people must live in one of the 32 boroughs, or in the City of London, and be on the electoral register. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that the wording should read that people must have been living in London on the qualifying date in October.
I appreciate that my questions indicate a degree of disappointment, but that is in the context of welcoming strategic government for London and hoping to see some changes made in the course of the passage of the legislation.
I have a distaste for personality politics. Indeed, I must admit to being somewhat old-fashioned in that respect. I noted the comment on the "Today" radio programme this morning, in a feature on the mayoralty of Barcelona, that there is, as a Spanish woman said,
"a lot of posing for photographs".
There will, of course, be much posing for photographs between now and the elections and no doubt afterwards. It is not for that reason—or, at any rate, not for that reason alone—that we urge the Government, when considering the possible dates for the elections of the mayor and the members of the assembly, to decide that it really would be better to have them in the autumn of next year and not in the year 2000. That would enable the shadow authority to prepare for the work when it comes into full effect. Indeed, it would mean that the authority would be putting into effect work which it, the mayor, and the assembly had started and would not be any more dependent than is absolutely necessary on arrangements made by central government before it comes into effect in March 2000.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both speakers who have contributed for their eschewing of hostility in terms of their welcome for the Statement, although I have to say that the parting shot of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, did not sound particularly welcoming as regards the denigration of the start that has been made. I do not believe that it is a poor start; indeed, I believe that it is a very impressive start. It is about a programme of decentralisation of power from Whitehall and Westminster to where it more appropriately lies. Moreover, as has been made very clear, it is not about sucking up powers from the boroughs.
The overwhelming majority of powers will remain at borough level. It is important to bear that factor in mind when considering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about the geographical link of assembly members with boroughs. Constituencies for the assembly will contain two or three boroughs. I take the noble Lord's point that they are larger than the
1288
conventional parliamentary constituency or borough electorate. However, I believe it is important to note that assembly members are not there to usurp the role of local government and local councillors or of constituency Members of Parliament. They are there to ensure a proper geographical balance within the assembly, but a balance also, under the additional member system, reflecting overall the views of Londoners. They have a strategic role, and they have to look city wide.
That brings me to the point that the noble Lord. Lord Bowness, raised about whether this is regional or local government. London is unique and this is a unique system, tailor made to our capital city. It has elements of local government and local governance and that is completely understandable. But when one looks at a body like the proposed London development agency, it is absolutely appropriate, for democratic accountability, that it should go to the city-wide strategic authority, comprising the mayor and the assembly, which we are creating. It is unique and provides for democratic accountability at a local level, if I may use that term in a non-technical sense. I hope that answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about powers being devolved from central government. Powers will be devolved from the Government Office for London.
The noble Lord had concerns about planning. At the moment the planning guidance for London is drawn up by the Government Office for London on behalf of the Secretary of State. That will now be carried out by the mayor at the proper and appropriate level. That is an example of power being devolved to the appropriate level. Other regional development agencies will initially be responsible to the Secretary of State in Whitehall. However, the London Development Agency will be responsible to the mayor and not to the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord was concerned about the strategic routes that would no longer be the responsibility of the boroughs. However, 95 per cent. of roads will remain the responsibility of the boroughs. There is also the question of the strategic roads which at the moment are the responsibility of the Secretary of State through the Highways Agency and which will be transferred to the Greater London Authority.
At the moment the police are accountable to the Home Secretary at national level. However, in future they will be accountable to a city-wide form of governance. These are clear examples of decentralisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the Police Authority. I reassure her that we do not have plans to change the boundaries and make coterminous the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Greater London Authority. However, we wish to ensure that those people outside the boundary who are within the Metropolitan Police area are represented. We shall ensure that there is democratic representation on the Police Authority for those people who are part of the Metropolitan Police area but not within the GLA area.
Questions were asked about who would be the stronger in terms of power, the assembly or the mayor. I believe that reflects a misunderstanding of what is

1289
implicit in checks and balances. We need both the mayor and the assembly to be strong in order to have balance. However, they need to be strong in different ways and they need to have clear differences of function. In that way we shall not set up conflicts but we shall ensure that they work in partnership. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about that. The powers of the assembly are not simply powers of scrutiny, important though those are. The assembly members will have powers as members of all the authorities to which I have referred. I refer to the Police Authority, the development agency and transport for London. There is also the extremely important power to approve or to amend the budget. Without being cynical I think all of us know that how the money is spent will reflect priorities that are established. The power with regard to the budget will be a crucial one for the assembly.
It is important that the mayor and the assembly co-operate. But the position should not be too cosy. It is important that the assembly fulfils its role of scrutinising the performance of the mayor. We believe that it can do that. It is important that the Greater London Authority should co-operate with the boroughs when they are fulfilling the functions which are properly theirs and should ensure that those functions are carried out in a way that benefits Londoners both as regards their local London situation and as regards their position as citizens of the capital. I reassure those who have anxieties in this regard that the boroughs will retain day-to-day development control in their areas. They will have control over local issues, but as regards the strategic planning responsibilities of the mayor it is appropriate that he should have a role to play with regard to developments that have strategic implications.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that it is important that the mayor has the ability to get things done. It is also important that we manage finances prudently throughout the governance of this country, at whatever level. That is the reason for the upper limitations. However, the mayor will have a substantial budget under his or her control. He or she will be able to be flexible. The noble Baroness asked about the floor for service provision. It is important that we recognise that where government grants are given for specific purposes they should be used for those purposes. We have to strike a balance between the flexibility that the mayor needs to reflect priorities and the funding that is provided for specific purposes, such as funding for emergency fire cover and for the police service. I shall try to find a precedent and write to the noble Baroness. If I have not covered all the points raised by the noble Lord. Lord Bowness, I shall also write to him.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Is she aware that I regard this as one of the better Statements that have been made here in the past 17 years? Nevertheless a number of questions need to be asked, as already outlined by my noble friend Lord Bowness. I have two questions. As regards paragraph 2.22, why is the cost of the mayor, the assembly and their staff to he met by central government and not from the budget
1290
of the mayor'? As regards paragraph 4.31, is the appointment of the 11 London-wide members by the political parties intended to be a new variant of the old aldermanic system in order to bring in people of specialist knowledge who will not face the polls?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone, for his welcome of the Statement. As regards the budget that he mentioned, most expenditure at a local level—about 80 per cent. of it—is now provided by government grant. Therefore, the funding for the assembly would comprise about 20 per cent. of local funding from the precept and 80 per cent. from government grant. That mirrors expenditure on education, on housing or on other services. This body will not be separately funded by government but it will mirror the proportion of government funding that is provided for local services.
As regards the list system, we need a balanced assembly and a broadly based assembly. We shall have first-past-the-post elections for the 14 constituency members. We need to have people who represent all the interests of London, but that needs to he balanced by some form of representation of people's party political voting preferences as well as their voting preferences in a first-past-the-post local election. For that reason we have a list system rather than import people whom I think the noble Lord perhaps suggested might not have succeeded as politicians in other ways.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for sending me a copy of the White Paper. I am the chairman of the all-party London group. I have two questions. No doubt the group will shortly respond to the White Paper. The first is a simple question. The noble Baroness mentioned that the M.1, M.11 and M.4 link roads are not included. But no reference is made to the M.25. More importantly, I found great difficulty in understanding Annex C, the additional member system. I think that the people of London will also find it difficult to understand unless a worked example is provided. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point before the Bill arrives at this House so that people can understand the additional member system.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I am not a theologian of the voting systems, and I had some difficulty wrestling with it. I believe that examples of how different situations would work out may emerge during the debate that is starting today, which I think will be warmly welcomed throughout London.
The M.25 is not mentioned because that has never been considered a trunk road that was part of London's transport responsibility. In ministerial terms, it was always seen as part of the national road network, and therefore will not be included within the Greater London Authority's strategic responsibility, any more than will

1291
parts of the M.11 and M.4 to which he referred. Those, too, were seen more appropriately as national roads rather than London strategic roads.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, although not in his elevated capacity, I also served as a member of the Greater London Council. Therefore I, too, welcome the Statement.
Paragraph 5.67 states that,
"the Mayor will he given a power to direct boroughs to refuse planning permission where he or she considers this necessary on strategic grounds".
It is important that special consideration should be given to planning which might have a more strategic implication. But it is also important to make clear to people on what basis referrals will go to the Greater London Authority. There must be no unfair treatment between different boroughs by the Greater London Authority. I am sure that all boroughs would wish to see a fair system, not one imposed unnecessarily and reserved strictly for strategic purposes. I should like the noble Baroness's assurance on that.
I find paragraph 6.6 slightly confusing. During debate on the referendum Bill, I asked the noble Baroness how this authority would be funded. The Minister assured me that no extra money would be taken from the boroughs. However, I note that there is a precept. At present it is cited as 3 pence. I do not accept that as a realistic figure. The White Paper states that some funding will come from the council tax. I had understood her previous answer to indicate that the only precepts that would move over would be those already in force for the fire authority and the police. They are already precepts on the local council tax. However, there is now a definite suggestion of an additional precept from the council tax.
I should appreciate clarification on that point. It seems in conflict with the earlier answer. Although it is stated that capping powers will be retained, precepts creep up quickly. If there is capping, it means that other local services have to be cut in order to meet a precept over which one has no control.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall check exactly what I said to the noble Baroness in, I think, the Second Reading debate during which we had an exchange on this issue. Perhaps a little of the confusion concerns whether it was extra money. We are ensuring that there will be no extra increase in public expenditure because of the creation of the GLA. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the GLA will levy a precept. That will be one precept which will cover the precepted items which already exist—the police and fire—and the costs of the 3p per Band D council taxpayer which will be necessary to make up, together with the 80 per cent. of the government grant, the running costs of the assembly. I shall check what I said earlier to the noble Baroness and write to her on that point.
As regards the ability of the mayor to direct boroughs to refuse planning permission when that is considered necessary on strategic grounds, I understand the noble Baroness's concerns. We would be committed to
1292
ensuring that applications falling within that category must be limited to those of genuine strategic importance. Because of the issues the noble Baroness raised—she referred to treating people equally, for example, and not interfering wrongly in borough decisions—the Government will consult separately on what criteria should be applied to those cases.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement about this interesting White Paper. I am not sure whether the White Paper contains details about how candidates are to be selected. For instance, is it expected that local party members will have a role in selecting their party's candidates for mayor from a list of candidates? If so, how will the list be drawn up? Will the same methods be used for selecting the local candidates for the first-past-the-post elections? Who will draw up the party lists for the remaining assembly members who will be elected on the additional member system?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are occasions when I am delighted that I am answering for the Government rather than for my own party, the party opposite or the noble Baroness's party. These issues are rightly decided by the parties themselves. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested and will make representations to their own party machines.

Burma and Karen Refugees
7.26 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolrose to call attention to the plight of Karen refugees on the Burmese/Thai border and to the continued violations of human rights by the Burmese military regime; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am indebted to the Cross-Bench Members of your Lordships' House for facilitating this evening's debate. At the outset I should like to refer to two messages I have received. The noble Countess, Lady Mountbatten of Burma, wrote to me in a letter dated 20th March:
"I am so pleased to hear there is to he a debate in the House of Lords on human rights violations in Burma and the situation of the Karen people. I know what a high regard my father had for the Karens and the sacrifices they made to help us win the appallingly difficult Burma Campaign. I do hope a way will he found to help these apparently 'Forgotten Allies'—whose aim is surely the same as ours in this country—that of working for the Democracy which we prize so much".
I have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has a long and distinguished interest in the plight of the Karen people. She is overseas at present but would wholeheartedly wish to be associated with the concerns which will be expressed today.
In your Lordships' House there are many who had first-hand experience of the horrors of World War II and who saw active service in India, Burma and the Far East. Some, such as my noble friend Lord Chalfont, personally commanded Karen soldiers, 50,000 of whom gallantly and bravely fought alongside us as allies during the hostilities with the Japanese. Many Karen

1293
suffered torture and death at the hands of the Japanese. So loyal were the Karen to the British that General Slim wrote,
"The Karen are no fair-weather friends".
Yet, like the noble Countess, Lady Mountbatten, General Saw Bo Mya, president of the Karen National Union and holder of the Burma Star, poignantly describes the Karen people as "our forgotten allies". Certainly, despite appalling brutality, carnage and violations of human rights reminiscent of the worst atrocities of World War II, this is a forgotten conflict—one given only sparse and intermittent coverage.
Throughout the 1940s the Karen were led to believe that at the war's end Britain would grant them independence in a free Karen state. Instead, 50 years ago a Burmese-led government were given territorial rights over more than 100 different ethnic minorities. The largest of these, the Karen—now thought to number some 7 million people—were, within a year, locked into a civil war which continues to this day. It is one of the world's longest running civil wars. In the past five years alone, an estimated 20,000 Karen people have been killed by the Burmese military. Burma is beset by two struggles—one is the struggle for democracy, personified by the bravery of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the other is the struggle of abused peoples struggling for self-determination.
At the end of last month I undertook a fact-finding mission on behalf of the human rights group, the Jubilee Campaign, to the Burma-Thai border area. I visited both sides of the border and saw for myself the conditions in which the Karen military are fighting a desperate battle against the phenomenal might of the Burmese military: some 5,000 to 10,000 troops pitted in jungle warfare against some 350,000 Burmese soldiers. I also visited several of the refugee camps to which predominantly Karen people have been fleeing, an exodus which began 14 years ago. One hundred and sixteen thousand people now live in the camps, 95,000 of whom are Karen, and more than 10,000 more are hiding in jungle areas on the Burma side of the border, desperate to escape. The regime has been systematically clearing out whole villages, forcibly resettling villagers and conscripting others as forced labour. Those who try to escape are shot on sight. The Burmese military have transformed their country into a vast concentration camp where there is genocide on a par with that practised in Rwanda and Bosnia.
Even when the refugees arrive in the camps, their suffering is not over. Although the Thai authorities must be commended for permitting the creation of the camps on their territory, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has never been given a permanent presence in the camps. UNHCR's director for relief operations, Amelia Bonifacio, is based hundreds of miles away. She told me,
"We have no one on the border at all; we have no permanent presence. It is not a satisfactory arrangement because we have to seek authorisation from the Thai government every time we wish to visit".
The Thai Government do not even officially recognise the people in the camps as refugees.
1294
There is also a widespread belief among the camp dwellers that the Thais wish to develop their burgeoning economic relationship with Burma and that, to appease their aggressive neighbours, they would like to repatriate the refugees at the earliest opportunity. Although I welcome yesterday's protest by the Thai deputy foreign minister, Sukhumbhand Paribatra, to the Burmese ambassador in Bangkok, following Monday's attack on the Mawker refugee camp (one of those which I visited) the Thai Government should also review some of their own practices. For instance, tighter restrictions on movement now permanently confine the refugees to their camps. At one camp which I visited, Bekhlo, I saw a pen where any refugee crossing the perimeter without permission is taken. Stripped to their underwear, they are left there in the burning sun and, if their relatives cannot afford to redeem them, they are repatriated. Some have been taken by truck and simply tipped into the nearby River Moi.
Nor are the camps safe from direct attack. The Burmese military and their allies, the DKBA—the so-called Democratic Karen Buddhist Army—regularly carry out cross-border raids, attacking and killing Karen refugees. At about 1 a.m. on 11th March, a combined force of about 50 Burmese troops and DKBA soldiers attacked Hwayka Loke camp, also known as Wangka. The camp was burnt to the ground. About 40 refugees were injured in the raid and five killed, including a pregnant woman, a four year-old boy and a 15 year-old girl, who suffered 70 per cent. burns. The camp, with a population of 8,769 refugees, was previously burnt down in an attack by Burmese military on 28th January 1997.
On 23rd March, Her Majesty's Government, in a parliamentary Answer to a Question which I tabled to the Minister, called on the Burmese regime,
"to investigate the incident and to prevent such attacks in future .— [Official Report, 23/3/98; col. WA229.]
The DKBA collaborate with the Burmese military, and it makes little sense to ask them to investigate what they instigate.
Naw Bway Tee, an 85 year-old Karen grandmother, was killed instantly on 29th January 1997 Burmese military fired rocket-propelled grenades at the Bekhlo refugee camp. Another elderly woman in her 70s was seriously injured and later died. A 10 year-old girl, Hsa Gler Mu, sustained serious shrapnel wounds to the stomach. I met the little girl. I met the son of the woman who was killed.
The situation in the camps pales almost into insignificance in comparison with the situation in Burma itself. Known since November 1997 as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)—formerly the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC)—its policy is to counter the armed resistance of Karen guerillas by attacking the Karen civilian population until they can no longer support any opposition. That is the fundamental idea behind the so-called "four cuts" policy (cutting supplies of food, funds, recruits and intelligence to the resistance) which General Ne Win initiated in the 1970s.

1295
The systematic and direct attacks by the Burmese army upon Karen civilians are characterised by mass forced relocations, forced labour and destruction of villages. One American missionary who had just returned from the Karen state told me:
"Desolation is everywhere. I saw abandoned rice fields, empty villages, destroyed homes. Field upon empty field. The land was desolate. Not even the birds sing".
Christians, Moslems and Buddhist monks have all been terrorised. Ten-thousand Moslems from all over Burma now live in the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. Dr. Abdul Razzak, the chairman of the All Burma Moslem Union told me that 42 mosques have been destroyed. Moslems have regularly been arrested and pressed into forced labour. The Burmese military have also subjected them to humiliations which offend their religious belief—such as being forced to eat pork—and have taken their animals and possessions and destroyed whole villages.
In the time that I have, perhaps I may give just one or two other examples. In 1996, Burmese soldiers raped four Karen women in the Pa Pun district. They then killed two of the women, who were pregnant, by stamping on their bellies. They murdered the other two by driving sharpened bamboo stakes into them. Saw Wah Lay, aged 34, says that in June 1997,
"Some people went to get some rice and the Burmese met with them and shot them. They shot at a child. Both of his legs were broken. And they killed the child. They smashed his head. His mother was shot in the chest and died too. Now the villagers do not dare stay in our village any more. They have gone to stay all over the place".
International action to combat these violations and abuses should be taken as a matter of urgency before more lives are lost. I have some suggestions to make. First, there need to be international economic sanctions against Burma to isolate the Burmese regime and deprive it of the resources to buy arms and other weapons of destruction. Only humanitarian resources such as food and medicine should be exempted from such sanctions. Years of attempts at so-called constructive engagement with the Burmese regime have only emboldened it in human rights violations. The number of atrocities committed by the regime have increased. The Burmese army has also had no hesitation in conducting repeated raids on refugee camps in Thailand in flagrant violation of Thailand's sovereignty and international law. There should be increased pressure by the British Government, with the European Union, for tough EU economic sanctions against Burma. Britain should use its seat on the UN Security Council to call for an international embargo against Burma.
Britain should also encourage ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, which admitted Burma to its membership, to place pressure on the Burmese regime over its human rights record. On 3rd and 4th April, government leaders from Asia and Europe will meet in London. That summit will focus on trade and investment. But the British Government should also use the opportunity to raise concerns about Burma. Our position is much weaker than that adopted
1296
by the United States Administration which, on 20th May 1997, prohibited US nationals from investigating or engaging in economic activity in Burma.
In addition, we should have permanent monitors of human rights abuses in Burma—a UNHCR permanent presence in the camps. There should be no forced repatriation. There should be freedom of movement for refugees.
Clearly, the best hope for the Karen and all Burmese people will be the overthrow of a regime which is a byword for all that is bestial and brutal. Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy are the legitimate government and the best hope for Burma. She says:
"The sufferings of our Karen brothers and sisters are our very own sufferings".
I pray that our Government and the international community will do all in their power to relieve that suffering, remember a people and a conflict too long forgotten, and honour a debt too long unpaid. I beg to move for Papers.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is an important role of Parliament to draw attention to matters which may not have a direct impact upon our own domestic economy but which are nevertheless matters of honour. The impositions suffered by the Karen people in northern Burma and the atrocities so graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. are an important example of that. I congratulate him on having managed to visit the area which has for too long been closed to visitors and on having initiated the debate this evening.
The fate and the future of the Karen people are without doubt a matter of honour, not just for those of us who participated in the Burma Campaign during the last war but for all of us who now enjoy peace, thanks to the loyalty and bravery of the Imperial Indian Army in Burma. It was the largest volunteer army that the world has ever known: 2 million men and women under arms, every one a volunteer. I had the privilege of serving with my regiment, the 19th King George V's Own Lancers in the Arakan, so I did not have direct contact with the Karens. But we should never forget that the Burma Rifles, which recruited Karens, Chins and Kachins, fought with great loyalty and bravery in all theatres of the Burma Campaign, particularly in the heroic defence of the gateway to India, in Imphal and Khohima.
The Karens in particular were recruited and formed part of V Force and Force 136 which penetrated deep into Burma and operated behind the Japanese lines. As the noble Lord. Lord Alton. said, if captured they were routinely tortured before being killed by the Japanese.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, distinguished son of our highly respected and much loved General Bill Slim, will speak in this debate. General Slim said of the Karens, as the noble Lord. Lord Alton, said, that,
"they were far from being just fair weather friends".

1297
How true that was, because those of us who fought in that campaign and experienced that kind of weather will know that it was nearly always foul weather.
Unhappily, despite the contribution of the Karens to final victory, the British Government never fulfilled their promise on the partition of India in 1947 to give the Karens an independent state. Had they done so, it is unlikely that those courageous people would be engaged in a long and damaging struggle with the present Burmese Government.
That is why I have called it a debt of honour and why we have an obligation to make amends by using our influence in the European Union and the United Nations to bring heavy pressure upon the Myanmar Government, the Burmese Government, and as members of the Commonwealth—and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said this—as Burma was made a full member of ASEAN, we must persuade ASEAN to bring pressure on the Burmese Government to stop the atrocities.
Those atrocities have caused thousands of refugees to seek refuge in Thailand and also to some extent in India and Bangladesh. The refugees are often considered by the Thais in particular to be illegal immigrants. They are deported hack to the border, where, in the words of one 60 year-old witness, they are hunted down by the Burmese Army and killed "like wild animals". It is not only a debt of honour; it is a scandal and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, if it were happening in our own continent, the United Nations would long ago have stepped in to stop it.
I hope this debate will encourage the UN to do so in northern Burma and that Her Majesty's Government will take a lead in repaying our debt of honour to the Karen people.
Those of us who formed part of the so-called "forgotten army" have an obligation to seek to ensure that this is not a forgotten conflict. That is the real importance of the debate tonight.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Alton said, I have a special reason for congratulating him and thanking him for initiating the short debate today. When I was on active service in the Burma jungle in the Second World War, the Karen people were among our staunchest friends and allies. My Army commander in those days was one of our outstanding battlefield generals, General, later Field Marshal, Bill Slim, the father of my noble friend who sits behind me today. Field Marshal Slim wrote of the Karen people in his book Defeat into Victory, his story of the Burma campaign, that they are:
"a race which had remained staunchly loyal to us even in the blackest days of Japanese occupation, and had suffered accordingly".
These were the people from whom General Slim recruited his Karen Guerrillas, a volunteer force who harried, harassed and ambushed the Japanese who were opposing our own forces advancing south from Mandalay towards Rangoon.
1298
It is on these brave and remarkable people that I would like to concentrate my brief remarks today. I support wholeheartedly the concerns and general thrust of my noble friend's remarks, but I know he and my noble friend Lord Weatherill will understand if I say that we, the British, should not be ready to accept too much of the blame for what has happened to the Karen people over the past 50 years.
One of the important facts to keep in mind in considering this issue is that the Karens are not, strictly speaking, a distinct ethnic group. They are made up of a number of different tribal peoples in southern Burma. What is more important is that they are dispersed over a wide geographical area, from the Shan states east of Mandalay, southwards through the Karenni state and on to what are now the Karen states themselves and the contiguous parts of Thailand. They go westward to the Pegu Yoma mountain range and even down to the Irrawaddy delta, altogether an area of 100,000 square miles—just about the size of the United Kingdom.
This is important because the widely scattered distribution of the Karen peoples has given rise to many of the problems which they now face. In October 1947 a treaty was signed establishing the independent republic of the Union of Burma. Under the terms of this treaty there were to be separate states for the various racial groups, as both my noble friends said, including the Karens. However, in their negotiations with the Burmese in 1947, the British Government were unable, because of the wide dispersion of the Karens, to arrive at a satisfactory agreement with the Burmese over the boundaries of their proposed state. The Karens regarded both the amount of land and the degree of autonomy granted to them under the treaty as inadequate. It is for that reason that, although the Burmese Government in 1954 made a certain concession and established a new Karen state, the Karen people have, as my noble friend Lord Alton told us, been virtually in a state of civil war with the Burma Government for the past 50 years.
There is a cultural factor also which is worth bearing in mind and which has not yet been mentioned. Many Burmese have traditionally regarded the Karens as inferior beings. In fact, the word "Karen" in the Burmese language means "a wild man". It was only under British rule, especially during the war, that the Karen people were accorded the proper dignity and respect which they deserved.
I apologise for this somewhat simplified child's guide to the history of modern Burma, or Myanmar, as it is now called, but it is important to make the point that any betrayal of the Karens has not been by the British. However, that does not mean that we have no moral responsibility now to do whatever we can to help them in their present anguish. I shall not rehearse the stories of suffering, oppression and atrocity. They are well documented and further exposed by my noble friend who, as he said, recently returned from a visit to Burma and to the Karen people. I should like instead to look to the future and ask what we can do to help the people who were so courageous and so loyal to us when we needed them.

1299
One obvious idea is the establishment of some kind of international presence in the region to investigate the reports of atrocities. If even a small proportion of the anecdotal evidence of human rights violation were validated by independent observers, there would be a strong case for the strict economic sanctions to which my noble friend referred to be applied against Burma.
In that context the British Government would have a leading role to play both in the European Union and in its relations with ASEAN (the Association of South-East Asian Nations). I recall that in June last year in reply to a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the Minister expressed the Government's concern about Burma's human rights record and said that the Government had not ruled out economic sanctions, although she reminded the House that there were certain legal complications about unilateral action in that regard. I wonder whether she will be able to tell the House, when she comes to reply to my noble friend's Motion, whether the Government's thinking on that issue has developed any further. Perhaps she can also tell the House what is the Government's reaction to the recent call from Amnesty International for member states of the European Union to raise concerns about human rights violations in Burma at the Asia-Europe meeting to be held in London next week.
I do not intend to enter into any wider discussion of the human rights situation in Burma or the unhappy fate of Aung San Suu Kyi. I have now reached the age when, to quote an American general, I have more and more vivid memories of things which never actually happened at all. However, I do have some real memories, and one of them is General Bill Slim's account of the occasion when General Aung San, the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, came to Slim's headquarters in the jungle to discuss placing his Burma National Army, previously under the control of the Japanese, at the disposal of the British Commander-in-Chief.
As I said earlier, my only reason for intervening in this brief debate is to support my noble friend Lord Alton in calling attention to the plight of the Karen people and in asking the Government to do everything they can to help them—not for any reason of post-colonial guilt but simply because we owe them a debt of honour, as my noble friend Lord Weatherill said, for their loyalty and courage as our allies throughout the war.
And there is a lesson for us in a remark made by General Aung San, with which I shall conclude, when he came to Bill Slim's headquarters. General Slim had promised Aung San that, whether or not they came to a satisfactory agreement about the disposal of the Burma National Army, he, Aung San, would be returned unharmed to his own people. At the beginning of their meeting in the jungle headquarters, Slim asked him why, bearing in mind his recent association with the Japanese, Aung San should now be prepared to take Slim's word that he would be treated honourably. "Because", Aung San replied simply, "you are a British officer". I believe that we must now behave towards the Karen people in a way that demonstrates that we still deserve that kind of reputation.
7.54 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alton deserves our warm congratulations on his commitment in bringing this urgent matter to our attention and I am proud to belong to this noble and mainly gallant foursome from the Cross-Benches in that regard.
I hesitate to use the term "Myanmar", just as I was reluctant to use the name "Kampuchea", which was associated with some of the worst crimes in living memory. With some comparable human rights violations going on in Myanmar, let us hope that that ancient name now used by the United Nations is not similarly tainted and will one day come into its own.
The evils of the State Peace and Development Council—a new euphemism for the junta—are now well documented. The 1997 report by the UN special rapporteur was another detailed indictment of abuses of every kind, including, as we have heard, the bombing of civilians, arbitrary killings, rape, forced relocations and the persecution of minorities such as the Karen.
The Churches and NGOs working with the refugees in Thailand confirm those atrocities. Individuals like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and Glenys Kinnock for the European Parliament have spoken from recent experience. We have also heard it from the people themselves, especially Aung San Suu Kyi who has been a Gandhian symbol of resistance for the large majority of the Burmese since her landslide election victory in 1990.
I visited almost all the countries of South East Asia when I was on the staff of Christian Aid and Save the Children Fund, and I am still haunted by the suffering there which has gone beyond any limit of endurance we might think possible. The wartime memories of the Karen, Shan and other minorities who fought beside us against the Japanese are still vivid, as my noble friend Lord Slim will remind us, though for the Karen they are fading behind the more recent guerilla struggles against the SPDC regime and the factions it has supported.
Fortunately Thailand, despite its own economic troubles, has managed to support refugees and migrants from that region for many years, and that must be acknowledged. Yet they cannot expect sympathy when they connive with neighbouring governments and practise the refoulement of unarmed civilians back to their countries of origin. Only a few days ago there was a high-level meeting in Rangoon between the Burmese High Command and senior Thai generals, and we can assume that the junta were asking for more support in crushing pockets of Karen resistance at the expense of the civilian population.
I have clear memories of the long string of refugee camps sustained by the UNHCR and the NGOs in Thailand stretching from the hill-tribe settlements of the Hmong and the Lao in the north, down to the vast bamboo and canvas huts beside the Cardamum hills on the edge of Cambodia. Perhaps the Minister can explain why there is no similar UNHCR mandate to bring relief to the Karen refugees in the north-west, leaving only the Burma Border Consortium, the Baptist Churches and other NGOs which can obtain access to them. Cannot

1301
the UK press for that mandate? In our December debate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth—who unfortunately is not with us today—pressed that point. It is surely possible to use the precedent of HCR's mandates which have been extended to help the displaced of Indo-China in the past.
As we have heard, the Karen were once a great nation within a nation; the oldest and largest Burmese minority. They are now in places reduced to a status closer to .jungle creatures than humans, as my noble friend Lord Weatherill said. Caught in the crossfire between Burma and Thailand they have been forced to live in whatever crevices or steep forested hillsides the army cannot penetrate.
This week I spoke to a Karen veteran of the Wingate campaign who lives in Britain and has just been back home for the first time in 50 years. He and his wife climbed up an escarpment just inside Thailand near Maesot, home to 25,000 refugees. He said that there were no paths to the camp which could only be reached along the contours of the hill. The people have nothing, he says; no means of survival or of earning their livelihood. They live on eroded slopes of bare red sand where trees have been cleared along a river which now floods up to 16 feet. The men hunt with bamboo spears and crossbows. The women and children wash without soap or clean water. Toys, towels and sweets are luxuries quite unknown to them. Cholera and malaria are taking their toll and yet, he says, no one complains.
The Karen are unaware that they are suffering from a gradual form of genocide which not only neglects its victims but isolates and targets them. Two weeks ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the neighbouring Hway Kalok camp was attacked and burned to the ground by the DKBA, a Karen Buddhist faction backed by the Burmese government. Four or five died, over 50 were wounded and many others were kidnapped, while the camp was looted and destroyed—not for the first time. There are about 115,000 "displaced people" in these so called camps in Thailand but the border seems irrelevant: they are hardly any more protected there than in the forests of Burma.
The victims of this appalling regime are not only helpless refugees but thousands inside their country who face persecution if not outright torture and forced labour. Among the prominent oppressed groups are the student population whose universities and colleges have been closed since December 1996. Students in Burma have become, not surprisingly, the most vocal opposition group and another 40 leaders were arrested three weeks ago on ridiculous charges.
We should be in no dilemma as far as our own Government's policy goes. I believe we should continue to press for economic sanctions and disinvestment on the South African model by all European Union member states and should not now enter any new contracts which sustain the present regime. We must reject the argument, often used by opponents of sanctions, that others will merely fill the breach. In the case of Texaco and the Yetagun oilfield, it looks as if our own Premier Oil will replace Texaco unless sanctions are applied. I hope the Minister can indicate the stance Her Majesty's
1302
Government will take at the Asia-Europe meeting next week which provides an excellent opportunity for us under the UK presidency. I recall, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did, that, because of legal complications, the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government had some difficulty in taking the issue further during our last debate and I hope that she can report some further progress today.
The opposition movement in Burma is formidable and it now extends to monasteries, universities and many other institutions which are being persecuted. It would not be surprising if, as in South Africa, the people began to throw off their yoke long before the outside world applied full scale sanctions.
I do not myself advocate cutting Burma off altogether because there is a whole new generation growing up there who will expect our support in the future. Through the BBC, the British Council and the United Nations agencies we can at least maintain cultural ties, especially English language teaching, without prejudicing our political stance. I am uncomfortable with organised tourism but find it difficult to exclude all human contact. I remember from my own visit to Rangoon and Mandalay some years ago how essential the outside world is, especially to young people desperate for knowledge and understanding. I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that we will keep up these contacts.
Evidently, my Lords, we cannot be alert to all the abuses of human rights on earth—although I think that this House does its best to follow them—but this is a country, Burma or Myanmar, and a people, the Karen, with whom we share a common past and a present moral responsibility which we cannot ignore.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Alton of Liverpool, for initiating this debate and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Chalfont, for the kind things they said about my father. He would be rather pleased if he were present to see three of us who were with him here and there. The noble Lords were good officers; I think I was an unpaid lance corporal. I cannot remember whether or not I was being paid. Certainly the two noble Lords were much closer to the enemy, and for longer, than I was.
I have taken a genuine interest in the fate of Myanmar. Like everyone else who has spoken today, I get letters about Myanmar and I feel awful that there does not seem a great deal I can do to help. I am not in any way complaining about our Government who are in a very tricky position on this subject, but perhaps being as helpful as I can be towards the noble Baroness the Minister.
I am not taken in by the renaming of SLORC to the State Peace and Development Council. It has a rather sinister and more permanent ring than SLORC had. Of course, when names change, people change. I understand that three or four members of the old SLORC—generals and colonels—have been chucked out. I am told that they were possibly the cleverest. Perhaps they were too clever and they are now being

1303
fully interrogated for corruption. As happens, sadly, in Burma, when that kind of thing emerges, every mother, brother, cousin, nephew or other relation of that person and his fellow village members are badly treated and interrogated. A case is made against everyone.
The restraints placed on Daw Suu Kyi, a very courageous lady, are as repressive as ever but they have strengthened her party, though they appear publicly not to. Many in her democratic party are locked up or under restraint. All are under surveillance.
Remembering what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, we have to bear in mind that in the history of Myanmar there has always been animosity between the people of the plains, the plains men, and the hill men, the hill tribes. In fairness to Suu Kyi's father, Aung San, who I did not have the pleasure of meeting—I was in Rangoon on the day he was assassinated and heard the shooting. He assembled the leaders of all the hill tribes and asked them bluntly, although very diplomatically in the Burmese way—they are a very polite and diplomatic people when they are allowed to be—whether they would support the central government. He talked to each and every tribe: the Kachin, the Shan, the Chin, the Haka Chin and those very pleasant people, the Wah, towards the north, who I have met on several occasions and who were quite good at removing enemies' heads if they felt so inclined. The tribes said that if they were given a fair amount of independence to do their own thing they would subject themselves to the central government. I think it is so stupid that that has lapsed and that the people who got rid of Aung San—probably for many reasons but I think perhaps because he was becoming a little too friendly with the hill tribes—do not have enough competence to turn over a new leaf and start again.
Of course the Burmese government—the Myanmar government—are incompetent and full of ineptitude. They are cruel and harsh. What they have done to these lovely people is awful. Though we talk about the hill tribes, which all supported us in the war in one way or another, the man on the plains is suffering just as much as the hill men. Hatred, cruelty, forced labour and hardship are everywhere today. Burma was the rice bowl of Asia. It had everything. There was never any starvation. There was plenty. They had lovely teak forests, which are now being decimated to make money for the government, but that money will not go into the people's pocket. What the Myanmar government are doing will destroy the teak forests but it will also destroy the living of the hill tribes. It is another way of ethnic cleansing.
My own son spent some time on the Bangladesh border with the one and only Moslem tribe of which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has made mention. Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, he has seen great cruelty and suffering in various parts of the world. He said that he had never seen a tribe so badly mauled and tortured, including men, women and children. There were amputations, rapes—everything that one can think of and which to us is so horrific. The Bangladeshis, rather like the Thais, are trying now to push them back. I hate
1304
to think what has happened to them. They were just as good Burmese as any of the other tribes, whether Christian, Buddhist, Animist or whatever.
Economically the nation is about bust through completely incompetent government. Inflation is rising fast. I heard recently that the Government have closed the borders for trade, which again cannot be very sensible because the one thing that the country needs is trade. I dare say that they have done it to try to harness the legal and the illegal dealings in the US dollar. But that does not help the situation. The hotels are only about 10 per cent. Full, We are talking about an area which is in the middle of the drugs world. Some of the barons are allowed to live openly. Some people are making a great deal of money out of it, but not the sort of people we are talking about today.
But the worst thing that is happening is in education. The universities and schools were closed for two or three years, then opened for a little while and then shut again. We will have two generations of Burmese who cannot speak English. What is worse, they will be unable to speak technical English as regards medicine, engineering, commerce, and so on. I have some small interest in this. I have the privilege of being patron of a little charity, Prospect Burma, which concentrates on education. We cannot do it inside the country at the moment, but I hope that eventually we will. We operate on the Thai border with English schools in the camps which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about. It is a small effort, but we feel quite proud about the way we do it. I hope that it will get support from the noble Baroness and the Minister with whom she works.
I say this about the future: we are in a very difficult position. There is the choice of locking Burma away with sanctions and all that kind of thing. That will cause more misery and suffering. We are dealing with a very tough junta. It has survived so far and it intends to go on surviving. Do we go in and do business and humanitarian work in looking after and helping the people? Perhaps there is a mix there which should be looked at. It may be that the UN should be asked to do more.
It is a very grave situation. We cannot act alone. We have a responsibility. I respectfully remind the noble Baroness that many thousands of British. Indian, African, Chinese and Burmese soldiers died fighting to give Burma its independence. It was given that independence, but it has made a mess of it. We still have a responsibility to do all that we can. We may be able to carry that out with our European friends or the United Nations. We keep being told that we cannot act alone these days, but let us not be frightened to do so and to take action to alleviate the hardship and help these lovely people to survive and retain their democratic right, which they have already won.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to add to the congratulations that have been extended to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on bringing this matter before the House for debate. I shall go a little further and say that he also deserves great

1305
tribute for his courage in going to a deeply unstable area, spending time getting inside the refugee camps, meeting the people concerned, getting right up to the border and, in doing so, taking the kind of risk that he has taken throughout his life when he believes the cause is right.
I also pay tribute to those who have spoken in this debate, for I cannot think of a better recommendation for the Cross-Benches in this House than the short debate that we have just heard. Noble Lords with great experience of Burma have contributed to it. They know Burma's history and the events leading to its independence; they are still closely associated with the country, like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who has been there in recent years and seen precisely what they are talking about.
In those circumstances it would be wholly inappropriate for someone like myself who has no first-hand knowledge of Burma, and who has never visited the country—although I have visited its neighbours, Thailand and India—to try to add to what is being said. Therefore, in this debate I intend to concentrate on just two things. The first is why Burma is a unique case in so many ways; and, secondly, as somebody with at least a modest amount of governmental experience, what one might reasonably ask the Government to do.
Burma has certain characteristics which single it out. I do not refer to the courage of the Karen people; nor to the great contribution that they made to the Allies in the Second World War. I accept what has already been said as a huge tribute to the Karen people. There is nothing that I can properly and decently add to the marvellous tributes that we have already heard.
However, it is worth reminding the House of three characteristics of Burma. The first is that it is one of very few countries where the result of a properly conducted election, contested between political parties and by what observers agree was a proper and open method, has been so brutally overthrown in the face of the wishes of the great majority of the Burmese people.
There are many other cases where human rights have been traduced and human beings have been treated like brutes. But Burma is unusual in that it has a record of a precise election result being overturned by a junta which was absolutely conscious and aware of what it was doing. Aung San Suu Kyi, by her silent witness, for month after month and year after year—and silent only because she was not allowed to be heard—is a living statement that goes on and on of that rejection of the wishes of the Burmese people. I have had the great privilege of meeting her on more than one occasion. In paying tribute to her I believe it is right to say that she is the Gandhi or, if one likes, the Mandela of Asia. Her courage deserves our tribute.
But the best tribute to that courage is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords have done to keep alive the remembrance of Burma, what she stands for and what is happening there. One of the great problems about Burma is that it has largely excluded the world's media. So when we say that it is a forgotten
1306
country, that is because it is not covered in our newspapers in the same way as nearby democracies and countries like Thailand and India are covered.
The second fact about Burma is that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, it is one of the world's major conscious drug producers, by which I mean that its government knowingly allow drugs to be produced, traded and exported, and do so in the face of international disapproval of such a trade. Drugs are exported from many countries, including Colombia and Paraguay, but there are not many countries where the government openly encourage and, indeed, profit from the drugs trade as seems to be the case for the junta that governs Burma.
My third and final point about what is different about the situation in Burma as compared with other countries is that Burma has quite directly, as far as I can tell, not accepted the legality of the borders between itself and its neighbour Thailand, but openly crosses those borders, burns towns and assaults those living on the Thai side. I may not be a lawyer, but it seems to me that that is a clear breach of international law. As such, it makes Burma a country which has directly breached such law and it seems to me that that gives Her Majesty's Government a great opportunity.
I shall not recite what other noble Lords with much greater knowledge than myself have already stated. But before I proceed to the second half of my few remarks, I merely remind the House of Burke's famous dictum that for injustice to triumph it is enough for good men to remain silent. Noble Lords have not remained silent, but many others do.
When I ask, "What could the Government do?", I am not looking only to the Government for help in dealing with this problem. I refer first to the government of Thailand. Thailand is led by a prime minister, Mr. Chuan Leekpai, who is said by many to be a reasonable, decent and open-minded man. But he happens to be dealing with one of the most serious financial crises facing any country because, as we all know. Thailand is caught up in the extreme Asian financial crisis with the Baht, like the Ringgit and other east Asian currencies, literally tumbling week by week although it has pulled out a little in the last few months. In consequence, Thailand is heavily dependent on Western help—on US aid of 1.7 billion dollars and on the IMF and a loan of 18 billion dollars, and it is necessarily having to look outside to try to save itself from a still deeper financial crisis.
In such a situation, I do not think that it would be unreasonable to bring to Thailand's attention our concerns about the fact that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has no presence in the camps along the border. It simply will not do to pretend that we have no influence on Thailand, no access to it or voice there because, clearly, we do. I repeat that the Thais deserve credit for the way in which, despite unsatisfactory conditions, they have accepted thousands of Burmese refugees. I remind noble Lords of what would happen in Britain if 116,000 illegal refugees were camped along the Kentish coast and of what we would say about that. I suspect that we would have them sent

1307
packing back to France or wherever they came from within a matter of 48 hours, so we are in no position to blame the Thais. However, we can ask them to reconsider the exclusion of the United National High Commissioner from those border camps.
We are also in a position to suggest that we could help, if it would be useful, in providing such assistance as may be needed to run the camps more effectively and to provide them with adequate sustenance. Frankly, the Thais are less and less able to do that themselves. That is all that I want to say about Thailand. As I have said, I believe that we are in a position from which we can influence Thailand. I believe that we could use that position to plead with Thailand not to remove refugees and to indicate that we would give financial help if Thailand so decided.
I turn now to Burma itself. I do not find it easy to understand why we cannot move as far as the United States in heavily discouraging direct new investment. Under a presidential order, the United States has forbidden new investment in Burma. As we know, that has driven some American companies to sell their companies, alas, to Europeans, including ourselves. I believe that we become, in a sense, accomplices to the guilt that is borne for Burma's behaviour if we do not take any steps to support the United States. To the limited extent of at least publicly discouraging new investment in Burma, I think that we should take that step and then turn to our European neighbours and ask them to help us. Let me be quite blunt: it is our responsibility, for all the reasons which noble Lords have given, first and foremost not to say to the EU, "You take the steps and we will follow" because we should take the steps and then ask our EU neighbours to follow.
One other action could be taken—not by the Government, but by the charitable bodies, non-governmental organisations and others with which many noble Lords are associated. I refer among others to Christian Aid and Amnesty International. I warmly recommend that those bodies circulate the shareholders of companies such as Premier Oil, and others which are currently seeking to become involved in Burma, information about the circumstances into which those companies will be moving. Such bodies should say that shareholders should not allow their companies to take such action. The power of shareholders is almost totally unorganised. However, it can be organised and extremely effectively, as we have seen with certain Green movements. I commend that suggestion to the House.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on securing this debate and on raising the profile of this important issue, and to say how much I should like to associate myself with so many of the comments made so admirably from the Cross Benches and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
1308
We have heard details this evening of the gruelling fact-finding mission of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the Thai-Burma border. He has provided the House with a compelling account of the gravity of the situation there. We have heard disturbing reports and horrific descriptions of the persecution suffered by the Karen people. They are an ethnic minority group, but with an estimated population of 7 million, they are the second largest ethnic group in Burma. As we have heard, they have been engaged in conflict with the Burmese Army for many decades in their struggle for an independent state. Placatory promises to establish an independent territory have been made and forgotten. Many this evening have argued that we owe a debt to the Karen and that we cannot afford to ignore their current plight. That is a sentiment with which I seek strongly to be associated.
As we have already heard, attacks by the Burmese Army against the Karen are characterised by forced relocations, forced labour, rape, pillage and death. Many have fled towards Thailand in a quest for freedom, but the Burmese Army has pursued them over the border. As recently as 11th March this year, the Wangka refugee camp in Thailand was destroyed by fire at the hands of the Burmese Army, leaving many of the Karen destitute and starving. Sadly, that is no isolated incident. As we have heard this evening, the Burmese Army, condoned by the Burmese Government, continues to treat the Karen with contempt. Those who are not able to flee from them in the jungle are either forced into slavery or shot.
It is evident to us that the current situation is intolerable, and yet what can we do to alleviate such suffering?
As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, rightly pointed out, the Burmese regime was formerly known as the State Law and Order Council. To the wry amusement of the watching world last November it renamed itself the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). It hears nothing but contempt for the international community. It revels in its status as a pariah of the late 20th century. It ignores the opprobrium, condemnation and censure that is heaped upon it by the rest of the world. This is a government that rules by the law of terror. Democracy, political pluralism and opposition have no place here. Those who are brave enough to stand up for their beliefs risk arrest, detention, torture and murder in the fight to suppress opposition.
Burma continues to turn a blind eye to the drugs trade. These very important issues were raised by both the Cross Benches and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The reality is that opium and heroin production benefit many who are associated through that government with the trade therein. The SPDC persecutes religious groups. Forced conversion from Christianity to Buddhism is commonplace and crosses are symbolically burned. The UN Special Rapporteur for Burma, Chief Justice Rajsoomer Lallah, who has been repeatedly denied access to the country, has chronicled a history of truly appalling violations, including summary executions, the inhumane treatment of political detainees, particularly in the notorious Insein prison outside Rangoon, and forced civilian labour.

1309
This is a government by the government for the government. Hope is starved and desperation fed while corruption and nepotism prosper.
How can we tackle the problems of the Karen against such an intractable authority? These are difficult questions and require an answer from the House this evening. Many possible solutions and useful ideas have been put forward. I believe that there are a number of tools at our disposal. First, I grapple with the thorny issue of sanctions on which we have heard different views during this extremely useful debate. The Opposition support the Government in taking action bilaterally and with our partners in the United Nations and the European Union to put pressure on the Burmese regime to implement democratic reform and full respect for human rights. I respect their decision to continue the suspension of non-humanitarian aid as well as the 1991 arms embargo and all other defence links which were severed in 1992. I support the Government's position to date which has been to encourage a policy of full dialogue and constructive engagement as opposed to the imposition of trade sanctions. Perhaps the Government are inclined to adhere to the United States concept of consistent principles and flexible tactics, so eloquently put forward by Madeleine Albright in April of last year, which allows the US to impose sanctions on Burma but at the same time confers MEN status on China.
Let us consider the efficacy of the Government's stated policy. Does the Minister accept that even if the Government adopted a more aggressive approach it is unlikely to have the desired effect in Burma as it would isolate the perpetrators and drive them even further away from reform, particularly in a country where the government shows scant respect for the international community? We believe that the United Kingdom should instead achieve an appropriate, albeit very difficult, and principled balance of policies able to reflect the inherent tensions between the protection of human rights, national trade interests and assistance in a country's economic development, placing specific and most important emphasis on the protection of human rights.
Examining these issues more closely, it is worth noting that last July Burma joined the Association of South East Asian Nations. It is to be hoped that the other members of ASEAN will succeed in exerting pressure on Burma to bring forward political and human rights reforms, even if Burma is not yet at that table. I believe that Britain may also have a role to play in that process. Next week, at the invitation of the former Prime Minister, Britain plays host to the second ASEM, or Asia-Europe Conference. Although that conference will focus upon trade and investment, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will use that as an important opportunity formally to stress their concerns about the plight of the Karen? The Minister has advocated that wherever possible the Government will raise their human rights concerns as part of a constructive bilateral relationship. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that that will be the case at the conference?
1310
I turn briefly to the role of the United Nations. Undoubtedly, there is a pressing need for a permanent presence by UN human rights monitors in eastern Burma and on the border of Thailand. Moreover, while the Thai Government continue to refuse to recognise the people in their camps as refugees the UNHCR cannot send in its staff without permission from the Thai authorities. As the 54th UN Commission on Human Rights is currently in mid-session, can the Government outline to the House in some detail what representations they intend to make to press for action on this issue?
There is one person so critically involved in the politics of Burma to whom I have yet to pay tribute. She is of course Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League for Democracy. When we consider the options at our disposal to encourage reform in Burma I believe that we should ask ourselves what she would want us to do. Would high ideals flawed by false rhetoric be enough to satisfy her? I do not believe so. A more sophisticated attitude to this issue will eventually succeed. We all want to see the day when autocracy and internal strife are replaced with democracy and the rule of law, when the energies of the government of Burma are turned towards fighting the battle against poverty, corruption and despair, rather than against domestic rivals and the persecution of ethnic minorities and when Burma becomes an engine of growth and a full participant in the global economy.
To achieve that, the Opposition support the Government in deploring the human rights atrocities in Burma. We hope that the Government will demonstrate a clear policy of carefully considered action that balances the carrots of constructive dialogue with the sticks of economic sanctions and take the two very important opportunities at both the UNHCR Conference now in mid-session and next week in ASEM to register many of the concerns that have been expressed throughout the House this evening.
Finally, the Opposition believe that through their presidency of the European Union the Government have a real opportunity to influence the world by drawing attention to the plight of the Karen. The Government must rise to this occasion. I am confident that with the unanimity that has been expressed on so many issues this evening by noble Lords in this House they will do so.
8.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for this opportunity to give further consideration to the situation in Burma, on which your Lordships had very valuable exchanges last December. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the personal interest he has taken in the plight of Burmese refugees and the considerable courage that he has shown in pursuing his objectives.
I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed today. I share the sense of outrage at the extent of human rights abuses in Burma. The Burmese regime's brutal policies towards ethnic minorities have led

1311
directly to the exodus of civilians across Burma's borders into neighbouring countries. The largest number of refugees is concentrated along the border between Burma and Thailand. It is this group to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has drawn attention so graphically.
We continue to exert pressure on the Burmese regime to abandon its repressive policies and to implement democratic reform. We recognise that the plight of the Burmese refugees is only one symptom of a wider problem. I shall address that issue later. I should first explain our actions to help the refugees.
Our strategy for tackling Karen and other refugee problems is regional. We are working to alleviate the suffering of refugees both within Burma's borders and from neighbouring countries. We try to do so in at least four ways: first, by providing direct UK humanitarian assistance; secondly, by working closely with neighbouring countries on repatriation issues; thirdly, by working to ensure adequate security for refugees; and, fourthly, by ensuring that the representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are able to do their job properly. I shall look at each of those in turn.
At a national level, our humanitarian assistance delivers vital relief. Since 1992 we have provided £630,000 in humanitarian aid for Burmese refugees in neighbouring countries. In 1997–98 alone, we contributed £267,000 to support the excellent work of the Burma Border Consortium in providing humanitarian assistance to refugees in camps in Thailand. We have also supported work in repatriating and resettling Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh to Burma. We are considering further proposals from non-governmental organisations at present and stand ready to look at ideas which others may have.
On repatriation, the large number of refugees in Thailand places a considerable burden on that country. Domestic economic difficulties are, as we have heard, forcing the Thai authorities to implement more strictly its regulations on illegal economic migrants, including some Burmese people. But our ambassador at Bangkok has received assurances from the commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Army and the head of the National Security Council that there will be no forced repatriations of refugees. The Government will continue to pay close attention to that sensitive issue.
On security, it is essential that refugee populations should enjoy adequate security. The Government were particularly appalled by recent attacks, described by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on Wangka and Mawker refugee camps in Thailand by the Democratic Karen Buddhist Association. Following the attack on Wangka camp, our embassy in Bangkok immediately contacted the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs and non-governmental organisations in the area to clarify what had happened. The following day, as EU presidency, we released a statement deploring the attack and calling on the Burmese regime to investigate and to prevent further attacks. Of course Her Majesty's Government deplore those attacks.
1312
The Thai army deployed extra troops to that area following the first incursion. That has enabled quicker and more effective responses to the second incident. Clearly there are still problems. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, among a number of questions, asked what Her Majesty's Government can do directly. The British Ambassador in Bangkok called on the Thai Interior Minister yesterday and discussed the refugee situation. Embassy officials have also discussed the refugee situation today with the Thai Deputy Foreign Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked about access to the UN human rights commissioners. Officials in the British Embassy in Bangkok visited the Wangka and Mylai camps on 20th March with representatives from the UNHCR, the Thai National Security Council and US and Australian embassies. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that we are making some, albeit limited, progress in those areas.
While I welcome the important role which the Thai authorities play in providing shelter for refugees, we have also urged them to ensure that the camps receive adequate protection. The British Embassy in Bangkok regularly visits the camps to monitor the situation. Our embassy in Rangoon also reports regularly. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for finding time during his visit to the area to call at our embassy in Bangkok for discussions and encouragement on these important issues.
I turn now to the UNHCR. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has a key role to play in difficult situations such as this. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what progress could be made on those points. I pressed the Thai Deputy Foreign Minister specifically on this issue when I saw him last month. He assured me that the Prime Minister of Thailand has decided to allow United Nations High Commission for Refugees representatives more systematic access to the area; final details are now being worked out. I hope noble Lords will feel that some progress has been made in that important area.
The Government will continue to pursue appropriate policies and initiatives aimed at relieving the suffering of Karen and other Burmese refugees, but a durable solution to the problem can only be achieved by political reform in Burma. So let me now turn to the second part of the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which concerns the Burmese military regime itself.
The political and human rights situation in Burma remains wholly unacceptable. The international community called on the State Peace and Development Council to distinguish itself from the State Law and Order Restoration Council with policy action. There has been none. The State Peace and Development Council says that there will be none. I can only agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, that the government in Burma may have changed their name but sadly they have not changed their nature.
When the SLORC was dissolved on 15th November the Rashim remained unelected and unaccountable. The noble Viscount was right: some former, corrupt

1313
Ministers were rooted out, but the top four members of the SLORC remain firmly in control of the SPDC. There has been no indication that they will reform or abandon their repressive policies.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about the pro-democracy supporters. At least 21 pro-democracy supporters were arrested in January. Four have been sentenced to between two and four years' imprisonment. There are widespread reports of the harassment of students and monks, as noble Lords have pointed out this evening. In February, 40 members of the All-Burma Students Democratic Association were arrested in conjunction with an alleged terrorist plot to undermine the regime.
The Government have left the Burmese regime in no doubt that its behaviour must improve, for the good of its own peoples. To facilitate national reconciliation we have also repeatedly called on the Burmese authorities to engage in a substantive dialogue with opposition political leaders, particularly with that brave lady Aung San Suu Kyi and with other ethnic minorities. Despite some very limited overtures last year, I am sorry to say that there has still been no serious attempt at political dialogue with pro-democracy groups.
I turn now to specific UK action. We work closely with our partners around the globe to promote a simple message on Burma: the peoples of Burma have expressed democratically their wish for a fairer deal; their voice must be heard by their government.
At the EU level, we are exerting direct pressure on the regime through a package of punitive measures contained in the EU common position on Burma. These include an arms embargo; a ban on visas to members of the regime; the suspension of defence links and non-humanitarian aid; and a ban on high-level official visits. Later this month we anticipate that the EU General Affairs Council will renew this package for a further six months. On a national basis, we have gone further and suspended government financial support to UK companies for trade missions or trade promotion in Burma.
We are also using our EU presidency to launch a "Positive Measures" initiative. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what we would be doing during the presidency. This initiative aims to provide targeted assistance to strengthen civil society and humanitarian relief to disadvantaged communities. This British initiative has been warmly welcomed by our European partners and by the European Commission. We are working with them and with non-governmental organisations to develop a package of projects.
The discussions in the UN General Assembly last autumn resulted in the adoption, by consensus, of a tough resolution on human rights in Burma. We offered detailed contributions during the drafting process and we co-sponsored the final text, which was stronger than last year's resolution in key areas. As EU presidency, we are introducing a resolution on Burma at the UN Commission on Human Rights which opened on 16th March. In negotiating our text, we shall he working hard to ensure that it draws particular attention to the plight of ethnic minorities and the lack of progress on human rights.
1314
It is the responsibility of the Burmese Government to respect their obligations and to implement UN resolutions swiftly and in full. We shall maintain pressure on them to do so.
A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about Britain's investment in Burma. We believe that the statistics are somewhat misleading because they include substantial investments from non-UK companies registered in British dependent territories such as the British Virgin Islands. The estimate shows that UK exports to Burma in 1997 were nearly 30 per cent. lower than in 1996. We are aware of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about the recent investment of Premier Oil in the Yetagun natural gas pipeline project in Burma. The FCO Minister of State, Mr. Fatchett, made Charles Jamieson, the chief executive of Premier Oil, aware of our policy when they met on 17th December.
We have taken early action to clarify UK policy on trading promotion. On 19th June we announced that we would not provide financial support for companies for trade missions. We have been encouraging our European partners to follow our lead. Indeed, some already have done so, notably Denmark and Norway. We do not encourage UK companies to trade with or invest in Burma. Officials in the UK and at our embassy in Rangoon continue to provide routine advice on doing business in Burma, but that advice makes clear the present realities in Burma, including the political and human rights situation and the state of the Burmese economy. We also draw the attention of businessmen to the statements made by Aung San Suu Kyi and other pro-democracy leaders which discourage trade and investment in Burma.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked specifically about economic sanctions and whether we had gone further with them. We are still considering the full range of measures at our disposal. But, as I told your Lordships' House on a previous occasion, it is legally difficult for the United Kingdom or the European Union to implement full economic sanctions or an investment ban without the cover of a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of ASEAN. ASEAN decided to admit Burma as a full member in July last year. That was a matter for it, but for our part we asked ASEAN to put pressure on the Burmese regime for reform. We have been encouraged that Foreign Ministers from, for example, the Philippines and Malaysia have called on Aung San Suu Kyi and on other leaders during their recent visits to Burma.
Noble Lords asked specifically about the meeting of ASEM II. There is no fixed agenda for the political dialogue session which will take place in London at the end of next week. The heads of state will decide on the issues to be discussed at that time, but I can say that in the view of Her Majesty's Government it would be natural for Burma and the issues we have discussed tonight to be discussed then.
I must make one or two comments in respect of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, about young people in

1315
education. The British Council is very active in Burma, focusing particularly on providing English tuition to ordinary Burmese people. The British Embassy in Rangoon has also operated a scholarship scheme to allow Burmese people to come to the United Kingdom for education. We believe that our new positive measures in that initiative, which I described to your Lordships earlier, will be aimed at helping more ordinary Burmese people to take advantage of such opportunities.
I believe that the Government are at one with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and with all noble Lords who have spoken tonight, in his concern at the plight of the Karen and other ethnic minority refugees and particularly the horror expressed at the continued violation of human rights by the Burmese military regime. This is, above all, a man-made problem, but it has the possibility of man-made solutions.
The Burmese regime has a duty to its people to implement democratic reform rapidly. This issue remains a key concern for Her Majesty's Government. To the peoples of Burma we send a clear message: we are working with you and for you towards the same goal—an end to human rights abuses and the rapid implementation of democratic reform.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. There has been remarkable unanimity from all sides of your Lordships' House tonight. We have heard speeches which have been characterised by personal experience and by a wealth of knowledge. Distinguished and substantial speeches have been made which, when they are read in the Official Report of your Lordships' House by Karen and Burmese people, will be seen as a contribution towards forwarding the progress towards democracy to which the Minister alluded.
My noble friend Lord Sandwich spoke of genocide. I do not believe that that is an exaggeration. A life in South-East Asia is worth no less than a life in south-east Europe. Our response, quite properly, to the atrocities of the Bosnian warlords was to establish an international war crimes tribunal. I believe that it is high time that such a tribunal was established to try those responsible for the atrocities about which your Lordships have heard tonight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, spoke of the exclusion of the world's media. I join her in hoping that the media will respond to tonight's debate by trying to go into Burma, to visit the refugee camps and to report faithfully on what is happening there.
The Minister dealt with the issue of sanctions. On 1st September, Mr. Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, said that the largest single world producer of opium is Burma and that it does not act against the drugs barons. He described it as:
"a deeply repressive regime as well as a deeply irresponsible regime".
It is clear that we must take fast and more stringent action than has been the case hitherto. I was pleased in particular to hear mention made of the investment of
1316
companies such as Premier Oil, which is involved in a 70 million dollar investment in the Yetagun project, and of Total from France.
The purpose of the debate, as my noble friend Lord Weatherill said, is to use the freedoms which we enjoy, especially the privilege of free speech, to highlight the sufferings and aspirations of people who share none of those same rights. By raising our voices here tonight, it will give fresh encouragement to the oppressed people of Burma and especially to our erstwhile allies, the Karen. Perhaps it will also help to persuade British companies and those who invest in them not to allow a single penny to be spent which aids or abets a regime which systematically abuses human rights and kills its own people.
The Minister reiterated the Government's concerns about the policies of the Burmese regime. The daily loss of life and the terrible tragedies just waiting to happen demand an urgency and commitment which I know the Minister and the Government will bring. That she eloquently expressed tonight in her sense of outrage about what is happening in Burma today. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Red Squirrels
8.58 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure the survival of the native red squirrel in the wild in Great Britain, and what is their estimate of the chances of success.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must begin by explaining to the House that my home is in Cumbria where the red squirrel still survives. Most mornings when we draw the curtains of our bedroom we can see them playing in the trees outside the window.
I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, would very much have liked to be here tonight for the debate but finds that he is unable to come down from the north. He and the late Lord Carlisle were among the founders of initiatives taken in the north to try to save the red squirrel.
Your Lordships will know that the red squirrel is one of 38 native mammals and one of the most loved. Indeed, in the personification of Squirrel Nutkin, it is almost the icon of the Lake District. During the past 40 years that much loved creature has been in clear and consistent decline, driven out of its home by the grey squirrel which was introduced into private menageries in the 19th century and then escaped.
Without very special management, the creature cannot co-exist and it is my personal opinion that in the longer term it cannot co-exist at all. For a number of years there was co-existence in the Cannock Chase area of Staffordshire but recently it has been concluded that the red has become extinct. It would be rash to the point of negligence to assume that long-term co-existence in a shared habitat is possible.
Since 1959, the red squirrel has been driven out of the West Country, most of Wales, most of East Anglia, and almost all of Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands. Easily the largest surviving populations are in Cumbria and Northumbria. The tide is surely and remorselessly moving onwards, slowly driving the lovely creature into extinction in England.
Your Lordships will know that faced with those threats, conservationists, governments and other interested parties, including NPI, which has provided a significant amount of money to help, have not been idly standing by. Working together in partnership, they have tried to turn the.. tide but have succeeded only in stemming it.
The scientific and public policy basis for what they have been doing is found in the red squirrel UK diversity action plan and in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's red squirrel strategy. The implementation of those policies is co-ordinated through the United Kingdom red squirrel steering group. In the north west of England, it is the north west "Red Alert" which is driving forward the work. The "Red Alert" is a partnership sponsored by the private and public sector together. It focuses on a five-element strategy. First, it seeks to try to ensure that habitats favourable to the red as opposed to the grey are encouraged. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the Government will consider introducing an element into the woodland and forestry grant schemes in this country to ensure that that priority is recognised and encouraged.
Secondly, where appropriate, supplementary feeding takes place, although that is clearly a matter of fire fighting when particular reds are under threat. Thirdly, it seeks to provide grey squirrel control but because poisoning. which is the most efficient way of dealing with them, is not currently allowed in red squirrel areas, various forms of labour-intensive shooting or trapping have to take place which limits its effectiveness. In that context, I ask the Minister what is happening as regards the work being done at Sheffield University to develop immuno-contraception.
Fourthly. it is important that the public relations or education aspects of the danger are continuously emphasised. All sorts of things have been done to try to give it a higher profile, not least a raft race on Derwent Water in which I and my noble friends Lord Henley and Lord Hothfield took part. That can best be described as looking rather like the Turner picture of the "Wreck of the Medusa".
Fifthly, it is important that the results of work carried out are measured properly in order to see what is the effect of what is being done. I understand that the campaign in the north west is probably the strongest in this country but despite that, the war is being lost. That was clearly explained to me by a friend in Hawkshead who said that when he was a boy, the northern limits of the grey squirrel were Crewe; now it is at the bottom of his garden.
Elsewhere, for example in the north east, further help is undoubtedly needed. In particular, a leading conversationist in Northumbria commented that it is absolutely critical to ensure that people realise that a fast
1318
response is necessary and that further bureaucratic delay could well lead to the extinction of the red squirrel in England. Also, local survey and distribution needs to be carried out and that involves extra resources. Further study needs to be carried out on the way that reds and greys interact. Project officers are needed to provide traps for owners and occupiers and, as I mentioned earlier, there is need for a grants structure to encourage the right kind of habitat.
In addition—and perhaps most serious—is the fact that in that conservationist's view, the steam has gone out of the red squirrel conservation movement and what is needed is a big new heave. It is perhaps that more than anything else which has caused me to ask this Question this evening and to bring forward this debate. I want to help to reinvigorate the campaign.
As some of us who have been involved in politics in all kinds of ways know, it happens from time to time that what appear to be complicated issues sometimes reduce themselves to very simple propositions. I believe that what we are discussing this evening is one of those because it is quite clear that if we go on as we are, the red squirrel will soon become extinct in England. It will join the wolf, the wild boar and the beaver as extinct species. It will be entirely our fault.
It is not necessary that that should happen. It is not inevitable that that should happen. What is needed is that the strategy which is already in place should be reinforced and reinvigorated. If we care—and I believe we in this House care, as do the public outside—we should do it, because we are not talking about a game. For the red squirrel, it is a war for survival. It is for that reason that I ask the Government to give an unequivocal commitment to throw all their resources and capabilities behind the effort to save the red squirrel and to declare war on its enemies so that that most lovable and loved of our British native animals can be saved for our children and their children and their children after them.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate the noble Lord on his initiative and on his obvious deep concern which I share and for which I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a reassuring and encouraging reply at the end of the debate. I am conscious of the fact that there is considerable expertise in the field of ecology and conservation in your Lordships' House; indeed, perhaps more so than in the other place. However, my own interest in these subjects is fairly long standing. I trust that noble Lords will be able to pay some attention to the modest comments that I wish to make.
The noble Lord is right to say that the red squirrel is attractive. However, we should not limit our ecological concerns to those species which are attractive for biological diversity. Indeed, we should not pay excessive attention to such considerations. There is a place for broad survival within the whole pattern of British ecology.
It is possible that the noble Lord and I do not entirely agree about the effect of the grey squirrel. It is too easy to assume that the decline of the red squirrel is solely

1319
due to the grey squirrel. There is some evidence for that argument in that the grey squirrel did not reach my own county until 1906 and that, by the end of the 19th century, the red squirrel was certainly in decline in Yorkshire. I am not suggesting that the grey squirrel presents no threat to the red squirrel, but it is possible that several other causes should be considered. I would not wish those areas which have not seen a red squirrel for decades to find all their grey squirrels trapped, shot or poisoned. Indeed, there are grey squirrels in the wood in which I walk. There certainly were red squirrels there when I was a boy, but there have not been any there for quite a long time.
It seems likely that there is a problem with regard to disease. I hope that I may be able to say a few words about that in a moment. However, I could not resist taking part in tonight's debate because it is 25 years this month since I spoke in a debate in another place regarding the red squirrel and the introduction of a warfarin order. I spoke in that debate to criticise the order because the Ministry of Agriculture had announced that there were no red squirrels in our grid square. On the previous Saturday evening I was actually watching badgers, as I was preparing a book on the subject at the time. However, I also found myself watching red squirrels in an area which the Ministry of Agriculture had decided was free of them. I said that I did not want warfarin scattered about in that particular grid square because I had not seen a red squirrel there for rather a long time.
There may still be some red squirrels left in Yorkshire—perhaps a few colonies north of Sheffield in the Wharncliffe woods and the Ewden valley, but certainly they are in serious decline in our county. As the noble Lord said, such fastnesses as remain in England are in the beleaguered north-east. In that regard, I should like to join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the noble Viscount. Lord Ridley, who has played an important part in such matters. That is certainly recognised by my own county trust, the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, of which I have long been a member and patron. One hopes that the initiatives in the north-east and the work being carried out in the north-west will be sustained to ensure that there is survival.
Of course, it requires a degree of public funding, but I do not think that that would be astronomic. The noble Lord will be aware that estimates have been made which state that in order to secure the survival of the red squirrel in England the sum of …200,000 a year for a short period would be required. That is little more than the …75,000 which, I believe, has so far been expended. I am sure that many Members of Her Majesty's Government would regard that sort of expenditure as being desirable. Of course, some taxpayers might not like it, but, like the noble Lord, I believe that it would be a worthwhile expenditure. Indeed, I am sure that many millions of people in this country would like to think that red squirrels will survive other than in the pages of Beatrix Potter books, or in a few old books on British natural history.
1320
We must also ensure that we approach the matter intelligently. For example, some time ago in Yorkshire there was an attempt to relocate red squirrels in an area from which they had disappeared. Seven red squirrels were released into ash and sycamore woodland. But, if the red squirrel dislikes any habitat at all, it is ash and sycamore woodland, so in a matter of weeks the squirrels disappeared from the area in which they were released. I do not know where they went.
However, there are areas where red squirrels and grey squirrels seem to co-exist. In that context, we should consider the question of viral disease. In addition to the research on immuno-contraception, and so on. to which the noble Lord properly referred, I believe that a study of disease is required. In that regard. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can persuade the Ministry of Agriculture to carry out a modest programme of post-mortems when red squirrel carcasses are available to establish whether viral disease is a significant factor in regard to their decline. That is the kind of task that the Ministry of Agriculture could certainly undertake without great difficulty. It would be a useful study for it to undertake before it embarked on a programme of mass extermination of grey squirrels, if only to avoid destruction of squirrels in areas where the reds have long been absent.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer. However, I would like to think that one day red squirrels will return to my area. I do not know whether any noble Lords who are present today were present at a debate which took place 15 years ago in another place. Perhaps the occupant of the Chair was present. On that occasion I remarked that there were occasionally sightings of squirrels near my area which were described as black. I believe that was the result of some squirrels being imported from Europe in the middle of the 19th century by a Lord who lived in the area. Apparently there was a melanistic strain among them. My late and highly regarded honourable friend Brynmor John passed away some years ago. When I referred to black squirrels in the debate he interrupted me to suggest that as I had 12 collieries in my constituency in those days the black colouring was almost certainly due to coal dust rather than to the colouring of an imported strain of squirrel. As I have said, we have no red squirrels in my area at all. I should like to think that one day we shall see them again. Let us first secure the existing populations of red squirrels that remain in the northern counties of England and perhaps in one or two places elsewhere—Brownsea Island springs to mind—in the hope that those populations will expand.
There may be a long, historic cycle that determines the population of red squirrels in Britain. Periodic outbreaks of disease may have serious effects on that population. However, it would be nice to see the red squirrels survive.
I believe that they have a chance if the appropriate ecological conditions are established. After all in a good season they can produce two litters of young a year. They can have as many as six in a litter. I believe that the average litter comprises three young. One would hope that, given the appropriate habitat, one could establish a sufficient population to guarantee survival of

1321
the species. As the noble Lord said, our first task is to secure their survival. I trust that the expenditure that has been mentioned and the slightly higher priority that has now been given to this matter will achieve a great deal.
The noble Lord said that a big heave is required. The chief executive of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust said to me earlier this week that it needs a shove. There may be some difference between a shove and a heave but we certainly need to see some forward momentum. I hope the initiative mentioned by the noble Lord will ensure that that is achieved.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, a long time ago in 1954 I took over a farm in Norfolk which contained around 160 acres of mixed woodland. At that time only red squirrels lived in those woods and they were indeed beautiful to see. A few years later one saw the odd grey. It is thought that reds are usually displaced within 12 to 15 years of the arrival of greys, but in the case of my relatively small area of woodland it seemed no time at all before the reds had completely disappeared. I was amazed by the speed with which the wood was completely colonised by the greys and at the extinction of the reds. I never knew the reason for this. One would have thought that with the mixture of broadleaf and coniferous trees and the considerable quantity of hazelwood, the food available would have been ample for the two species to have lived in harmony.
As far as I could see, one explanation was that the reds were killed by the larger, more vicious greys. Possibly the young reds—I believe they are called kittens—were killed in their dreys by marauding adult greys. I do not know whether that was the case. But I also thought they may have died from some disease of which the greys were carriers but to which they were immune. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, I would like to see initiated a properly funded intensive scientific veterinary investigation into the diseases of squirrels. Surely this could be carried out within the research aims of the biodiversity action plan. I believe this to be essential for it is evident that one of the current factors in the decline of red squirrels is disease.
I understand that within the biodiversity action plan the Forestry Commission is researching a hopper designed to be selective in poisoning grey but not red squirrels. That is not permitted at the moment, but it is still being researched. If it is successful it will be of great help in controlling greys and allowing the re-establishment of reds into areas from which they have been displaced. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, I want to see greys and reds living together. I think that is possible. However, it is essential that grey squirrel numbers are controlled to allow the reds to survive.
Over the past 50 years there has obviously been some habitat loss which may have been a contributory factor in the decline of the red squirrel, but it has not caused any decline in the grey squirrel. However, many owners are now aiming to provide long term woodland management and are growing appropriate conifers to benefit the red squirrels. It is imperative that there is appropriate habitat for the red squirrels to survive. I am
1322
sure that it is being provided wherever possible. However, it is not always possible and much research is still needed to assist the red squirrel to live alongside the grey within the conifer woodlands.
I am sure that when the Minister winds up the debate, the noble Baroness will inform us of the proposed action and action being taken for the protection of the red squirrel within the biodiversity action plan. I wholeheartedly welcome that and look forward to hearing her estimate of the chances of success. But we must not forget the many dedicated volunteers who give up their time, and work hard, both singly and within organisations, for the red squirrels' conservation. Their efforts are highly commendable and I am sure in the fullness of time will come to fruition.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for putting down this Unstarred Question and for initiating a debate which I think and hope must be on a completely non-political subject.
His Question refers specifically to Great Britain, but I hope that my lifetime experience of squirrels in Ireland—where habitats are very similar, and where in any case I am only five miles from the United Kingdom—will be considered relevant.
I remember 65 or even 70 years ago the mature, deciduous woodlands around me—mainly oak, beech and chestnut—were well populated with red squirrels, with never a grey squirrel to be seen. The greys began their invasion about the time of the war. They were all the descendants of one pair which had been brought into Ireland as pets by Lady Granard a few decades before. Inevitably they escaped into the wild. I believe that it is the greys which are principally responsible for the decline of the red squirrels all over these islands. They are much stronger, more aggressive and, unlike the reds, do a great deal of harm, especially to young trees. In my part of Ireland they steadily won the competition for the limited supply of beechmast, acorns and hazelnuts. I do not believe that they fought with the reds and killed them, as is sometimes supposed, but rather that they drove them out of the woods into open country where they were unable to survive.
However, I am happy to report that in my area the reds are now making a comeback without human intervention. Seven years ago I saw one at Killegar for the first time in 30 years. They are now becoming quite numerous. In the meantime, the number of grey squirrels is declining and they are now seldom seen. I attribute this reversal of their fortunes to two unconnected factors. Because they are all descended from the original pair which escaped from her Ladyship, I believe that the greys have become so inbred that they have lost their strength and aggressiveness. They have become decadent. I suppose that we cannot hope for that to happen in Britain.
But it is a relevant fact that over the same period the reds have benefited from the many extensive stands of Norway and Sitka spruce that have been planted for the first time in the area and have now grown big enough to be bearing fir-cones.

1323
It is a happy fact that grey squirrels, in my experience anyway, do not like fir-cones. They may not like sycamore and ash either, as my noble friend suggested; but certainly they do not relish fir-cones, whilst red squirrels thrive on them. So they have the Sitka all to themselves.
I do not know how this can be applied to the situation in Britain. Perhaps the reds can be encouraged to populate spruce plantations—perhaps by trapping and relocating them. This may be happening already, I do not know. If not, it must be worth a try.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. I merely wish to make one small point. Recently, the adverts that NPI has been putting on television have created an enormous amount of interest in this subject, which I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Inglewood for raising—so much so, that the other day, my experience was rather like that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. In Ayrshire we do not have many squirrels; the squirrels that we have seen for years have always been grey. Certainly, in the 50 years that I have lived there I have never seen a red squirrel—until, funnily enough, three weeks ago, when I was sitting at home. One red squirrel appeared right outside the house. It was followed by another two only a week later. Whether it was the same one with a friend, I do not know, but I certainly saw three red squirrels. It caused enormous excitement both in my family and among everyone who lives around us.
It is funny that a little animal such as a squirrel could cause such excitement. I take on board the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, that we should not encourage them merely because they are beautiful animals. However, they do have another advantage—they are British. We have lost so many of our natural species in this country that anything that can be done should be done. I applaud the efforts to find out what is causing the problems. Is it a disease? Is it merely the end of their lifespan? What is it? We must research the matter. It would give an enormous number of people great pleasure to see the red squirrel again in our land.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for introducing this debate. I should also like to thank the Wildlife Trusts, and Tim Sands, who is known to a number of noble Lords, for the large amount of detailed briefing that he gave me on this subject.
I, too, spent my youth in Buckinghamshire, where there were still quite a lot of red squirrels, which we encouraged. A lot of grey squirrels had come in. My father always referred to them as "tree rats", and I was encouraged to further my shooting skills at an early age by killing them. During the Second World War that was encouraged.
I believe that the difference between then and now lies in the immense amount of research that has gone into the matter. It may not have achieved very much in
1324
the shape of stemming the tide of greys; however, it has brought us much greater knowledge. In those days, we used to think of the grey squirrels as killing the red, as has just been said. However, it is now accepted that that is not so. The effect of the greys is that they push the reds out of the area because they manage to make much better use of whatever there is to eat. We now know how to encourage the red squirrels better by helping them with their diet.
Many small actions can be taken. One suggestion is that where red squirrels have runways across roads, in order to avoid being run over they should be helped by signs denoting red squirrels. That would be useful from two points of view. First, we would have fewer dead red squirrels on the road. Secondly, it would help to reinforce the image of the red squirrel in the public mind. We must not forget that with the change over the past 50 years and the vanishing of the red squirrel, the greys are now as popular with many people who do not know of the pressure they put on red squirrels. The greys are valued and therefore any campaign to diminish grey squirrels as opposed to merely preserving the reds needs considerable popular effort. Here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, who said that we do not wish in any way to prevent there being the greatest possible diversity. We are not against grey squirrels; we are trying to help the red squirrels.
I have talked about red squirrel crossings. We are also learning about the necessity to grow more and more hazelnuts which red squirrels particularly like. Beyond that, there is research now into selective hoppers for feeding, hoppers that red squirrels can use but which grey squirrels will not. If one reaches the stage of trying to diminish the grey squirrel population anywhere, one can also have hoppers which are selected for dispensing poisons. I am not in favour of poisons as such: my medical consultant has tried to get me to take warfarin and I shall not, and I do not see why I should wish warfarin on the squirrels.
Not everything that might help red squirrels is a necessity. I am told that one of the most useful things one can have is large blocks of variegated trees but nevertheless all conifers in the hills. That will create a habitat for squirrels. I am not greatly in favour of enormous blocks of conifers; it is a matter for another debate and one which your Lordships discuss quite often. However, we must choose the best methods of trying to help the reds and discourage the greys. Money is needed and we are told that it is not a great deal. I hope that we will get such help from the Minister when she replies.
We have been told tonight that possibly red and grey squirrels cannot live together in peace. But we have also been told that in various areas red squirrels are coming back. That is the most encouraging thought for tonight. My last remark is that squirrels possibly have something to teach human beings in the way of living together. I am reliably informed that in County Fermanagh they live together peacefully. I am not sure that human beings in County Fermanagh live together as peacefully as the squirrels do. So we have something to learn from them and I hope the Minister will be able to give us satisfactory help in the matter.
9.35 p.m.
Baroness Farringtonof Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that I have not been briefed on the advisability of agreeing to having red squirrel crossing signs and will therefore look into that. What I can say from personal experience is that we have signs in parts of Lancashire near Southport warning us when natterjack toads are crossing the road. But they only cross the roads for short periods of time. However, I will investigate that point and write to the noble Lord.
All Members who have spoken expressed gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for giving us an opportunity to speak about the significant pressures on our native red squirrel. He did not understate the seriousness of the position. The United Kingdom's red squirrel population has suffered a marked decline over the past 50 years. After the water vole, it is our second most rapidly declining mammal. During the same period of time we have seen the grey squirrel increase in numbers and range throughout most parts of England and Wales.
The current population estimate of red squirrel numbers stands at 160,000. As many noble Lords said, its distribution is now largely confined to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the extreme north of England. There are still scattered and isolated populations in southern England, on three islands in Poole harbour in Dorset, on the Isle of Wight and at Thetford in Norfolk. It was useful to have the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, on his experience in Norfolk. Sadly, it appears that red squirrels recently became extinct in Cannock Chase in Staffordshire, and in Wales only a few thousand red squirrels remain, confined to scattered localities, notably on the island of Anglesey.
As my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath said, there are a number of reasons why the population of red squirrels is in decline. There are three factors which are broadly recognised as having a negative effect on reds. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken referred to the Irish experience to give an added insight into the difficulty of balancing the possible causes. The introduction of the grey squirrel into this country resulted in a displacement of reds from areas in favour of the more adaptable grey. But habitat fragmentation is a second contributory factor, where areas become less able to support reds and thus indirectly increase their vulnerability to displacement by grey squirrels.
As my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, disease is another contributory factor. I can say to my noble friend Lord Hardy that research into the parapox virus infection is under way and includes a programme of post mortem examinations of red squirrels to seek to identify the background and the rate. Autopsies on red squirrel carcasses collected under a scheme referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, as the "North-West Red Alert", are carried out by the Institute of Zoology in London. They show the presence of a chicken-pox/smallpox-type virus called parapox. The Institute of Zoology stated that the virus was currently untreatable but a vaccine may be found. Parapox virus
1326
infection and a disease with similar signs has only been described since grey squirrels were brought to the country.
This Government do not underestimate the threat to this popular native species and are committed to its conservation. I hope that, after hearing what 1 have to say, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the House will be satisfied that we are taking the threat seriously.
The steps I shall outline are fully in accordance with this country's undertaking to maintain biodiversity made at the Earth Summit at Rio in 1991. The UK has been at the forefront of recognising the importance of conserving biodiversity and in January 1994 the then government were the first to publish an action plan to secure this biodiversity. I pay tribute to them for that. In accordance with that plan a biodiversity steering group was established and charged with producing species action plans.
The red squirrel is one of 121 species for which the steering group has produced a species action plan. The plan recommends a set of targets for the species and a range of actions to support those targets.
In accordance with the plan, the Government have appointed the UK Red Squirrel Group as lead partner for the plan, thus charging it with overseeing the conservation of the red squirrel. The group is chaired by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and has representatives from four squirrel groups, representing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Forestry Commission and the Northern Ireland Forest Service. The group recognises that conservation of red squirrels will take place only through action on the ground and, as such, the impact of the group, via its Country Squirrel Group members to regional squirrel groups, and, for example, the wildlife trusts, is vital.
The UK Red Squirrel group is concentrating its efforts in the area of site safeguard at present. It has agreed a model format for regional action plans which regional groups will be asked to produce for their areas, with assistance from national groups. This seeks to categorise areas depending on the status of their red squirrel population and its vulnerability to grey squirrel encroachment, using criteria rooted in the JNCC's UK strategy for red squirrel conservation. Efforts are currently under way to develop these plans for all areas where red squirrel conservation is a consideration and we would encourage all those involved.
The UK group is also developing criteria for prioritising the use of public funds towards those areas where greatest conservation benefit can be obtained. The Forestry Commission has helped to develop those criteria, which are being used to identify three categories of areas suitable for red squirrel conservation. These are areas of more than 2,000 hectares of coniferous forest which hold healthy red squirrel populations and areas of more than 200 hectares of coniferous forest where the habitat can be improved for the red squirrel, as well as other areas where the species is still present.

1327
Having categorised areas and prioritised where funds will be spent, it is essential to know what action is appropriate. It is generally accepted, as many speakers have indicated, that greys usually out-compete reds in deciduous woods, while reds are better able to survive in coniferous forests. Grey squirrels are much bigger and heavier than reds and are also better able to compete for the large seeds that many of our broadleaved trees produce, either because they can harvest them better before the red squirrel or perhaps because they can digest them better. Therefore, in the typical broadleaved British wood, with its mix of oak, beech, hazel and chestnut, the grey effectively out-competes the British red. The result of this is that the red squirrel cannot put on enough fat to survive the winter and either starves or suffers reduced breeding success the following year.
The prognosis is not, however, entirely gloomy because in mixed coniferous forests, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, where the smaller and more nimble reds are better able to access the tiny conifer seeds, scientists currently believe that the British reds can out-compete their American cousins.
In the area of habitat management research and action, government agencies and other partner organisations are encouraging and undertaking research into exactly what type or, more likely, mix of conifer trees are best for red squirrels and interactions between red and grey squirrels in the few areas where they appear to co-exist, a point brought out in the debate, such as near Dunkeld in Perthshire. The Dunkeld research, funded by Scottish Natural Heritage, the Forestry Commission and the Peoples Trust for Endangered Species, will consider how we should design such forests so that they may stand as a refuge for the red squirrel, giving them the competitive edge over grey squirrels. I join noble Lords in paying tribute to the commitment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, as regards the work in Northumberland.
In Kielder Forest, Northumberland, the Forestry Commission is planting Scots Pine and Norwegian Spruce areas in preference to the more commonly planted Sitka Spruce. These are varieties which produce the larger cones which red squirrels prefer. That may be of interest to my noble friend Lord Kilbracken as regards the type of conifers that squirrels prefer. The Forestry Commission is also changing the mix of species to favour reds in several other forest areas, including Thetford, in Norfolk, and Clocaenog, in North Wales. All the beech, oak and chestnut trees have been removed from the Thetford red squirrel reserve. The commission has also produced guidelines for the management of coniferous woodlands which encourage the planting of large coned coniferous trees.
I recognise, as was said during the debate, that this produces its own problems where there is a conflict of interest because people are arguing for fewer coniferous forest plantations and more of the native broadleaf tree planting in future.
1328
Research on species management and protection has concentrated, until recently, on the development of methods for controlling grey squirrel populations by targeting the animals as well as the habitat. I understand how many members of the public do not view the grey squirrel as an alien invader, particularly as many people have never seen a red squirrel. The noble Lords, Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, drew attention to the fact that the grey squirrel is regarded as a welcome visitor to urban gardens and parks. But having suffered a problem with grey squirrels getting into the roof of our home last year because the trees were coming too close, I know that they can be a little too close for comfort as visitors in urban settings.
However, investigations into the suitability of warfarin in controlling grey squirrels have taken place, but it is apparent that that would be unacceptable to many people, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said. It is important that we continue to seek alternatives. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to the Forestry Commission investigating the potential of immuno-sterilization of grey squirrels. This would attempt to render grey squirrels infertile using an orally-administered vaccine. It now seems likely that the commission, in co-operation with the JNCC and private forestry groups, will continue to pursue this line of research. But it may be a long-term solution. Success is far from guaranteed at this stage.
I pay tribute to the work of volunteers and join the noble Lord, Lord Wise, in referring to the need for this kind of work. Much work is currently being undertaken through the 10 red squirrel groups working with national squirrel groups, government agencies, independent bodies and landowners. Noble Lords may have read in the press recently of the advance of the grey squirrel west through the Nith Valley towards the red squirrel stronghold of Dumfries and Galloway. The appropriate regional red squirrel group in this area is attempting to work with landowners to prevent this encroachment.
There is so much that could be said about the importance of protecting the interests and future of red squirrels in this country. To this end, the JNCC's UK strategy must be made freely available to everyone. A leaflet has been produced by the JNCC and the pensions provider, NPI, to which the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Rowallan, referred, which has joined other sponsors, particularly in other parts of the country, in doing a valuable job to help in this conservation area.
In a similar debate which took place in another place in February 1996, the then Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for the Environment said:
"amongst our school children. I fear, it is an assumption that 'British' squirrels are grey. We must, at this late hour. give our native red squirrel, now outnumbered 15 to one, a fighting chance for survival".
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised the question of resources. The Forestry Commission has indicated that it is prepared to pay a grant towards the cost of managing woodlands for red squirrels if a long-term plan is agreed in suitable locations. Funds are available through English Nature, Scottish National Heritage, and

1329
the Countryside Council for Wales, all of which are contributing, together with the JNCC, to research and development projects in this area.
As to the chances of survival for red squirrels, I can only speculate. It is by no means certain that red squirrels will remain a feature of any part of our landscape, and difficult decisions over controlling grey squirrels and safeguarding key areas will need to be made if we are to ensure that the grey squirrels survive. I hope, however, that what I have said will reassure the House that the Government will continue the work of striving to ensure the long-term survival of one of our most popular and identifiable small mammals. Who knows—
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, referred to the need for one more "shove". Speaking in Cumbrian, rather than Yorkshire, I refer to one more "heave". Bearing in mind that it is clearly necessary to give a new impetus to the initiative to save the red squirrel, will the noble Baroness ask her right honourable friend the Deputy
1330
Prime Minister whether he would like to front a new initiative to try to give renewed vigour to all those involved in this campaign?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will read with interest that request for him to join and to give a heave or a shove to this campaign. I know from experience that the weight of his shove behind a campaign is of great value.
In speaking of the future, it is important that we work together. The public and private sectors, together with volunteers and those working in conservation, must work together to give the sort of push that will he necessary to keep red squirrels at the centre of our attention. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley said, if in County Fermanagh, the two species have learnt to live together, perhaps they have more to teach us than merely the pleasure of watching them at play.

Tyne Tunnels Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at six minutes before ten o'clock.