Lords Sitting of 24 March 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lard Bishop of Lincoln.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Jersey—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Cyclists: Observance of Traffic Lights
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Geddes, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are any circumstances in which the law permits cyclists to ignore red traffic lights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, no.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear response. Could not the police take more vigorous steps to support the law and prosecute more cyclists who jump traffic lights and maim and injure people, as happened to my noble friend Lord Clark? How many cyclists—if any—have been prosecuted for jumping traffic lights and maiming and injuring people?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, such statistics are kept by the police authority area and I am therefore unable to give a national figure. As the noble Lord implies, the figure is relatively small. Cyclists are subject to exactly the same restrictions as vehicular traffic, but police enforcement is more difficult. However, it is also true that in terms of accident statistics the number of people injured is extremely small compared with the number of those injured by motor traffic.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have been a cyclist for many years—and, of course, I have never been through a red light? Does my noble friend agree that when traffic junctions are made cyclist-friendly by providing cycle lanes and signals, cycling becomes safer and more attractive and the behaviour of motor car drivers is modified?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's interest and recreation as a cyclist, and even more so of his law-abiding nature. He is correct in saying that where road space allows it is better to provide dedicated cycle routes. Some local authorities may have decided at some junctions that it is better to allow cyclists to move closer to the lights. However, that does not imply that they have any greater freedom
1286
to ignore the light signals. Those road markings and dedicated routes are a major contribution towards road safety and encouragement of cycling.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am sorry to see that the noble Lord has a bad arm. I hope that he has not fallen off his bike. Does a cyclist dismounting and walking from one pavement to another constitute a bicycle crossing the red light or a pedestrian with a cycle crossing a red light?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his solicitude. My injury is nothing to do with cycling either as a victim or as a cyclist. The question he raises probably requires a written reply. I understand that if one is pushing one's bike in most circumstances one is regarded as a pedestrian. However, I shall clarify that in writing.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as regards the Minister's initial Answer, would a police constable on a push bike going across a red light be breaking the law whereas his colleague doing so in a panda car would not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I understand—again the answer is subject to clarification—that no vehicle is allowed to cross traffic lights. There are, however, mitigating circumstances in relation to police in pursuit. I believe that that is the answer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of the tantalising problems with which he is being asked to deal could be resolved if we had something like the law of Switzerland where pedestrians are not allowed to ignore the red light?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the laws in this country regarding pedestrians are not as tight as those in Switzerland and the observance of signals is not as effective. However, the reality is that enforcement problems and police priorities would prohibit too much attention to creating new offences for pedestrians in this country and would not constitute a great deal to road safety.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the Minister. A cyclist wheeling his cycle remains a vehicle and does not become a pedestrian unless he carries it above his head. Perhaps I may further assist my noble friend. The only way to deal with cyclists is to follow the practice in China where all cyclists have index numbers and can therefore be traced.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's clarification from her vast experience of these matters. Even in her experience, I am not sure how many cyclists she has seen carrying cycles over their heads.
Registration would be an enormous administrative effort for few results. Given that a large proportion of the 20 million cyclists are children, there would be

1287
difficulty in identification and it would not contribute substantially to road safety. In the days when the cycle was the primary means of transport in China, things may have been different. In this country, registration would be a diversion of administrative and police resources.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the Minister surprised at the number of Questions asked in the House over the past few months concerning cyclists? Hardly ever is a Starred Question asked about motorists' behaviour. I refer to road rage and the fact that a motorist may mow down and kill a child and then be fined £200 for careless driving. There are other offences concerned with parking which always seem to arouse great fervour and irritation on behalf of the motorist. Does the noble Lord think that that is an indication of the class war?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure I can make that analysis. However, in response to the first point, I initially found the strength of feeling in this House for and against cyclists somewhat odd. The prime road safety problem in this country relates to driver behaviour and driver error. We are looking at road safety strategy in my department. We hope to draw up a comprehensive road strategy before the end of this year. The main attention will be on motorists and those who are affected by motorists although we shall not ignore the situation of motor cyclists and pedal cyclists. However, the balance in this House has on occasion seemed to me to be inappropriate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is there any law which permits bicyclists to ride on pavements?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no. In general, bicyclists should not be on the pavements. However, there are some pavements which have been designated dual purpose by local authorities.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that spending 20 minutes outside your Lordships' House is quite instructive, especially of an evening? One sees cyclists not only going through red lights but also not having lights on their bicycles. However, one sees police vigilance where bus lane discipline is concerned. Are not these matters getting slightly out of proportion?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the vast majority of cyclists, even in our city at going home-time, are law abiding and observe the law in relation to lights and traffic lights. Of course, a significant number do not, but they create a substantially smaller problem than motorists who fail to observe the law. Those motorists create their own road safety problems and, indeed, contribute substantially to the number of injuries in this country whereas, by and large, with a few unfortunate exceptions, cyclists do not.

Liberia
2.41 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What evidence they have for their statement that Liberia has been supporting the rebels in Sierra Leone with military supplies.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have no doubt that Liberia had been supporting the rebels in Sierra Leone with military supplies. The intelligence we have is clear and specific, but I know the House will understand that I cannot go into detail. Perhaps I may add that we are not alone in that view. Our view on the matter is shared widely across the international community.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister consider it contrary to natural justice to make serious accusations against the head of a friendly state without producing one shred of evidence to support them? Does she agree that when the Foreign Minister of Liberia went to see the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, recently, he asked him what the evidence was? He also asked the State Department when he went there and it would not even disclose it to him in private.
Is the Minister aware that when he made inquiries of friends in the United States they told him that the State Department purported to have photographs showing lorries carrying weapons crossing the international frontier between Sierra Leone and Liberia, but that there is only one crossing place along the whole of that 250-mile border, along which runs the Mano river; that is, at a bridge manned by the ECOMOG forces? Therefore, how can the Minister say that such weapons and troops are transported across the international frontier?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I shall not comment on aerial photographs. I did not mention them; mey were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I indicated, I cannot comment on the evidence we have. However, I did say that it was conclusive and wide. It should be noted—I stress this and shall go into a little more detail than in the Answer—mat the UK is not alone in considering the situation and in coming to that conclusion. Our view is shared, in particular, by the regional African states. Nigeria and Ghana have both severely criticised Liberia's continued support for the rebels. The United Nation's Security Council's statements and resolutions—most recently Resolution 1231 of 11th March 1999—as well as United States and European Union statements, have all expressed grave concern at the reports they have that arms and personnel are being supplied from the territory of Liberia. We, and our partners in the international community, would not be acting like this if the evidence of Liberian support for the rebels was not compelling.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most appalling aspects of the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone has been the widespread use of child soldiers? What assistance can the Government

1289
give to the demobilisation of the estimated 4, 000 child soldiers in Sierra Leone, particularly in light of the fact that although the Government are committed to the disarmament, defence minister Hinga Norman stated that that cannot be done while the fighting continues? Furthermore, what steps are the Government taking to support the work of charities in Liberia, such as Save the Children, in helping restore these child victims to a normal life?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Lord raises one of the very many disturbing aspects of the appalling war in Sierra Leone. The people who will rebuild peace are the people of Sierra Leone. It is right that we must do all we can to help them. Britain, along with Nigeria, has been the principal supporter of Sierra Leone in the international community. Since President Kabbah was restored to power in March 1998 we have pledged over £20 million to help to reconstruct the economy, for humanitarian assistance and for the demobilisation and disarmament of former combatants. We have also helped to rally international support for Sierra Leone. We are very concerned about the humanitarian situation across the board including, in particular, the kind of issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have already provided 18 tonnes of emergency medical supplies, as well as rice and disinfectant. A DfID humanitarian co-ordinator is in Freetown to help target UK assistance and we constantly have this in mind.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it official or non-official circles that stand accused? Is it recognised that President Taylor has offered financial inducement for Liberian mercenaries to leave Sierra Leone; that his suggestion of UN observers on the border has merit and that it is for the United States Government to exert some influence?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we welcome the recent statement from President Taylor to try to ensure that any kind of supplies and support from Liberia to Sierra Leone ceases. We consider that to be a positive and productive development. It was as a result of considerable international pressure that President Taylor made these offers. We shall continue to monitor closely the situation in Sierra Leone. We hope that the offers that have been made and the undertakings given will be concrete. We are all watching closely to see whether that is the case.
The noble Viscount raised the point of the joint monitoring of the Sierra Leone/Liberia border mentioned by President Taylor. He suggested that that should be a United Nations monitoring presence. We are not willing to support a United Nations monitoring presence while the security situation would undoubtedly endanger the safety of the UN personnel. The border between Sierra Leone and Liberia is long, heavily forested and extremely "porous"—to use the technical word—in the sense of anything being able to cross at
1290
any point. Even with the deployment of a monitoring force, effective control of the border could not be guaranteed.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, would my noble friend reconsider what she said earlier? Many of us are concerned about the position with Liberia. Surely, if the Government have evidence that they are not co-operating and that they are supplying troops and so on, could not the evidence be produced and published so that we can judge it for ourselves?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I think the House will understand that there is a kind of evidence which governments have that they cannot publish.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in spite of the fact that—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Television and Video Standards
2.49 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the maintenance of standards of morality on television and videos by the bodies responsible; and, if not, whether they will consider introducing some form of censorship.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government believe that the current system of regulation ensures that television broadcasting reflects standards acceptable in society. We shall report shortly on the response to the consultation on the future of regulation. The British Board of Film Classification is responsible for classifying video works. The BBFC is required to take into account the fact that videos are seen in the home and therefore need to be classified on a different basis from cinema films.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not unexpected but nonetheless disappointing Answer. Is he aware of the widespread concern about the apparently uncontrolled proliferation of foul language as well as explicit scenes of the most intimate sexual behaviour of heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites and the like on our television screens and on accessible videos? Is my noble friend further aware of recent research that shows two-thirds of all schoolchildren have access to televisions and videos in their own rooms? So much for the watershed! Given that state of affairs, is it not time that, because of the potential effect of such images being shown so often on our screens, we should give some; deeper consideration to the possibilities of a better scheme of control, even if that means some form of censorship?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate the strength of feeling with which my noble friend addresses this issue. If he has specific complaints, he

1291
should address them to the regulators, to the governors of the BBC, to the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, S4C or, indeed, to the Broadcasting Standards Council which considers complaints and then reports on standards of taste and decency. I have seen the report to which my noble friend refers. He is correct that a very large number of children have televisions in their bedrooms. That is a matter for parental control.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that when immorality is displayed on television programmes, it is bound to lead to an increase in immoral behaviour, and that therefore television programmes should cease to display immorality?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's conclusion follows from his premise. It is by no means certain that people follow the behaviour that they see on television or on video, and it certainly does not follow that there should be the sort of blanket ban which I understand the noble Lord to be advocating.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has my noble friend seen a recent drama series on the BBC, "The Lakes"? If he has, he will agree that it certainly does not reflect standards which are generally acceptable to the public. My noble friend should know that that series has caused widespread resentment in the Lake District and in the Roman Catholic Church. It is a sheer misuse of the television licence income.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I did not see those programmes. My wife watched them, but she did not reach quite the same conclusion as my noble friend. If he has specific complaints, he should make them to the relevant broadcasting authorities.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is it not the case that television and video follow what happens in society rather than leading society in terms of morality? With regard to the second part of the Question, perhaps I may put the position that we have always held on these Benches, which is that censorship in any form in a democracy is a very dangerous path to follow and is often much worse than the matters with which this Question is concerned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was because I appreciate the noble Viscount's first point that I refused to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his simple causal relationship between showing immorality and being immoral. The noble Viscount is right. We must not allow our aesthetic distaste for some things which we see around us to tempt us into seeking to ban them.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Video Standards Council. Is my noble friend aware that a large majority of videos are classified by the BBFC? But the problem does not arise there; it arises with the illegal videos which either enter
1292
this country or are made in this country and which are easily obtainable, and sold in shops. They are dirty videos. Although this subject should be dealt with, the police have more than enough to do, dealing with red lights on bicycles! However, something needs to be done about these illegal videos.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right that under the Video Recordings Act 1984 no video can be legally sold in this country unless it has a classification from the BBFC. The police should take action to pursue illegal sales of videos.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, is it not the case that, unlike television and videos, the Internet is not regulated and that if there is such a problem in society, it is probably linked to the Internet and not to videos and television?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there is a real problem with the Internet, which is very difficult to control. That is why the Government supported the formation of the Internet Watch Foundation, which has a very difficult job to do. However, a recent joint study by the Home Office and the DTI indicated that it is having some success in controlling excesses on the Internet.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's answers, why have the Government banned tobacco advertising on television?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question is about morality, not tobacco. The sale and consumption of tobacco in this country is legal.

Public Trust Office
2.56 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to rectify the deficiencies in the operation of the Public Trust Office identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his recent report Protecting the Financial Welfare of People with Mental Incapacity.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the Public Trust Office supervises the investment of patients' assets and assesses their individual financial needs. Currently, there are about 38, 000 patients, of whom 35, 000 are the responsibility of private receivers and about 3, 000 the responsibility of the Public Trustee as receiver of last resort. The PTO's main deficiencies were a failure to chase overdue accounts from private receivers and to review promptly those that it had actually received. It is not suggested that any patient suffered any financial loss as a result, but the procedures need to be strengthened, and they are being. Since June 1998, 10 extra posts have been dedicated to checking accounts and £0.5 million per annum for the next three

1293
years has been allocated for case management. The PTO is agreeing with the Court of Protection new procedures to ensure timely accounts from receivers.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that helpful Answer. However, does he accept that it is not clear why, immediately before the National Audit Office reported, his department instituted a review of the Public Trust Office? In view of the fact that we are talking about extremely vulnerable people whose assets are not being properly monitored, will the noble and learned Lord assure the House that the department will not wait for the results of the review before putting into effect many of the NAO's recommendations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have just told the noble Lord many of the steps that have been, and are being, taken. It is of value that a major independent review of the PTO is about to commence under Ann Chant, who is currently a managing director for Business in the Community. She is a senior and distinguished civil servant. She successfully tackled many of the intractable problems facing the Child Support Agency at the height of its troubles. The problems of the PTO are not remotely comparable. She is the right person for this important job.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take note of the fact that in 1996–97 only 67 per cent, of those under the care of the Public Trustee Office received a visit, against 86 per cent, in 1992–93? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all public trustee receivership patients receive an annual visit, as recommended by the National Audit Office?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, pre-1996, home visits were the responsibility of the welfare staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department, not of the Public Trustee Office although the PTO had been established in 1994. The performance then was unsatisfactory. The responsibility was given to the PTO in 1996. Since then there has been a materially improved service which complies with the criteria laid down by the Court of Protection. I intend to consider those criteria to see whether they can be strengthened to enable more visits to take place in the future.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is there not a duty of care which should be accepted by any agency handling the finances of people with mental incapacity, and also of people with learning disabilities? The noble Lord, Lord Rix, cannot be here today. I am sure that if he were, he would ask a similar question.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely accept that there is a duty of care.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Northbourne set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Viscount Tenby to two-and-a-half hours. — (Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Marriage
3 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne rose to call attention to the economic and social role of marriage; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I suggest to your Lordships that in this country today we are facing a social revolution and that we would be wise to face that revolution with our eyes open. For thousands of years, marriage has been the norm. Young people in love have been forced by social sanctions to make a long-term commitment to stay together to support their children and one another. In the past three decades, things have changed. Last year, 37 per cent, of all live births in England and Wales were outside marriage, and for the under-20 age group, the figure was 89 per cent. Today, 2.7 million children live in 1.6 million single-parent households and 25 per cent, of the children born this year can expect to see their parents' marriage break up before they leave school.
Obviously marriage is facing a sharp decline in popularity; it is no longer enforced by social sanctions. Some may say that that is a good thing and I accept that there are arguments for it. It gives adults more freedom to make their own lifestyle choices. We live in a society where individualism is a dominant ideology. Others would say that we are sowing the seeds of an intractable social problem for the future.
This week, the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility published a document, Supporting Families, which states:
"Any weakening of marriage has serious implications for the mutual belonging and care that is exercised in Society at large".
This debate is not only about marriage; it is about how we as a society want to treat one another and how we want to treat our children. I believe that the structure of families matters because of the damage to the child and the cost to the community when parents fail to fulfil their obligations to their children. Children need the security of a long-term committed relationship between their parents. The human child takes 18 years to grow up—some would say more. During that time, he or she needs security, guidance, role-models and unconditional love. Most parents want to give those things and most parents are the best people to do the job.

1295
Statistics show that children brought up in stable, happy, functional families have better life chances in terms of health, drugs, crime, educational achievement, employment prospects and as parents of the future. Also, single parents tend to have problems of poverty because they usually have to struggle to combine parenting with earning or to get by on benefits.
Kathleen Kiernan, writing of social exclusion in 1997, reports overwhelming evidence that the break-up of partnerships or marriages is damaging to children. She states,
"Children are more likely to suffer from poor performance at school—more anxious and attention seeking, to fall ill, have behavioural problems, drug problems and come before the Courts. They are also more likely not to marry as to divorce, and to break up relationships".
Of course, some regular families are unhappy and some reconstituted families are brilliant. But that does not alter the fact that, on average, most children get their best chance to develop to their full potential growing up in a two-parent, stable family.
As to the cost to the community, the cost to taxpayers of paying for the children of neglect and abuse is very high. So also is the cost of supporting young single parents and marriage breakdown. One estimate puts the public cost of divorce and separation this year at £5 billion, and in addition to that there is the cost of housing two families instead of one. Children in foster care cost the taxpayers around £15, 000 a year. Children in special institutions cost from £50, 000 to £100, 000 a year each. And today's situation may be only the tip of the iceberg. Local authorities are already jibbing at those costs, understandably so. But if the numbers of children needing public care increase, the taxpayers will jib at the bill; the quality of care will suffer; and less good care will lead to more illiteracy, more exclusion, more drugs and more crime.
Children who are emotionally deprived or brought up in poverty are a bad investment for the nation. Society is a stakeholder in successful parenting. Indeed, the Government have said that strong, secure families make for a strong, secure society. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that children are our investment as a country. But an underclass of children is exploding in this country today, whose day-to-day life is bleak and whose future is frightening. I therefore put the proposition that there is an overwhelming social and economic case for society to welcome, encourage and support mothers and fathers who are prepared to make the long-term commitment to live together in a stable, loving, long-term partnership and to support their own children.
The crucial question is whether marriage is the best way to achieve that commitment. Here I come to arguing the case; I am taking sides. To date, marriage has been the best way that anyone has discovered. In a recent survey, 14 per cent, of people believed that marriage was out of date; 72 per cent, of families are still headed by a married couple; 82 per cent, of young people questioned in the survey still expect to marry.
Marriage is different from cohabitation because marriage involves long-term commitment publicly made. It fundamentally affects the lives of third parties, including the children and the extended family. In contrast, cohabitation normally expressly rejects long-term commitment. David Lock MP, speaking for the Government in an all-party parliamentary group the other day, said,
"Research suggests that marriages are the best environment in which to bring up children. When marriage breaks down we all pay".
I want to mention just two more statistics. Cohabiting couples are almost four times as likely to split up as those who are married, and even where there are children, 50 per cent, of cohabiting couples part within 10 years compared to only 12 per cent, who marry.
I shall spend just a small interlude on the nature of marriage. There is an illusion today that marriage is just about celebrating a relationship. But marriage should, or can be more than that. It can and should be a contract to develop a series of relationships. Most noble Lords will have had the experience of falling in love; of the changes which take place in a relationship when the first baby comes along and one is faced with the demanding little package which is noisy at both ends and leaks in the middle. Marriage is the cement which makes possible the smooth transition from one relationship to the next. It is the signpost and the support at the major crossroads in a couple's life.
I am not suggesting that we should put the clock back. We must find positive ways to move forward. Should we find ways of making marriage itself more attractive and more relevant to young people today? Or should we invent an alternative which offers an opportunity of supporting and enhancing the number of people who are prepared to make a long-term commitment? I hope that some speakers this afternoon will look at alternatives to marriage. I hope that others will focus on the role of the extended family, the importance of marriage for the mutual support of the partners in old age or disability and on marriage as a sacrament. I intend to focus on things which could be done to make marriage more relevant to young people today.
First, let us look at the background. We live in a society today which has changed much since the head of an Oxford college said to his students in a sermon a hundred years ago:
"Gentlemen, I implore you not to imperil your immortal souls in a practice which, I am reliably informed, lasts no more than 2¾ minutes".
For many young people today sex has become a recreation rather than an expression of lasting love. Individualism is the dominant social ideology and the roles of men and women are less differentiated. Fathers are less clear about their role, while mothers often struggle to balance motherhood and a career. Like high street banks, we have moved from long-term loyalty relationships to short-term transactional relationships.
The Home Secretary is reported as saying last week:
"I don't think it is the job of the secular state to be judgmental about how people run their adult personal relationships".

1297
That is fair enough if there are no children. However, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that when two adults bring a child into the world their relationship is no longer a purely private matter? The child's welfare may be affected and the state has to assume ultimate responsibility for the welfare of that child. That is why the state is surely justified in behaving in ways which will support and encourage parents who are willing to make a long-term commitment. You cannot have it both ways. If marriage is good for children, you are betraying children if you do not support marriage.
I shall have time this afternoon to touch on only one or two examples of the range of things which could be done to support marriage and to make marriage more relevant to young people today. I will not take time describing the excellent plans for marriage preparation, counselling and mediation and for support for parents which the Government have already put in hand.
I believe that responsible parenthood should be taught in schools based on agreed values about parental responsibility and long-term commitment. I believe that young people in school should also learn about the needs of children; the need for long-term commitment by both parents—for patient, non-judgmental love, for boundaries and example and, above all, for time. Is the law sufficiently unequivocal about the financial responsibility of parents, especially when a child is living away from home? There is also a need for funding for teachers to be trained to teach these things.
In his recent Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent a message of negative support for marriage. He took away £2.5 billion by withdrawing the married couples' tax allowance. He gave only £1.4 billion in additional support to children, but there was no visible support for parental commitment. Surely to support and encourage long-term parental commitment is the cheapest as well as the best way to support children in the long term.
Then there is the problem of men. I suspect that very few of those 1.6 million single mothers really want to struggle to bring up a family on their own. I suggest that what we need is 1.6 million suitable and eligible young men. Of course, cloning might provide the answer. However, short of that, the Government should focus more on young men. We need family values and suitable role models in our schools. We need education for relationships and parenting. We need to rebuild the youth service. We need to re-instate sport in schools. We need to redefine the role of young men in the family. We need young men who are educated, who have a job and will bring back a pay packet to share with the family.
Finally, I turn to changes to the institution and ceremony of marriage itself. For example, what about "two-tier" marriages, with a greater degree of commitment until the first child arrives, or even "three-tier" marriages? What about term marriages which last 21 years, at which point there is a reassessment? What about a memorandum of agreement, which would not be binding but which would help couples to sort out what they believe the
1298
other person believes before they enter into the commitment? What about contracts of marriage which would be binding? What about a commitment to or from extended families and what about changes to the marriage ceremony to msike it more relevant and make the commitment which young people are making clearer and more transparent?
This debate is not just about marriage; it is about the kind of society that we want to live in. Our attitude to long-term commitment in marriage is a symptom of our attitude to one another, especially our attitude to our children. Children need their parents. Parents need one another. We, as a society, need to relearn how to live together.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for having tabled this important subject for debate. Indeed, full Benches in the Chamber even on a Wednesday show just how much importance many noble Lords attach to it. I should like to focus my five minutes on the social and economic role of marriage in areas of deprivation such as I have known in Merseyside and in east and south-east London.
Especially among those who have found themselves excluded from regular employment, the world of long-term commitments seems remote. Belonging to institutions or conforming seems to have nothing to offer. Instead, the spontaneous—what we feel like now—fills the horizons.
Being excluded from regular employment has crucial effects on marriage and family life. The noble Lord spoke about the need for suitable eligible young men, but the collapse of so much industry in Britain has left many men without any role. There are many homes where jobs are still unknown to anyone, whether male or female. In the 1991 census, 46 per cent, of children growing up in the borough of Knowsley were growing up in a home where no-one was in employed work; indeed, almost half the children in a large borough. While checking those figures with someone yesterday in Kirkby I receive the devastating comment, "Men are regarded as redundant"—in the home as well as at work. What worries me as much as anything is that the absence of a father who comes home with the dignity of a decent job well done leaves a boy with no positive or realistic directions to steer by.
All that supports the Government's mainline priority of getting people into work. Many of the areas that I have in mind are into their third generation of mass unemployment. A whole culture needs to be changed; that is, a culture that has assumed, with reason, that there would be no jobs. I know very well that there are mothers and carers who are doing real work, work that is of great value to the nation. We should at least consider paying them for that work. However, for the great majority, a decent job must be the expectation of both husband and wife—helped, I believe, by the working families tax credit.

1299
If we are to support marriage better we need to break into that culture, deep set as it is now, that cannot conceive of long-term rewards for long-term commitment. The Church has a major part to play, with many still coming to us asking to be married in church. However, lengthy preparation groups, like parenting groups and those concerned with married counselling, are often declined because they, too, are seen to come out of the tidy institutional world.
However, we must not give up at the first refusal or indeed at the second or third refusal. The Government's consultation paper on support for marriage focuses helpfully on what health visitors might be able to offer in support. Among the professionals health visitors are regarded as relatively non-threatening persons. There is a fear of statutory social workers; a fear that they might take the children away.
I believe the Government should be ready to put fresh resources into other bodies that might provide bridges to bring parenting classes or marriage counselling within reach. I think of voluntary organisations. Rather naturally, I mention the Family Service Units, whose president I was for 10 years. Other bridges could be provided by nursery classes or playgroups, and perhaps we need to go a good deal further than that in building bridges. The detached youth worker has shown that he or she can often make lasting contacts with youngsters that school or the more settled youth club cannot reach. In Kirkby, that I mentioned, the Church's Centre 63 has a small team of detached workers around it with different groups, different skills and different objectives to bring to the young people with whom they are in touch.
In the end, it is the quality of marriages that they see that will persuade young people to attempt this great adventure. What I have called building bridges of human contact is a necessary step along the way.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow two speakers who have done so much to support the family and care for the welfare of children. The subject of this debate is extremely important. Marriage has been the basis of family life in this country and the foundation of our social life for centuries. It has not been the basis of a narrow view of the family but a view of the extended family covering far more than just a husband and wife.
We know that the success or failure of marriage has important implications for the individuals involved and for us all, for their quality of life, for their standard of living, for our welfare expenditure and taxation, for the growth of social problems and, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, for the degree to which we try to create trust in our society and create a certain kind of society. The current trends, which were mentioned, are clearly rather negative. The projections by the Government Actuary are even worse. The predicted increase in divorce and in co-habitation will mean that married couples will be in a minority in the population. It is against this background that I wish to make three points.
1300
First, this is a debate about the public interest and not about our private values and private morality. I am sure that each of us has a different view of marriage. This is not a debate about our private views. The crux of this Motion, as I see it, is whether it is in the interests of our society as a whole that children are brought up within the structure of a marriage in which two parents have made a commitment to each other for life, or whether alternative arrangements are just as good. Should the Government be indifferent as between alternative family forms, or should they throw their weight behind marriage?
No one wishes the Government to start preaching to us. Nor should the Government pressurise people into choosing one particular kind of relationship. But the Government have after all formed a clear view on the need to help lone mothers return to work; on the need to provide extra childcare facilities; and on the need to extend support to help parenting. This is not viewed as preaching or interfering in family life. I believe that in a similar way the subject of marriage is not a subject on which the Government can afford to be neutral, especially when they have made so much of their concern for the welfare of children.
The reason I say this—and this is my second point— is the weight of the evidence. I confess that I had not looked at the evidence and the literature on this matter for some time. However, as I prepared for this debate I was surprised at the reviews of the literature which I read. The conclusion overwhelmingly points in one direction; namely, that judged by almost any indicator you care to mention—the state of mental and physical health; the emotional and intellectual development of children; the frequency of violence and child abuse; care for the elderly; and the likelihood of the relationship breaking up—marriage scores consistently ahead of other family forms.
The studies use averages, so there will be bad marriages and good alternative relationships. But the thrust of the evidence is clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, the reason has to do with commitment. Obviously any relationship involves commitment but a commitment to marriage is a commitment for life. We should not be surprised if that results in different behaviour. Surveys of attitudes show clearly that marriage is a basis for a stable family life. I was interested to note the recent St. Valentine's Day engagement of Zoe Ball to Fat Boy Slim. This shows that the ideal of marriage is alive and well even in the world of the 1990s "ladettes".
My third point is that, in the light of the evidence and because of the pain and cost caused by divorce, in my judgment the Government have no option but to show their unequivocal support for marriage. I believe that that starts with taxation. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, said in his first Budget,
"The tax system sends critical signals about activities a society wishes to promote or deter".
That theme was developed in the Red Book,
"Taxation is not wholly neutral in the way it raises revenue. How and what is taxed sends clear signals about the economic activities which governments believe should be encouraged and discouraged and the values they wish to entrench in society".

1301
I strongly agree with both those statements. But the signals which a tax system sends out, and the values it wishes to entrench apply to marriage as much as to anything else. In the context of the abolition of the married couples' allowance I ask the following questions. What signals does this send to our society? What values do the Government wish to entrench in our society? This is not a party political point because previous Conservative governments have initiated measures which have gone in the same direction. However, I am afraid this tax measure suggests that, despite the rhetoric of speeches and White Papers, marriage is not a sufficient priority with the Government for them to put the weight of the tax system behind it. Until that is reversed we shall never solve the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke about in his marvellous opening speech.
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this debate and for prompting me to take part. His concern for the welfare and effective upbringing of children is formidable. However, he did not anticipate that yesterday was our 25th wedding anniversary.
I intend to speak from the position of someone who has been a step-parent for the past quarter of a century. Aged 25—I am appalled to recall—and with a confidence and seriousness that no doubt belied my youth, I moved into a marriage which involved not just the two of us but also the five others, then aged 13 to four. Of course today they are now almost all 30 somethings and, in the main, parents themselves of our seven grandchildren. I believe that some observations about step-parenthood may add a useful dimension to this debate.
First, the step-parent is able to examine the question: is the children's upbringing the result of nature or nurture? Step-parents examine that question from a special perspective. At those moments when what they say and do is annoyingly similar to one's own weaknesses or foibles, then you know that nurture has been effective. At the same time you live with and offer leadership to people who do not share your nature, but that inherited from their parents.
Secondly, I think it is necessary to face up to the fact that you are marrying not just a spouse but also the children. Novels, dramas and soap operas are full of the old chestnuts of cruel, uncaring and rejective step-parents who end up resenting the presence of the existing children because they only want a relationship with the parent. Clearly this is a useless strategy and quite unrealistic, but it happens. I can think of only a few actions that are worse than having to live with real hostility, especially if you are a child. Such an unfavourable situation is far from the desirable stable upbringing that one hopes will be in an emotionally and physically warm home.
Thirdly, there is the need to co-ordinate the multiplicity of relationships which are brought about by a parent's remarriage. There are usually three sets of grandparents—possibly four if it is a double remarriage.
1302
Those relationships have to be encouraged and enabled to be retained or to be built. There is the need to encourage an on-going relationship between the estranged parent or parents and the children. In 1995 the Children (Scotland) Act established that parents have a right and a duty at law to maintain contact with their children—especially when estranged from them—unless there is a good reason why that should not happen. That recent Act also imposes a duty on the residential parent to facilitate that contact with the children. The law is correct and offers guidance to separating parents about how they should conduct their roles of parenthood in estrangement or in divorce. Whether mere mortals can perform as perfectly as the law requires remains to be seen. After all, marriages rarely end without some form of acrimony, even if it is only temporary.
There can also be the problematic task of integrating the children of two families into one. For example, a simple problem is where one eldest child has to surrender position. Throw in the possibility of a child of the new marriage and we have the proverbial new family, made up of his, her and their children. Except with the wisdom of Solomon—or greater—wi 11 this ever be an easy task for what has to be regarded as new marriage partners?
My own experience was simplified by this marriage continuing as it started, as one with a substitute parent, thereby minimising the multiplicity of relationships and enabling the family to move forward into its new life and the children to move on into their adulthood.
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing it. The Church teaches that marriage is a particular form of relationship which God has made as part of the created order, It is therefore deeply rooted in our social instincts and is the means by which a man and a woman, over the course of their lifetime, may learn love together. By marriage a new unit of society is created, a couple stronger than the sum of the two partners. Just as a wedding is a public ceremony, so a marriage is a public fact. It is a reshaping of human life within the community and, as such, has a responsibility to the community to be a force; for good in its life. Any weakening of marriage thus has serious implications for the mutual belonging and care that is exercised in the community at large.
In the light of this understanding of what marriage is, it will be evident that the "clear principles" required as a basis for a modern family policy cannot simply be derived from an exercise of analysing social trends. It is not because it "remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain" that marriage should be supported by the Government and the institutions of civil society but because it is fundamental to human flourishing.
Understandably, the Government have no wish to act either as preacher or nanny, but it is simply not possible, in my view, to have a "value free" or neutral policy here. An ideological commitment to pluralism, which rules out any possibility of one family form being

1303
judged better than another, provides an inadequate basis for developing a sound family policy. So I urge the Government to base their family policy on the principles I have outlined, with a clear commitment to the support of marriage as their basis.
Having said that by way of introduction, there are some practical things which I believe can be done. First, too much attention is probably paid to the beginning and end of marriages. During the passage of the Family Law Bill the Church of England argued strongly that far more should be done to support marriages through the lifetime of a couple. No doubt more could be done by the Church and others to improve marriage preparation. But, surely, resources devoted to those periods when couples face difficulties—but before they think it is all over—would be of much more use. Of course, more thought needs to go into how that could be delivered in a way that was acceptable and effective. But ways can be found, such as One Plus One's research with health visitors in their role of support and encouragement. That has already been demonstrated.
Secondly, the Government need to send a strong signal to support married people in the choices they make. Now that the decision has been taken to end the MCA, then surely a government who recognise that marriage provides the best context for bringing up children and that it is still the choice of most people in our society must come forward with new proposals for supporting and strengthening marriage. The evidence so far is that we are spending less on marriage support now than when the question was raised first in the wake of the family law debates. That is not encouraging.
Thirdly, there is still much to be discovered about how marriages develop and change that would inform attempts to improve the prevention and treatment of marital distress. What is required is sustained and co-ordinated action, over time, by policy makers, professionals and the voluntary sector attending to those factors which can be addressed. That is why we, as a Church, have argued that the National Family and Parenting Institute should include marriage within its remit.
Lastly, existing knowledge about marriage, and the changes and pressures upon it in our day, need to be more widely used. Most marriages go through bleak periods from time to time. Anecdotal evidence, not least from the clergy and Church-based organisations such as the Mothers' Union, Family Life and marriage education groups, suggests that many couples are unaware of how "normal" it is to experience the difficulties they encounter and are badly equipped to negotiate change and challenge.
Many countries are recognising the important public policy issues in this area. Many of them—I single out Australia and Ireland as examples—have seen the need to devote some serious resources to strengthening marriage. The best way to defend marriage will to be show, in ways that can be demonstrated, that it best meets the contemporary and evolving needs of women, men and children, and therefore society as a whole. More needs to be said about the relationship of the
1304
"ideal" to everyday experienced "reality". But I hope the comments I have made may be some modest contribution towards that.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, before contributing to this important debate, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in tribute to that great personality whom we lost overnight. I refer to Lord Beloff, who so greatly enriched our debates, our thinking and the literary riches of our country. If we are seeking one simple phrase that epitomised his life it would be the title of one of his early books, one of the most popular of the many that he wrote, The Intellectual in Politics. He was that intellectual par excellence. We shall profoundly miss his erudition, wit, perspicacity and friendliness and the insights which have helped to make our House into what it is and which will make his name immortal in the annals of this House and of our country.
We are once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising the supremely urgent subject of marriage. I make no apology for having agreed to take part in this debate. We are given an average of six minutes for each contribution. That is soon going to be the average time for each marriage if we are not careful. Our job in those six minutes is to make some contribution to ensuring that the period for a marriage is greatly extended.
Now that we are a multi-cultural society, with many strands making up the diversity of our citizens, we ought to try to collect from each constituent something of enduring value which can contribute to our debate, and eventually towards the solution to one of the gravest problems besetting contemporary society.
We are not helped by some of the statements made by Ministers of the Crown, two of whom have already been referred to. In a recent television interview the Home Secretary argued that the Government, now representing a secular state, should altogether withdraw from moral judgments affecting marriage. The stability of the home is clearly no longer the charge of the Home Secretary. Likewise, the example of the Foreign Secretary in relation to the durability and sanctity of marriage, or the action of the Chancellor in withdrawing the last financial props that encourage the preference for marriage, do not augur well.
We have already paid an extortionately high price as a nation for our indifference to marriage. The People's Princess would still be alive today, and so would her lover, if they had observed the laws on the sanctity of the marital bond. Let us consult each strand of our multi-cultural society to see whether we can enucleate from them something that can help each one of us to contribute towards solving the massive problem that now engages our nation.
Perhaps I may say a word or two drawn from the faith and family tradition which gave birth to me. I wish to mention just two items. A 2000 year-old saying in the Talmud has it that, "He who divorces the wife of his youth, even the altar sheds tears over him". Why the altar? The altar is the instrument of sacrifice. If a marriage fails, it is a sign that the two spouses were not

1305
prepared to make enough sacrifices for each other and thought first of their own happiness before the happiness of their partner and spouse. The altar has failed to teach that lesson, and weeps for its failure.
Perhaps I may give a second, more personal illustration. I heard with pleasure the personal references by previous speakers. My wife often told me that when she left her parental home to be married to me, in a Paris synagogue where her father was the rabbi, her mother told her: "You'd better make a success of your marriage because, if you don't, I won't take you back home". Today, far too many think that if they do not succeed in their new home there will be an open door when they return to their parents or elsewhere.
The alternatives to success are far too easy today. Every marriage encounters its occasional problems and disappointments. But if the alternatives were too simple and the escape too easy, few would make enough effort to make their marriage succeed. The more precious it becomes by dint of the effort put into it, the less dispensable it turns out to be.
I speak as the father of six happily married children and eight happily married grandchildren. I am asked, "What is the recipe?" I answer that, in addition to the careful choice of carefully nurtured genes in the partners to be chosen, it is to close the door of your home to smut and indecency and to open it to the healthy whiff of social engineering to create a Rolls Royce of a home which is indestructible and full of comfort and security.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I feel that I must draw the attention of the House to the tight schedule for this debate. Every speaker so far has adhered to what I know is a strict timetable. I appeal to other noble Lords to do the same.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, perhaps I may make a final point in the light of that justified reminder.
We believe that the education for marriage starts long before birth, and is never finished. We are bidden to go into marriage preparation, which is so widely neglected today, by making sure that we do not allow children to be born and raised without some form of preparation and training in the most delicate art of human relations. If we succeed, the rewards will be infinite and the rejoicing in countless thousands and millions of homes will be immense.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this very important debate. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to speak on the Muslim perspective when the Christian and Jewish leaders have spoken before me.
The family occupies a special status in Islamic teachings on marriage and is seen as the cornerstone of Muslim society. Not only is it a source of mutual comfort, care and protection for the nuclear family unit, but through the extended family social and blood ties are strengthened, responsibilities are shared and respect and appreciation grow across generations. The extended I
1306
family then can operate as an independent social unit. Characteristic of this is the support offered by family members through both good times and bad, and very often, this can entail help, either financially or emotionally. This notion of "family" is so strong that many Muslims apply this concept to their social circles in the absence of the extended family. Of course, that also applies to many other communities.
I wish to concentrate on the legalities of the Muslim marriages in Britain today. I draw your Lordships' attention to the Shariah Application Acts 1935 and 1937 which are significant pieces of legislation passed by the British Parliament in which the Muslim personal laws were recognised during the time of British India. Even after the creation of Pakistan, while it remained a British dominion between 1947 and 1954, the Privy Council remained as the Supreme Court of Pakistan and several matters came before the Privy Council in which their Lordships made decisions in matters pertaining to Muslim personal law.
I have become aware that a number of structural and institutional issues face British Muslims and members of other major non-Christian faiths when entering into marriages in Britain. These issues become difficulties and barriers when people wish to assert their religious rights, if and when a marriage does break down.
Therefore, I propose the following for consideration. First, of paramount importance is the need for research that clearly identifies the problems, issues and experiences faced by Britain's non-Christian populations when contracting marriages like Nikkah and seeking annulments and divorces. Secondly, non-Christian marriages should be awarded some legal recognition in respect of civil marriages. After all, the aims of both are life-long commitment and, historically, members of these communities generally have a good record of lasting marriages To dismiss the legal validity of these marriages is to suggest that children of these unions are not legally legitimate. Places of worship could be granted the necessary status to allow for the solemnising of these religious-legal ceremonies.
Thirdly, one possible way of regulating and legitimising religious marriages may be to offer funding to major religious organisations to enable them to compile directories of reputable clerics who perform religious marriages. Grants could be awarded to these major religious organisations to enable them to establish legitimate religiously-based training programmes, thus conferring a professional status on clerics. This could ensure that sham marriages are not conducted.
Fourthly, when it comes to marital breakdown, there is a need, I believe, to elevate non-Christian marriages and their specific concerns beyond the discretionary status they currently occupy in British family courts. At present it seems that there is a lack of uniformity in how these discretionary practices are exercised by the judiciary.
Fifthly, to assist the legal profession and members of the judiciary when dealing with these areas, some form of training that is periodically reviewed is needed. I am not proposing that religious minorities be awarded a special status; nor do I believe that these groups would

1307
themselves argue for this. But I do believe that the legal system needs to recognise "difference" and not to equate it with "irrelevance". This could simply mean assisting religious minorities to assert their religious rights, provided, of course, they do not contravene civil law.
Finally, members of religious minorities seeking legal intervention in their marital issues should not be placed in the position of experts, having to educate legal counsel on religious aspects. This additional pressure negates the possibility of the clients operating from a misinformed position themselves, but it may also act to dissuade those less confident about such matters from pursuing their legal and religious rights. The legal profession should be in a position to advise and initiate contact with religious organisations on their client's behalf. From my knowledge, it seems that clients are left to seek out such resources themselves.
The main thrust of my arguments stresses the need for education and communication between the legal professions and the religious ones, with the aim of ensuring that Britain's non-Christian minorities' religious rights and sensitivities are protected and respected. This process of education and communication should be a two-way process and should recognise the active contributions and diverse perspectives Britain's minorities offer, not just to the social sphere but also perhaps to the personal sphere as well.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this vital debate. I believe that the state of marriage is fundamental to the health and prosperity of our nation. There are many speakers, so I will be short, which is difficult for such an important subject.
Marriage is there for the mutual benefit of its partners so that they may help and comfort each other and achieve happiness together. We all know that marriage does not produce a perpetual state of bliss. It has its ups and downs. Each partner will benefit from plenty of give and take.
In today's atmosphere of easy divorce, as illustrated by the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, there is too much tendency to give up and break up rather than work at it and get over the problems. That is very sad because in many cases it certainly does not result in future happiness for either partner.
As the Prayer Book lays down, marriage was ordained for the procreation of children, and that is where I would like to place my emphasis. The arrival of children brings great joy, but also considerable responsibility. We all remember times of near despair, especially during the "terrible teens" when children are establishing their own individuality and continually testing the boundaries of their parents' tolerance and temper.
However, I, like other noble Lords, am fortunate to be able to say that in the long term—and this is our golden wedding year—those difficult tensions are absolutely worth while. I view my children and
1308
grandchildren with great pride. But there are times when the problems seem overwhelming. The husband is probably meeting equally difficult and trying problems at work, as may the wife also. Put together, that is a lethal mix and the time to sort it out is not easy. It is important that young people are prepared for this state of affairs, as many speakers have said today, so that it does not catch them unawares.
When I chaired the education committee in Essex, we invited marriage guidance education counsellors into our schools. Short courses of that kind before marriage for young people might help too. We want young people to be overwhelmed by the romance of marriage but for that romance to be underpinned by a deep and mutually responsible sense of reality so that couples work positively together to achieve continued happiness. That does not happen by magic.
I believe that children need both parents, a mother and a father. If one dies it is a tragedy which is unavoidable. However, the conflict of divorce, the separation of two loved parents and the difficulty for the children in keeping in touch, particularly when the parents are sparring in an atmosphere of self-justification, must be a terrible strain for the children. If there is a remarriage and a new young family, a difficult teenager can be very unwelcome, just at a time when that teenager needs most support. Exams have to be passed and careers chosen. Teenagers can need help with difficult relationships of their own. All problems seem mountainous at that age. There is need for the patience and time of loving adults to get those problems sorted out.
This is the time when, at the worst, teenagers leave home with disastrous results. Research shows that children from broken homes tend later to have poorer health, lower income and educational attainment, and are more likely to be unemployed and involved in crime. In their loneliness they start an unstable relationship which may break up and result in lone parenthood on low income. Thankfully, these are not always the results, but the danger is there. That may mean considerable public expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, illustrated.
There is no ideal or perfect society. Some marriages are unbearable and need the freedom of divorce. However, I hope that the Government, both fiscally and otherwise, the media, and society, including all religions, as the two previous speakers said, will work towards a more stable and responsible attitude to the permanency of marriage,
"to love, cherish … till death us do part",
as the Book of Common Prayer says. It would be a most worthwhile resolution for the millennium, contributing greatly to the contentment and prosperity of society.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I would like to add my thanks to those offered to my noble friend Lord Northbourne for initiating this debate. My contribution to it will be brief. I have no special knowledge or expertise in this field, but I can speak from experience. I hope that your Lordships will indulge me if I begin my remarks from an unashamedly personal

1309
point of view. First, my father was married to my mother for over 50 years before he died and my wife was brought up in the same kind of permanent, stable, lasting family relationship.
Furthermore, my wife and I celebrated our own 50th wedding anniversary last year. We were both brought up in a safe and loving environment. Although our only child died very young, our memories of this have enabled us to form close and affectionate relationships with a large, loving assembly of nephews, nieces and godchildren, as other noble Lords will have done. I speak as one who believes that the institution of marriage is an important and cherished element, not only in the context of the family but, as my noble friend Lord Northbourne has said, in the more general context of living in a stable and civilised society.
It may be relevant in passing to mention also that I spent much of my early grown up life serving in an Army regiment, where there were not only strong family ties and traditions going back for 300 years, but also a very real feeling that the regiment itself was a kind of family, providing the reassurance of a permanent and supportive structure.
It is from that background that I venture to offer a few brief comments in support of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. We must, of course, bear in mind that the situation which prevails in this context of marriage and the family in the ancient world was profoundly changed by the influence of Christianity. Among the Greeks and especially the Romans, for example, a marriage could be initiated without any kind of ceremony, or at least without a ceremony prescribed or defined by law. and the relationship between the two parties—known then as the matrimonium iustum—was a free union which could be terminated without formality by either party at any time. Noble Lords will know that as the Christian tradition has evolved, a relationship of this kind, in order to constitute marriage, had to be monogamous, involve a full community of life and be characterised by the duty of faithfulness.
As has already been said, of course, this institution is not universal or prevalent throughout the world. Today, other countries and other cultures have their own attitudes and practices in this special area of human relationships. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobovits, said, as this country has now become to a very large extent a multi-cultural society, it might be argued that we have to take account of these different cultures in determining our approach to the institution of marriage. However, it is worth recording that in writing a foreword to a recent book of Christian perspectives on a study of the nation, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, offered the following important advice,
"Christians have no right to inflict their values on others but they do have a right in a free democracy to proclaim the values they hold dear as forcefully and attractively as possible".
It is within that cultural context that I would like strongly to support the views put forward at the beginning of this debate by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. The essential characteristics of marriage and family seem to me to involve a permanence of human relationships, a strong commitment among the members of the family and, above all, loyalty, a much
1310
overlooked and despised virtue these days. This environment is a basic unit of a society which provides a stable environment for the nurture of children and mutual support for all members of the family. As I suggested earlier, they ensure the continuity of a society as a whole in which personal values, morality and communal responsibility can be passed on to future generations.
None of this is to suggest that there is only one permissible approach to relationships in this area. Too much has happened in the social and cultural structure of this country, and also in the structure of the family in this country, to be dogmatic or intolerant in this field. It would, indeed, be intolerant to suggest that the Christian doctrine should be the only approach to marriage in a post-Christian, multi-faith society. However, as I have already mentioned and as; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has stated, it is important in a free society that we should make our own views and our beliefs clearly and unequivocally known.
It is from that point of view that I strongly support the view of my noble friend Lord Northbourne, especially in his opinion that children need the security of a long-term, committed relationship between their parents. As he said, most children get their best chance to develop their full potential growing up with two parents in a stable, loving relationship. I close as I began by declaring that this is a sentiment which from my own personal experience I can wholeheartedly endorse.
4.9 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving us the opportunity to debate the role of marriage in society. I have an interest to declare in this debate, as other noble Lords have done, which is not just that I am married, but that I enjoy being married and that I am not cynical about it. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has chosen the title of this debate carefully because looking at the economic and social roles of marriage raises distinct, although related, issues.
If marriage were the accepted norm and people got married as a matter of course we would probably not be having this debate. Perhaps the way to highlight the need for stability is to look, as some other noble Lords have done, at the picture that presents itself in life and on our television screens and in our newspapers. I believe that last year the Evangelical Alliance published a very worrying report entitled The Roots of Social Breakdown. It is clear that that represents a catalogue of human misery, particularly increases in homelessness and domestic violence. A few years ago in preparing for a debate in your Lordships' House on the situation of young people in inner cities I had occasion to telephone a health authority that covered three south London boroughs. I asked the official to whom I spoke for statistics on births and terminations expressed as a percentage of pregnancies. Then, as now, I could not believe what he told me and I asked him to recheck the figures because I was staggered. He came up with the same answer. In 1991 in those three south London boroughs 36 per cent, of all pregnancies ended in abortion. That is a horrifying statistic quite apart from

1311
the moral issues in terms of unnecessary medical intervention, bodily trauma and anxiety. It would be useful to know whether the declining popularity of marriage is a symptom or cause, or perhaps both, of this aspect of social breakdown.
Those who believe it does not matter whether or not people get married are often themselves living lives based on a moral code even if they are reluctant to admit it. I have heard people say that they reject the moral code by which they grew up but they are living within the agreements that made up that moral code. It is immensely cruel for such people to conclude that moral codes are inherently a bad thing and so deprive their own children, or their pupils if they teach, of any framework of agreement about how to live life.
Based on my own experience, the most important benefit of marriage is stability, although marriage is no guarantee of stability. One of the problems is that in our soap opera culture people tend to pin all their hopes on "their relationship". It is vital for the stability of marriage or a long term relationship that both partners have shared goals to whose achievement both can contribute. That does not mean that the goals should be identical but goals in which each can and does participate. There are many different spheres of pro-survival activity beyond self and marriage. One can contribute to the survival of groups to whom both partners belong, or to the survival of other people around the world. One can support causes to do with animal or plant life, or explore the philosophical aspect of life. I believe that it is very important not to focus solely on "the relationship". It is also important not to take marriage for granted and to remember actively to create the marriage on a daily basis.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in joining with those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing this debate, I was particularly impressed by the fact that it was not a moralistic or authoritarian intervention about the family but a very sensitive intervention in the context of his general concern for social wellbeing, in particular the wellbeing of the young. In a complex issue of this kind inevitably there is a good deal of subjectivity. We speak from our own experience. I had the good fortune to grow up in a strong family that greatly influenced my whole approach to life. I now have the good fortune to enjoy tremendously, perhaps above all else, the family that my wife and I choose to call "our own". We draw great strength from that. It gives us the base from which to go out and do the other things that we want to do.
However, on such an intricate matter one must be very careful about generalising on the basis of personal experience or generalising at all. For example, in the past a good deal of romantic nonsense has been talked about the family. The family in the past concealed a great deal of suffering particularly on the part of women who were exploited atrociously. There was violence and sexual abuse. There were double standards particularly on the part of men. If we simply ride over that and ignore it, it does not help us in looking to the future.
1312
Sometimes there is over-simplified talk—perhaps I can be accused of having used it myself on occasion—of the family being the basis of a viable, stable and decent society. That can be but is not automatically the case. We know of parts of Europe in which the family has played a very strong part but where that family culture in society has been related to violence and crime. Therefore, one cannot look simply to the family per se as the solution to the problem.
We are going through a period of transition. I do not believe that we should be too depressed about the future; rather, there is great hope in the institution of family. We are moving into the age of what has been described as the democratic family in which women have fuller rights and the father is able to play a fuller and more responsible part than was probably true in the past and enjoy the fruits of it in terms of a closer relationship with children and their upbringing. Children are themselves, while not free of parental authority—I hope that they never will be—more challenging. I believe that that is in itself healthy; certainly it is for me. But as we look to the future we must recognise what has already been said in the debate this afternoon; namely, we now live in a multi-cultural society. I always enjoy and listen with great care to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. But I was troubled that he was so concerned about pluralism in this context. In the debate this afternoon we have heard what pluralism has to offer: the strength in the role and values of the family that come from cultures other than the Christian culture, to which I myself subscribe.
If we look at the underlying issue that concerns all of us, one point on which we all agree is the wellbeing of children. That will be looked to in the context of the family; sometimes it will be looked to in model relationships outside the family. I can think of some that I have encountered. I refer to models of mutual loyalty and caring concern for children. What matters is the quality of the relationship. What also matters is that the Government should do all that they can—I believe that they are endeavouring to do so—to support parents. The first issue is parenting itself. That is one of the most demanding assignments of life. How much preparation do young people get for the responsibility of parenting? There should be far more conscious preparation for parenting. There are also issues involving law and taxation, about which we have heard a good deal of late, the provision of nurseries and creches, working arrangements and hours, not least for men, the pattern of career demands, housing and public transport. A network of issues must be brought together if we want to give substance to the general principles that we seek to underline.
In conclusion, I return to one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his introductory speech. He said that he was not just speaking about marriage but the nature of the society in which we wanted to live. I believe that he is right. The interplay between the two is absolutely essential. That brings us back to responsibility and the social values of loyalty and commitment. The question that I ask myself is: how can these be encouraged in a consumer society that is dominated by competition, self-advancement, instant

1313
gratification, "my rights", and an increasing preoccupation with litigation and blame? I believe that it is right not only to support the family in social policy and to find the right way to generate that support, but that in the whole culture of our society, which we as active politicians should be helping to engender, there should be far greater recognition of service to balance the undue emphasis of late on excellence as an end in itself.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I cannot begin better than by quoting from my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale during my noble friend Lord Northbourne's debate on the family in 1996, when he said,
'"not for the first time, your Lordships have been put deeply in debt by Lord Northbourne"'. —[official Report, 11/12/96; col. 1113.]
On my noble friend's debate today on marriage, I would say "Snap!". Three years ago, there were three maiden speeches, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Syrnons of Vernham Dean, and the present and the former noble and learned Lord Chancellors both spoke. Altogether, there were 28 speakers, and today there are also 28. And many of them are the same noble Lords. I think this argues some kind of continuity which, when you think about it, is what marriage is all about.
The Book of Common Prayer puts very plainly the three reasons for which matrimony was ordained. The first is children, and bringing them up right in a secure and happy home. The second is physical joys, which I think I cannot put better than the lady in my hairdresser's did; "keepin' yer ain tae'yersel". The third is for,
"the mutual love, society and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity".
The whole of marriage is comprised in these three maxims and, however long I spoke or however much I said, I could not say it better than that. Nor am I foolish enough to try.
Another point which comes out very clearly and powerfully in the preamble to marriage in The Book of Common Prayer is the emphasis that the first miracle at Cana in Galilee of turning water into wine was performed at a marriage. Cousin Albert Baillie, who married us in 1952 and who was Dean of Windsor before the war, always put this into his sermons at weddings—he said it showed the pre-eminence above all of the estate of marriage, that Christ had chosen it for His first miracle—it was not a christening, it was not a wake, it was not just any old hooly; it was a marriage.
I have an interest to declare. I have been happily married for some time, although my husband and I cannot compete with the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. We have six children and four-and-a-half grandchildren. My parents celebrated their ruby wedding in your Lordships' House, as did my husband and I some 24 years later. We had bridesmaids, pages and a best man with us though, alas, no Cousin Albert. But children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews, none of whom had been in this world 40 years earlier, were all there. I made a three-tier cherry cake, part of which
1314
Miss McWilliam caught as it tumbled to the floor. Many of your Lordships I know have already celebrated golden and diamond weddings which glow with a starry glimmer of happiness and loving memories shared.
Of course, a happy marriage has to be worked at; it does not just happen. Robert Louis Stevenson said:
"Marriage is like life in this, in that it is a field of battle, and not a bed of roses".
At every wedding anniversary, my father always claimed that he and my mother had had only one fight. "But of course, "he said, "we do have an armistice now and then. "
Last weekend, I was discussing marriage with my dentist, who has been happily married for some time. "The trouble is, "he said, "that it isn't fashionable. Some of my children's contemporaries give up alter a year because they say they aren't happy. "It seemed to us both that happiness is a state of mind which comes from within and is too often confused with the pursuit of instant pleasure. Happiness very often comes from doing something for someone else. I suspect that one reason my husband is such a happy person is because he is always doing things for other people—usually for me.
On Monday the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave a party at Richmond House for three war widows who are retiring from their current jobs, although they will still be very much on the strength. It was a lovely thing to do, and I hope it made her as happy as it made all of us. One of these three ladies has found happiness for a second time and got married in the Crypt of St. Paul's just before Christmas. My husband and I and the Reverend Peter Bishop and his wife were the only non-family members, and we felt very blessed. She had asked me to read Shakespeare's sonnet on the marriage of true minds, which I thought I knew by heart and arrived without a crib. Luckily, I did. Elut I shall spare your Lordships.
But perhaps marriage is a fashion that is coming back. Four of our children have got married and we have been blessed with grandchildren. One of my nieces got married in the Isle of Man just before Christmas and our eldest granddaughter was a bridesmaid dressed as a golden fairy. There is much to be said for marriage as a repository for the past, as a joy for the present, as a blessing for the future. As Her Majesty the Queen most notably said, "I'm for it".
4.25 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too must thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initialing this important debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the family and the central position of marriage within it.
The family was ordained and established by God—
"Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".
(Ephesians, chapter 3, verse 15).
And a Godly home is a visual image of the spiritual relationship of Christ with his Church, as we learn from Ephesians, chapter 5, verse 21 and chapter 6, verse 4. It is a place to belong, to grow, to find love and acceptance, to feel secure, to make mistakes and be

1315
forgiven, a place to learn about relationships and right choices. When God's order is established in the home, His word honoured and obeyed, the family is strong. When the family is strong, the nation is strong. When the family life of a nation is under attack, the nation is weakened. Today in Britain the family has become a prime target for attack: it is visibly crumbling. The role of the family sits on the intersection between personal freedom and duty to others. Politicians talk about duty and responsibility, but are frightened to limit freedom.
There is a rising tide of juvenile stress and disorder throughout the western world which cannot be accounted for by poverty and unemployment alone. It is more likely to be due to a collapse of social bonds, with family break-up at its heart. Stable family life, whatever its down-side, generally remains the most dependable bulwark against the many uncertainties and insecurities of the modern world. Yet in Britain now there are whole communities where committed fatherhood is virtually unknown.
The tragedy is that all these children from such disrupted backgrounds want to "be there" for their own children when they themselves grow up, but have virtually no chance of breaking the cycle in which they are trapped. The collapse of the family means the erosion of those networks of trust, responsibility and commitment that make up civic society. If these values are not embodied in the family so that they become habits of heart and mind in individuals, there is little chance that these concepts will be applied in turn to the wider society.
The key difficulty lies with the concept of commitment. Commitment is the undertaking that restricts one's freedom of action in the greater cause. But to the individualist any such restriction is, by definition, oppressive. Commitment, therefore, has been redefined as a negotiable commodity. The commitment of adults to each other or to their children lasts precisely as long as it is convenient. It is then redefined to reflect altered circumstances, and so the estranged parent purports to be as committed to the child as when that parent lived in the family. But this "arm's length" commitment by the parent, who may see the child only for a few awkward hours each Sunday, is not commitment at all.
For all its difficulties, marriage remains a near-universal aspiration. But it is fragile and, if it is to thrive, it must be buttressed through a concerted and conscious effort by law, economics and culture. Clearly, marriage and the stable family have been undermined by huge cultural pressures which must be beyond any one agency, such as the State, to reverse. But the state plays a significant part in helping to shape that culture. Religious leaders, too, have a crucial part to play and should display both practical and moral leadership. But government policy also plays a part in underpinning stable families. It must make marriage mean something again by supporting, promoting and giving it privilege over other relationships.
That can be done in a number of ways. Put simply, there should be incentives for behaviour which promotes pro-social outcomes, and corresponding disincentives
1316
for behaviour which does the opposite. So, for example, the tax and benefit system should favour married couples with children over the unmarried. Divorce law should see the re-introduction of the concept of fault, (or reason, as I prefer to call it) which was finally removed in Britain with the introduction of the Family Law Act. It is fundamentally unjust that people who are victims of their spouse's betrayal or irresponsibility should be further penalised by losing their children and their house simply because justice has decided to be blind to personal responsibility. Parents who have walked out on their marriages should have to pay more for the upkeep of their families than spouses who have themselves been abandoned, or those who were never married in the first place, who should nevertheless pay something. The current thrust of family law to promote the equivalence between married and co-habiting couples should be reversed.
What then should be done? Surely we should restore the significance of marriage. After several decades of escalating divorce rates, the effect on children has been well documented. There is now little dispute that children from broken homes tend to have poorer health, lower income and lower educational attainment. They are more likely to be unemployed, commit crime and in due course become divorced themselves.
The Government are able to state that,
"marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children".
Yet in a number of areas public policy actively works against marriage as an institution.
Divorce law is to be further reformed so that pre-nuptial agreements for divorce are more binding than marriage itself. Secondly, a married woman wishing to stay at home and look after her children is disadvantaged in the tax system because her tax allowance is not transferable. Her work is therefore largely unrewarded. Thirdly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now decided to scrap the married couples allowance, formerly the only tax break in favour of marriage.
Instead of that, public policy should buttress marriage in a variety of ways including enhancing the legal status of marriage, supporting marriage through the tax and benefit system, and scrapping the pending no fault divorce reforms (or no reason divorce reforms, as I prefer to call them). It is interesting to note that Louisiana, which introduced no fault divorce some years ago, has now decided that the system is not working. No fault divorce is now being scrapped and it is returning to the normal fault system which is so much to be preferred.
I conclude by urging the Government to take vigorous and immediate action to restore the significance of marriage.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity presented by the debate and for much that has been said. I was spurred to put my name down to speak in the debate by a remark recently on Radio 4 on the "Today" programme. It was said, "It is not the

1317
state's business whether or not two people are married". The Radio 1 version of that would be, "After all, it's only a bit of paper".
There seems to be a deep confusion in many people's minds as to what marriage is. Many people confuse it with a wedding and say, "I cannot get married because the party is too expensive". I hope that the public character of marriage as a permanent and legal commitment to a specific form of relationship is emerging strongly from the debate. Precisely because it is public, the state must in some way or other be involved. Good reasons have been given already as to why the state should be involved: the nurture and care of children; the need for stability; and so on.
Perhaps I may add a sentence. It goes to the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, and refers also to part of what the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said. Mature and responsible personal relationships are the building blocks of a mature and responsible society. One cannot separate the quality of relationships between people and what binds them together from the kind of people that one is producing and the quality of society. Given the fleeting character of so many of the personal relationships within modern society, it seems to me imperative that those fleeting relationships should be counterbalanced by those which are stable, reliable and life long.
One of the great merits of the married family is that the relationships, once chosen, remain given. One of the great maturing influences in the process of growth into adulthood is coming to terms with the "givenness" of relationships—the givenness of children; or the givenness of one's parents. The growth of maturity by making commitments and taking responsibilities is at stake.
I speak in pragmatic terms. I am belying my collar deliberately because it is a public political matter and not simply a religious one. Marriage as we know it in this country is a paradigm for those qualities of stability, reliability, commitment, and so on, as well as an education into them. Of course things can go wrong. We recognise that. That is why we have divorce laws. But without maintaining that ideal, we erode those qualities in public life which make democracy possible.
A further pragmatic reason why it is important is that unless there is a firm and recognised public basis for relationships between people we lay ourselves open to endless fraud. How can one have privileges and responsibilities within family relationships unless those are publicly recognised and registered so that one knows who is married to whom. We are coming nowadays to the terrible situation that we all relate to partners, as though it is an endless sexual game of tennis, and one swaps partners half way through. How does one identify those responsible?
The state has a strong interest in supporting marriage. However, we recognise that the social trends are against it. In reading through some of the research documents prepared for the Lord Chancellor's Department, one finds this typical theme; namely, they map the current flow and then knock down every possible counter measure which goes against that flow. We get into a
1318
vicious circle. We have social trends towards unrestricted choice in all manner of things. That has its impact on the attitudes towards marriage and further enhances the social trends.
That is why we so desperately need markers in our society which demonstrate the social significance of marriage. But we have been seeing the gradual removal of all those markers in our society which make marriage different. What is left? A few property laws. If a man is elevated to your Lordships' House, his wife becomes a Lady. It is somewhat difficult to think of anything else which distinguishes marriage in our public life from other states. The married couple's allowance is the last straw, not because people will be influenced by finance but for symbolic reasons. It removes yet another difference between the marrieds and the non-marrieds. There is desire not to disadvantage those who have chosen alternatives to marriage. But the Government cannot have it both ways. If they are going to support the family, they have to make up their mind whether marriage matters and express that in policy.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for this timely debate. All speakers have emphasised the importance of marriage and that has been emphasised also in the research. Noble Lords who have spoken have been quite right, in my respectful view, to emphasise that importance.
However, we should just pause for a moment to think about the additional stresses faced by current marriages which did not exist in years gone by. Sometimes there is almost a temptation to think of the halcyon days of, in particular, Victorian times. It is important for us to remember that in Victorian times the average length of a marriage was about 12 years. Why was that? It was because, tragically, many of those marriages ended not in divorce but in the demise of one of the partners. So the opportunity for partners—if I can express the matter colloquially—to get on each other's nerves was much more restricted than in the case of those who look forward to the joys of celebrating 60 years of happy conjugal bliss.
We need to bear that in mind because, there needs to be a sympathy and an empathy for the difficult task which those who enter the perilous seas of marriage now face. They are much more turbulent waters than they ever were.
We must bear in mind also that there is a multiplicity of reasons why many do not share the religious convictions of noble Lords in this House. I confess and say straightaway that I, too, have very strong religious commitments which are cultural, in terms of the nature of the Caribbean island from which I come which is predominantly Catholic, and, indeed, in terms of family background. I am one of 12 children and my parents have been married since 1937 and are still happily so. Therefore, from a premise of total commitment to the institution of marriage I say that we must be extremely sensitive to the fact that others choose different paths, often not because they make an informed choice but because that is what is forced upon them.

1319
We must meet people where they are. There are many who do not have the advantage of two-parent families, not from choice but because that has been foisted on them. Therefore, when we talk about families we must take into account the broader church of relationships which produce children; relationships in which children will be nurtured.
One of the realistic steps that we must take is to recognise how we can best assist those new families who may not have two adult members in them to nurture their children. The research is clear. It tells us that children are best nurtured and cared for by two people living together in harmony on a long-term basis; that fragmentation of that relationship, be it honoured by the bands of matrimony or not, is destructive to children. That is not a moral issue. It is a researched, pragmatic reality that children in this country experience.
However, we need not be too pessimistic because 83 per cent, of young people when questioned and asked about marriage made it clear that they intended to marry or hoped to marry. So I believe that those who worry that marriage is dead do so unnecessarily.
There is an issue as to how we support marriage. This Government have put a great emphasis—and rightly so—on conciliation, mediation, guidance and support. Why have they done that? It is because it is the most efficacious way of maintaining relationships which support children.
The Family Reform Law Act 1996 has in many ways been vilified. People say that it is wrong, but that Act tries to put the emphasis back on conciliation, preparation and thought. Many issues are burdening young families now. I endorse everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in relation to the effect that unemployment has had on families and the individual sense of self.
I wish to say a few words about men. There has been much said to indicate that men are no longer necessary as a part of the family structure and mention has been made that our sons need the example of a father. But our daughters need that just as much. Therefore, the responsibility that we have is to look to see how we can support our young men to become good fathers and contributors, not just in a financial sense but in an emotional, moral and supportive sense so that they can nurture their children, who can be truly proud of them. It is a challenge and when I look around your Lordships' House I am sure that there are those here who are more than able to rise to that challenge.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I hope that many of your Lordships agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that we should not be too pessimistic. But as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, we cannot put the clock back. That implies that we must devote ourselves to trying to think of positive ways in which to go forward.
I dare say that the social trends which have been so negative for so long may perhaps—and I am mildly optimistic—change and the pendulum may begin to
1320
swing the other way. But we cannot put too much faith in that. We must find positive ways in which to go forward.
Your Lordships may recall that in some of the fringe areas of the British Isles—for example, I recall the Outer Hebrides where I served as a young territorial officer many years ago—there used to be a social convention of a trial period before marriage, before children arrived. It was understood generally and, indeed, accepted by the parties that when the children arrived, the alliance would become legal and permanent.
I advocate that we should develop and give legal form to such a trial marriage or, a better word perhaps, introductory marriage. The main cause of breakdown is the attitude with which so many young people enter marriage; namely, that love is blind. All the poets of all the ages have regarded the passion of romantic love as a form of insanity. It passes and the strains of commitment begin to show themselves.
I suggest that we need a social mechanism to enable responsible reconsideration of the commitment before beginning a family. Many years ago, the father of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, advocated a model. He suggested the following conditions: no intention to have children; divorce by mutual consent; and no question of alimony in the event of breakdown—and to give it legal force, I would add the necessary condition that if a child is born, the marriage must become permanent.
No government would wish to take a stance on this kind of subject in advance of a clear demonstration of public opinion. Some Churches would also see difficulties. It is up to individuals and voluntary organisations, supported by the media, to give a lead. I hope that if widespread public support for this concept became manifest, the Government would initiate official investigations and the legal implications would be properly considered and charted.
We cannot put the clock back. We must find ways of going forward. We must deter marriages being embarked upon irresponsibly, without consideration of the strains ahead and the obligations of commitment. I suggest to your Lordships that a legal framework of introductory or trial marriage is one of the ways forward.
4.52 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing this subject. We are considering two matters: the economic and social roles of marriage. I propose to say one or two words about the economic role and primarily talk about the social role.
As regards the economic role, the cost of broken marriages to the Exchequer is approaching £5 billion per year. That is quite a substantial economic factor in the breakdown of marriage as we face it today. The cost of marriage support has been running at about £3 million, which is quite a contrast to the cost of breakdown. I believe that this Government will increase that sum in future. Clearly, that would be a worthwhile investment.

1321
Research shows that problems from ill-health, smoking and alcoholism in married couples amount to approximately half those of single people or cohabiting couples. When people are off work, through sickness, become ill through smoking, or suffer problems from alcoholism, that all costs money. Therefore, that is a factor when we consider the economic role.
However, marriage is good for the economy. Research shows that married people tend to work harder, earn more and save more. That all brings in more money to the Exchequer. So, it is very worth while for the Exchequer to support marriage.
I turn now to the social role of marriage. I should like to emphasise the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, about marriage providing the quality of relationship that society needs. A lasting marriage provides stability in the community, and there is far too little of that at present. I have visited one or two of the worst housing estates in this country and read a book summarising some of the stories concerning such housing estates. Marriage can provide stability in the community, and that is greatly needed.
In contrast to the stability of marriage, a cohabiting couple is five or six times more likely to split up than a married couple. That factor makes me doubtful about the benefits of trial marriages, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
Married men are less likely to commit crimes. Certainly, marriage provides the best basis for support and care for elderly and disabled people as well as for children. Commitment to others—spouse, children and extended family—requires work and effort. That conflicts with self-centredness and individualism which, as several noble Lords have said, is a product of today's culture. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, stated this is a real challenge.
Perhaps I may say a word about the welfare of children. I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary state, on a couple of occasions, that from his experience and in his view marriage forms the best environment for raising children. One-in-two cohabiting couples with children part within 10 years as against only one-in-eight of married couples with children. I see that some schools even consider broken homes to be a greater problem for children in their schools than anything else today.
There are various things I should like to see happen. I make a plea to the media to do more to portray marriage positively than the bad role models I so often see and hear. I refer particularly to fatherhood, which has been mentioned several times. I should like to see more good father role models being portrayed in the media in "soaps" and suchlike.
We need more education on marriage as well as on parenting, both in adult education and schools. I hope to see more of that in the next few years. More government funding is needed for marriage preparation and for strengthening marriage. We need good marriages. Much of this was started by the Family Law Act 1996, bringing in a whole new field of conciliation work. From that arises much more encouragement to strengthen marriage rather than waiting for the crisis to
1322
come. Churches have submitted information to the Home Office on ways they can help to improve both the quality and stability of marriage. I hope and believe that the Home Office will take up that offer and work as a partnership to strengthen marriage.
I would love to see the Government checking that all policy serves to strengthen, not weaken, marriage. I, too, am optimistic that we can turn the corner and have more good marriages.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, on 1st December in your Lordships' House I produced a litany of ways in which a married family helps society better than an unmarried one. Several noble Lords tonight have done better than me, so I shall not repeat it. However, perhaps I did not make clear that the comparisons I made were not between married families and worse-case scenarios, but between married families and apparently stable co-habitees parenting their own children.
There seems to be some confusion on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to create stability through what he advertises as family-friendly policies. I believe he has missed a vital point in all this. Families do not make stability; families make children. Marriages make stability, but they get a thumbed nose from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The mechanics work like this. The contract of marriage, and the promise of stable life that will flow from that contract, induces partners to invest all their efforts and resources in the marriage. The return on investment is huge, not only to those married people but to society at large. As taxpayers, we should all hope that our ageing population is a married population. Married people are more likely to be independent and healthy and not so burdensome on younger citizens. Perhaps I should state an interest!
If the contract is undermined by social indifference, easy divorce and even, as in last November's discussion document, pre-nuptial separation agreements, nobody can expect the same level of investment by partners in their relationships.
So, what are we left with? The chief characteristic of marriage for a modern British couple is financial discrimination. Perhaps I may give as an example the working families tax credit. Like family credit before it, the WFTC fails to recognise the cost of the second adult in the family, except for the purpose of reducing the credit. That leaves us with the extraordinary situation in which a couple may take full advantage of their tax bands while both earning good money, but as soon as they have a child and take on parental responsibilities, not only do they lose one of their incomes, but they pay extra tax if the husband tries to make up the difference. Going back to last November's discussion document, leaving the child in childcare will not help either the child or the marriage.
Let us imagine the situation of a young couple netting £20, 000 a year each—a good wage—who say, "Well, this is all right. We can manage very nicely. Let's have a baby. Of course, we'll lose one income, but we'll be helped with child benefit and the working families tax

1323
credit. The Government support families". So, they have a child. Wow! They do not know what hits them. They expected their income to halve; what they had not reckoned on was that the net equivalised drop would be to about 55 per cent, of the value of that.
So, what happens to that couple? They are not only under huge financial stress (poverty being relative to expectation), but they are riding the roller-coaster of new family life. Worries about child welfare, worries about mother welfare, depression and elation are all subsumed into a fog of sleep deprivation. Do not underestimate those forces. They are probably the greatest internal battleground of those people's lives. That couple ought to be supported. They ought to be supported for many good reasons. But let me be really cynical about this: they ought to be supported because if they split up, the cost to the rest of us will be horrendous.
So many noble Lords have referred to education for marriage. I should like to end by saying something really positive, so here is a suggestion. It arises out of the question: how can young people learn of the benefits of marriage when a growing number of them have never seen marriage at work? With this problem in mind, an initiative has been taken to introduce married couples to volunteering sixth formers who wished to have the opportunity to discuss the institution of marriage. This is called the "Students Exploring Marriage Initiative", organised by the Grubb Institute of Behavioural Studies. I shall quote the words of one of its students:
"Before I decided to participate in the workshop, I had a pretty cynical view of marriage. With most of the adult members of my family divorced, I'd interpreted it as a thing of the past".
That is by no means untypical, yet there is a hunger to learn about marriage. Students at Rochester Grammar School for Girls told their Deputy Head of Sixth:
"that the project was the most useful experience they have had in the school"!
How about that? Forget maths and science!
I commend that project to any government who feel that examples of marriage could help to nurture a climate of stability in the country. It might not address the fundamental problems, but at least it keeps the choice of marriage open—for what we do not know, we cannot choose.
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, will not think me patronising if I say that I know that we older Members of the House welcome the accession of such a vivid young mind.
I must begin with an apology for speaking twice in one day. Although that is not contrary to the rules of the House, it is not a practice that I recommend. However, I am afraid that it is unavoidable in my case. Having been married for 67 years, when the subject of marriage arises I feel bound to offer a few thoughts. However, I assure the House that I shall speak even more briefly than have other noble Lords.
1324
We have heard some inspiring addresses, beginning with that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have also heard from the former Bishop of Liverpool, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, and from the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, who is my spiritual mentor. Although we belong to different Churches, I attend a prayer group which he inspired and I follow everything that he said about practical measures.
If I look at the matter more broadly, it does not mean that I disagree with the suggestions made on the practical level. I am talking from the moral point of view. Some people seem ashamed of using the word "moral" and ask, "Why should we say anything about morals?" I shall speak about nothing except morals. If we did not have marriage, but only partnerships, children would be illegitimate. The people who produce those children and are not married are living in sin from the Christian point of view. I think that we should say that more clearly. I am Irish and therefore I do not understand English reticence or the fact that people do not like talking of morals because they think that that is bad form. I wish that people spoke up more plainly. I should like a poll to be taken in which people would be forced to say whether they agree that sex outside marriage is a sin. Sex outside marriage is, indeed, a sin. Once one accepts that, one either has to have marriage or face the human race dying out. There is no argument about the moral point of view, irrespective of the social and economic advantages of marriage.
However, morality is not the only issue. There are the children. Some people have a lot of children. I have had eight, but I hesitate to boast about anything these days. In a railway carriage not long ago, a lady said to me, "How many great-grandchildren do you have?" I said that I had 14. In fact, I have 15, but I had forgotten one. I then added, a shade complacently, that I fancied that that was rather more than most people. The man opposite said, "That's nothing at all; I have 17". So, one must never boast, but I can at least refer to the fact that I have had 67 years of very happy married life. Noble Lords may say that that is entirely due to my wife. That might largely be true and I have been very lucky there.
We know that marriage is a partnership. Although I have been exceptionally lucky, I am sure that I would be lynched if I suggested that other noble Lords have not been equally lucky. We have all been lucky if we have had long and happy marriages. Marriage is the best outcome. It is the only moral outcome otherwise society would come to an end. I support everybody who says anything at all in favour of marriage. I hope that I have made my point plainly enough.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is to be congratulated on initiating this debate on a subject which is clearly by general agreement recognised to be of fundamental importance to the well-being of our society. As many noble Lords have said, there is no doubt that children develop best in a loving and secure family setting. Disruption to family life and to the relationships which children have with the adults on whom they depend usually results in children becoming insecure and fearful of the future.

1325
That often produces a lack of concentration and a regression to earlier, more infantile behaviour. If children get caught up in destructive battles between the adults to whom they look for their security, that can lead to damaging conflicts of loyalty, and to anger and resentment. Such feelings can easily spill over into then-other relationships.
I am sure that we all agree that children are entitled to expect the adults in their lives to be aware of their vulnerability and to conduct their adult relationships in ways which facilitate the good things during the precious early years of childhood. That is particularly important as statistical evidence indicates that adults change their partners more frequently in the age group when they are more likely to have children under the statutory school age. Moving from childhood, through adolescence, into adulthood is difficult enough without children having to cope with the added trauma of parents being at war with each other.
However, I suggest that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said, we should guard against the notion that we have lost a golden age of marriage and the family which we should now seek to recover. Although the figures on separation and divorce are of significance, they are but one dimension of a complex story. For example, it is interesting to note that the number of children in public care has actually reduced in recent years. Furthermore, we ought also to acknowledge that in the past the apparent stability of marriage was, in many instances, due to the fact that women were economically and socially locked into marriage. Whether the relationship was loving or joyless, tender or brutal, fulfilling or empty, many women simply had no choice and some of them lived in fear of yet another pregnancy.
So we should celebrate that women now have greater control over their own bodies, in particular pregnancy. More women have a greater range of choices in their lifestyles than in times past. More women are now economically active and society is being enriched by their skills and human qualities. There is a long way to go, but steady progress is being made towards genuine equality, even if that causes discomfort among some men. We need to help young men better understand these changes.
We need to recognise the changes taking place in our society. The recent report of Social Trends shows, for example, that half of all pregnancies occur outside marriage and the proportion approaches two-thirds in some inner city areas. The number of children per family is now so much smaller than in the past; and many women are now much older when they have their first child. Great geographical mobility means that far fewer people live their lives in the place of their birth surrounded by a network of supportive relatives and friends.
So what should we be doing in these circumstances? The starting point is to recognise those changes without recrimination or regret. We do not live in a world of "if only", and policies must address the reality of our social situation and be relevant to today's needs. Secondly, it should be emphasised in all that we do that
1326
choice does exist and that pregnancy and parenthood are not to be undertaken lightly. We need it to be clearly understood that adults have choice; but babies do not. Becoming a parent is a huge responsibility. It entails putting the well-being of another person before one's own comfort or convenience. It is not a short-term task, or indeed a long haul; it is a life-time commitment.
I hope that we agree that the state should not interfere in adult relationships, but there must be in place effective ways of helping and supporting parents through difficulties and bad times. In the past the extended family was the source of such help. But that is often not the case today, for reasons that I have touched upon. Help with the techniques of parenting, coping with uncertainty, frustration and tiredness, can often make the difference between success and breakdown. Health visitors and family centres provided by local authorities are of particular importance. The success of organisations like Home-Start, where carefully selected parents voluntarily support other parents, clearly demonstrates the long-standing benefit which can flow from the right kind of help at the right time.
Certainly the state should not be considering taking on the parenting role of other people's children at the first sign of difficulty. But, regrettably, sometimes adults do seriously harm their children and children get caught up in the conflict of adults. In that situation the state must have in place effective systems of child protection where the risk of the safety of the child is a serious matter. There should be no doubting that the clear focus of child protection work must be unswervingly on the well-being of the child. Tough decisions have to be made and actions taken with courage and determination.
Whatever the structure of the family, it will remain the bedrock of our society. It is best placed to provide the proper upbringing of children. But we must recognise that the structure of many families does change and will go on changing. No doubt many noble Lords have experienced that among wider family and friends. But our commitment to the familj', however constituted, should remain resolute. We can do much to reinforce parental responsibility with good support and understanding, whatever the vicissitudes of life.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for tabling this debate this afternoon. I decided to speak in it because so few ladies were listed to speak. Not only am I in a minority in that respect—in fact, I am listed as a Lord, which I assure the House I am not—but I am also probably one of the few speakers this afternoon who is not able to relate 20 years of happy marriage; I am a divorcee. I do not want to refer to my personal experiences in that regard, except to say that I agree with those speakers who pointed out that outside your Lordships' House there is a very different society. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, was correct when he said that not many people would relate to the way in which we are debating this matter this afternoon.

1327
I also echo the view that there never was a golden age of childhood. If we go back 100 years children were up chimneys and working very long hours—that still continues—and many children were at boarding school. That cuts out family life. I had a quick look through Dodds and noted that half the noble Lords this afternoon, including myself, went to such institutions where we certainly did not benefit from the role models of our parents, of nurture and so forth. We should bear all those matters in mind and that at both ends of the social spectrum there has never been a golden age.
Nor has there ever been a golden age of marriage. Noble Lords mentioned the changes that have taken place. Women were free labour in many places. As recently as the 1830s wives were still able to be sold in Britain and it was only in 1870 that the Married Women's Property Act came into being. It is not surprising therefore that women in society feel slightly resentful, now that they are more independent, of being blamed for so many of the ills of society.
I want to turn to the subject of society, because that is where one of the problems arose during the 1980s and we are now reaping some of the difficulties of that time in the way our children and young people behave. When the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister, she said, "There is no such thing as society".
Lord Milverton: My Lords, did she?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that she did.
The 1980s engendered the "Me first and everything else second" syndrome. Simply blaming marriage failure for the holes in society through which children are falling will not do. The extended family has contracted for a number of reasons. People have greater mobility. They leave their home towns in search of jobs. Lack of housing means that families often have to move far away from the support of grandparents, aunts, cousins and so forth. But housing estate design encourages everyone to think first of their private space and does little to foster neighbourly behaviour and to enable the sort of supportive networks that build up informally through communal facilities. As a local councillor I received phone calls from young single mums, but sometimes from elderly widows or people who were new to the area, about a specific problem but, after talking to the person for a while, the underlying message was, "I am lonely and it is hard to cope on my own". That is very much the case for parents, particularly with young children, whether or not they are single parents (though it can be more so for single parents) if they are isolated and staying at home.
Of course marriage is one way to provide the social framework for love and care, and it is a strong way of providing that. But it is not a panacea for all the isolation, loneliness and fear in our society.
The Government need to take action in a number of areas. Primarily, they must enable the informal support mechanism for individuals to be provided by society. Though this Government have made some moves in
1328
good faith towards that, a number of elements are still lacking. For example, although the measure of best value that is to be imposed on the delivery of so many local authority services will be able to measure statistically many things, will it be able to measure the value of the school nurse, the health visitor or the outreach youth worker? I do not believe that statistics will ever really be able to measure exactly the contribution of those workers to society and the benefits that they can bring.
No one goes into marriage hoping that it will fail. I firmly believe that everyone who has children desperately wants the best for them. No one wishes to fail their children. So although those with long and happy marriages are to be congratulated, we need a strong society which can support those who are single parents, those who are divorced parents and those who are elderly or widowed while still having a role in supporting their own children. Please let us not make people who have failed in their marriages feel failures to a greater degree because failure breeds failure and that will continue to the next generation.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I am very happy indeed to be able to join in the debate on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and to indicate my absolute support for it on the basic understanding that marriage, secure and stable, is the best foundation for man and woman in society and for the children. Indeed, it can survive difficulties where love is living both real and true.
First, however unpleasant it may be, we have to accept the inevitable collapse and breakdown of marriages and relationships of those living in partnerships and co-habitation when all reality has disappeared so all is unreality. Acceptance, that one has tried the absolute limit in genuine giving of love and compassion, but the inflexibility of the other one has rejected love. So the inevitability of the unreality comes on the scene. In life we know that love can be rejected in many ways.
As we know, love and compassion is two-way, not one way, involving mind, spirit and body (the physical side, the sexual); not just one without the other two. When this happens the parent left with the children needs all the positive help possible, conducted with sensitivity, patience and understanding. That is where, perhaps, grandparents can be of great help and support. The needs of the other parent will be quite different. Firmness may be needed, together with other approaches, if that person is willing.
Like anything of great value and treasure, love has to be worked at. So if one is not playing the game, the other one is put in a most frustrating position: love can be deadened or killed. It is a two-way system, is it not? The value of this sort of marriage is lessened when love becomes warm then cold and colder. Children sense and feel more than we realise. Social and economic matters are affected by the state of marriage, whether it is of the traditional sort or of those in partnership or cohabiting. As a priest, I have, like any other priest, come across

1329
those living in partnership or cohabiting. One has to give credit to some of them because they are conducting their lives with a form of commitment.
Secondly—and this is my main point—many marriages need not break down if people could realise afresh the true meaning of love which is more than just the enjoyment of the physical, the sexual. It involves the joyful exchanges through the mind and spirit, enjoying the mutual respect of one another, and so learning from one another, gaining an increase in knowledge, and understanding the joy of discovery. I often used to tell those couples who came to me for marriage preparation counselling that marriage is an endless journey of discovery where each is helping the other grow in maturity and stature. This love and compassion interchange leads to the healthy physical action which gives the sexual word its true meaning. There are some words which we have abused. "Sex" is one as well as "love".
This is how dignity and worth are incorporated in a personality. A mother especially can give her boy (her son) the lead to respect a woman. There is also the lead of a father to a daughter which enables the daughter to be able to respect a man. Indeed, if I remember correctly, I believe that that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. Both of course can help either son or daughter, but I hope that noble Lords will note that I said a father can give special help to a daughter and a mother can give special help to her son.
If a mother finds herself on her own, the task of being mother and father is not easy; indeed, it is tough. If marriage is a genuine giving and receiving between two minds, spirits and bodies, then there is hope for children; but otherwise there is less hope. If the genuine happens, this must help socially and economically with trust and loyalty. That is a sure foundation.
There are other ways to bring up children, but I find it difficult to think of some as being good and healthy. I try to see and understand other ways, but there are natural and unnatural ways if one believes in the doctrine of creation. Surely the unnatural do not help the social and economic pattern of life, do they? Our children need a positive and healthy example. When dignity is present the abusing and/or disorientating of love and sex is checked or prevented. Surely dignity is one thing that true marriages can show and give.
Happy loving marriages are the sure natural foundation for children and for social and economic health. We hope that more and more people will come to understand that. Let us pray and give thanks for those couples who show that, so that more and more people will come to know that joy which, in turn, brings health and joy for the community and indeed the nation.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points in this most important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Although I am a great believer in marriage as a building block of our society and the bedrock of the family, it is not my intention to moralise on the matters of either marriage or divorce. Nor will I suggest to your
1330
Lordships' House that I have a magic quick fix formula to reduce the trend that has given us the highest divorce rate in Europe. However, we should not forget that the average length of a marriage in mid-Victorian times was 12 years. Death did then what divorce does now.
I do think there are positive things which we can do to encourage the institution of marriage. I know that there have been many suggestions in the past on how practical help can be given to make the role of marriage stronger and easier to manage. Suggestions such as trial marriages and applying penalties have been mentioned in this afternoon's debate. I must say that I am not in favour of those suggestions, but I recognise that the Family Law Act 1996 can greatly improve divorce and mediation. It is my view that governments do have a role to play in strengthening the main elements of marriage. I am pleased to say that we have a Prime Minster and a Government who, I believe, care about and recognise the values which families see as their priorities to establishing high quality family life. They have already started the process of helping to strengthen the main elements of marriage by their recent moves in the Budget with a better deal for families, increased child benefit, child tax credit changes and new tax rates. These changes coupled with the new minimum wage and the minimum income guarantee will produce the greatest help for so many families who are trapped in the stressful low income area. These are some of the positive steps which the Government have taken to help to ease the economic burdens of running a home and at the same time set down a strategy which I believe will result in the strengthening of the marriage base.
There are other important elements which cause concern, put pressure on family life and affect in particular people on lower incomes. I refer to education, housing and health provision. Most parents feel reasonably secure if they can see a future for their children in these areas.
I suspect that like most noble Lords taking part in this debate, I was brought up by two superb parents in a stable marriage who led by example and who steered me through my childhood with limited resources. I was taught clearly what was right and what was wrong and always to lend a hand to those less well off than myself. I hope that my children grow up with similar values. If they do not, I am sure that both my wife and myself will feel we have failed.
When I am away from this House, I spend much of my spare time with my children. However, like many other parents from a working-class background, I am not a schoolteacher, nor do I possess the teaching qualities of one. Therefore, I am deeply indebted to the teachers of Thomas More Comprehensive School at Blaydon for the way my children are being educated. I am confident that if they fail in their education it will not be the fault of their school, which incidentally was recently mentioned in the Telegraph guide to good schools. I have mentioned the education of my children simply to explain to noble Lords how important it is to working parents to know that their children an; receiving a good education and at the same time are being cared for at school. That in itself can lift so much pressure from family life.

1331
Marriage relationships have changed and they are more varied than hitherto, but that is not necessarily wrong. Chores are shared to a greater extent now by both partners, who often work. Modern marriages place much more emphasis on fathers being involved with the children from their birth and with all the other commitments which go with being a parent.
On every variation in marriage one can take a positive or a negative view. I believe, however, that one of the most important points is to support relationships rather than an institution. We should provide more pre-marriage education. We should place greater emphasis on counselling services for when things go wrong and, above all, we should care for children to minimise the damage that is caused to them. Marriage has changed—if it is to be relevant it must change—and so must our attitude to it.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the longstanding concern of my noble friend Lord Northbourne is mainly for the children of divided families. As I come into that category I have dared to enter this debate. Who can ignore the research published by the Lord Chancellor's department that the number of under 16s who have seen their parents' marriage break down rose from 9 per cent. in 1960—when I was 16—to 20 per cent. in 1979, and over 25 per cent. today? That is one child in every four. My nephew who now lives with us is another child in that group.
This morning I happened to be in Matrimony Place beside St. Paul's churchyard in Clapham and was there reminded of the high Victorian ideal of marriage which few of us—let us face it—can ever attain, even the noble Earl, Lord Longford. With our rising divorce rates and record teenage pregnancies we are a fallen tribe beside our European neighbours.
I come from a generation which has been cool, if not hostile, to the institution of marriage. Although we have been shaken by the statistics today we must recognise how well the institution itself has survived criticism. I believe this is because it is only a framework. It is a formalised relationship. Although it has been questioned by many since the 1960s, I believe that it is now essential to family life. But it will only last so long as the individuals and conditions allow.
I must say as an aside that, having attended a civil ceremony in London recently where I was a witness to a friend's marriage, I believe much could be done to improve the quality of secular marriages. The soupy music and trite statements by the registrar reminded me more of a crematorium service, which is another ceremony we seem unable to get right. In this respect I agree with the Government's proposals to include a more imaginative personal celebration of the couple's commitment within the ceremony. Is this not what religion is all about? Is it at last becoming politically correct to ask the Churches to advise town halls on how it is done?
Any failure in a marriage is not, however, in the institution—however much we improve it, as this Government certainly hope to do—but it is in us, the
1332
individuals and society. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, there are large numbers of children who could ideally expect to have two parents. I am not someone who holds up the conventional family like a torch, and nor is he, because we all recognise that there are wonderful examples of parenting outside marriage. But as one who suffered from divorced parents and who remembers that terrible sense of pain when the letter arrives and you know that their paths are taking them further apart and further from the children, I personally regret the trend away from formal marriage relationships. I welcome the efforts of this Government to reinforce the family and to strengthen the support systems which enable children, especially very young children, to flourish in spite of the difficult conditions around them, and they are difficult today.
But are we doing enough economically? I warmed to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, because I remember only too well a night spent in a parish on the edge of a north Coventry housing estate where deprivation, caused fundamentally by unemployment in the automobile industry, is among the bleakest in the country. When you see the boarded up houses and the damage to property caused by excluded young people despite the best efforts of the Churches, the voluntary agencies, the schools and the local council, you know that these are the conditions in which marriages break down and young people are helpless to overcome frustration and apathy. We should remember that the social fabric in inner cities and some rural areas is frail without the active economic initiative which governments should provide with the help of the private and voluntary sector where possible.
I am sure we all support the basic messages of the Home Office consultation document, Supporting Families. It states on page 30 that,
"Strong and stable families provide the best basis for raising children".
It continues,
"Too often parents do not have access to the help … they need".
For my remaining time I wish to concentrate on the question of access, with reference to the work of Save the Children with ethnic minorities. I regret that the primary focus of the consultation paper is on parents and not children. There is, for example, no mention of the impact of the Government's proposals on children, and no mention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which protects children, or of its implementation in the UK.
The new National Family and Parenting Institute is to be welcomed if it properly recognises the diversity of communities and the need to communicate effectively with families with different cultural backgrounds. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that the institute will consult fully with agencies, such as Save the Children, which work closely with the Bangladeshi and Vietnamese communities? They propose, for example, that the institute should devise more effective methods of evaluating local initiatives and of assessing their impact on children. There should be improvements in functional literacy and training for parents for whom English is not their first language.

1333
Children from ethnic minority backgrounds may well be brought up in a more traditional framework—as we have heard—which includes extended families and earlier marriage but these do not, of course, always work in favour of the children.
I have digressed into the wider issues of the family outlined by the Supporting Families document because, like the Government, I am certain that more sensitivity by local councils and agencies to the varied needs of families provides a good part of the answer. However, overcoming prejudice and supporting families are not only a government responsibility. I fully respect New Labour's move away from the nanny state towards better parenting and a society which holds individuals, as well as institutions, accountable for the evils which beset our children.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this important debate. The noble Lord closed his opening speech by saying that children need their parents, parents need one another, and we need to re-learn how to live together. I agree with those sentiments but I would argue that parents need to learn from examples of today's successful marriages rather than from the Victorian model of successful marriages.
My noble friend Lord Judd spoke of today's democratic family. I would argue that today's democratic family is different and better than the old-fashioned model of a Victorian family. In some ways my noble friend Lord Burlison made the same point. I would argue that in today's family children come first, quite explicitly, in a way that perhaps they did not in some of the older models. Women have far greater opportunities outside the home. That should be celebrated and women should be encouraged to take those opportunities. I would argue that men are taking a far more active role in bringing up their children. Even now, when we talk about changing nappies, men of only 20 or 30 years find it extremely funny. They regard it as something they would never have dreamt of doing themselves, but it is quite normal for fathers of my generation.
In addition, there is a constant time pressure on today's modern marriages and a constant pressure of money. That is why some two-thirds of mothers go out to work today. That is a good thing but of course it is a question of getting the right balance between work and the home. I believe that the key to the success of a modern democratic marriage is balance and flexibility. I know and believe that the Government are doing everything in their power to try to promote that balance and flexibility. Perhaps I should declare an interest here in that my wife is the chief executive of a voluntary organisation called Parents at Work, which is campaigning specifically to get a better balance in the modern home.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, made many important points in his speech, particularly when he said that the modern family is a political issue and that it is concrete policies which matter in supporting today's
1334
family. It is worth very quickly recounting the huge amount that the Government have done to support the family since they came to office. There is the national childcare strategy, nursery places, out-of-school clubs, increased training, early years development and childcare partnership. There has been a huge change in employment rights, particularly for part-time workers, which is of enormous benefit to mothers. There is parental leave, which will probably be unpaid but is at least a step in the right direction. There will be paternity leave, again a step in the right direction. Maternity leave is to be extended from 14 to 18 weeks and there will be family or emergency leave so that people do not have to tell fibs and say that they are ill when they really mean that their children are ill. There is also the working time directive, which I would argue will do much to help today's family.
In addition, there are the tax and benefits changes which have been made in the last two Budgets. These will make a big difference to today's family. There is the children's tax credit, childcare tax credit and the working family tax credit, all of which will be helpful. In addition, the Government are campaigning very actively to encourage employers to understand the business benefits of having flexible working patterns and a family friendly attitude.
Many noble Lords have spoken about their personal experiences and the importance of marriage; all noble Lords, quite rightly, have spoken about how important it is to them. But I, like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, come from a broken home. That has made me doubly aware of the importance of permanence in bringing up my own family. These types of debate tend to become rather pious unless one acknowledges that families do sometimes go wrong and need to be supported when they do. I am slightly worried about with how much of the generally high-tone of the debate I find myself agreeing. I wonder whether I would have agreed with so much of it before I got married and had my own children.
Finally, the only Peer who is single and who will contribute to today's debate is the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Unfortunately for the noble Lord—or very luckily for the noble Lord—he will be getting married fairly soon, on 27th March. He can take an outside perspective and perhaps a more detached view than many of us who have taken part in the debate.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I just want to say that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, very kindly wrote to me and invited me to put down my name to speak in this important debate. I would have done so except for the consideration that your Lordships have heard my views very fully over and over again. I have not changed them and I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, how do I start my speech? The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has rather stolen my opening line by declaring my, shall we say,

1335
imminent interest in the subject of marriage. I think that putting my name down to speak in the debate was a clear case of a fool rushing in where angels fear to tread. But I think it is a good way of acknowledging that every time one speaks about this subject one brings to it a part of one's personal prejudices and history.
The idea of a broken home is one I do not like. I did not regard my home as being broken; I regarded it as not having a father. I hope that in future we will be able to change the language we use in relation to this subject because, let us face it, if a marriage has broken down, having the two people at each others' throats—verbally, physically or in icy silence—will probably be far more damaging to any child and the people in the marriage. There is not much doubt about that precept. If we bear that in mind, it is to be hoped that this debate will go forward in a reasonably coherent manner. Reference has been made to the Victorian model of marriage. It has clearly been shown that the average Victorian marriage lasted 12 years.
I am of the age when the schoolbooks of my first years showed Janet and John waiting for daddy to come home and mummy doing the cooking. That has all changed. Indeed, it was an illusion. For a large part of our history, mothers in the poorer parts of our society invariably worked. It may have been very low status work and for very short periods of time, but throughout most of our history women have worked. They did physically hard work in the home within marriage or they went out to earn extra money. Indeed, in certain parts of our society, for long periods that work was often prostitution. It is often easy to forget that our society has always pushed people down and tried to exploit them as far as the society and law would allow. The biggest change to marriage as an institution is probably the role of women within it.
I am getting married to someone who has a regular job—unlike a regular attender here—and who will probably bring as much economically to the table as I do. Thus, we are forming a "partnership", a very different term. The term "partner", which I agree seems to cover every arrangement one can possibly come across—everything from a business relationship to the person to whom you are married—is probably much more appropriate to a modern marriage.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke about having children. Perhaps I may make another personal declaration. I do not regard the act of getting married as acquiring a breeding licence. Surely we have gone beyond that. These days, a man who has children is expected to change the nappies. Indeed, my sister's husband takes great delight in putting one of my nephews in my arms and saying, "Right, you hold him while I do the dirty work". That is something that I am just about managing to do while observing the whole process. I am told, "It gets easier when they're your own". I wait to discover that.
What we are really talking about is the best environment whereby we can put small unit blocks into our society—whether we allow them to develop in a
1336
more traditional way with help from outside in a modern world, or whether we try to cling onto something which probably never existed.
We have heard a series of radical suggestions. One is that marriage could possibly become a series of contracts. To make a further personal comment, I could not have seen myself falling down on one knee and saying: "Will you enter into a five-year renewable contract with me?". It will require some time and customisation to take that on board as a new concept. But it could happen. The idea of people living together in a permanent relationship outside marriage is growing. Indeed, the statistics that have been bandied around during this debate may well change over time as society and people become more used to dealing with that relationship.
Rules will probably be established as to how it should be approached. The legal frameworks that are developing to bring people into non-married stable relationships will become easier to deal with and people will know what is expected of them. Just as children like a stable environment, adults like to know what they are supposed to do as well. We often forget that there is nothing more difficult than doing something new and original. As we establish new codes of conduct, possibly these statistics will change. Such relationships may never be as stable as marriage; or the idea of the renewable contract could be another way forward. We do not know. We are entering a rapidly expanding area of change in our society.
We need to examine the economic and social situation. We need to consider the role of women in marriage as in any other relationship. It is a fact that the economic unit is changing in its diversity. In certain parts of society, the traditional male job no longer exists. The days are gone when a man did a heavy manual job and went home and placed money on the table—or, to be technical, economic purchasing power—and allowed the woman to run the household. As I have said, that was never the totally dominant mode. Unless we can get young males in our society to appreciate that they will have to take on a partnership role, the whole thing is liable to collapse.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, were, as usual, well-considered. The noble Lord demonstrates the value of having thought about a subject deeply before speaking about it. He mentioned the idea of educating people in terms of what to expect from their own marriage and said that we should examine that approach closely. It will be a help if we prepare people for the realities. The same is true of sex education. This country has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe, probably because we are among the slowest to tell people in straightforward terms exactly what happens. Surely we can combine such education with what happens in marriage. The idea of how pregnancy occurs and knowing how to look after a baby are surely related.
Marriage has survived for many years. Its meaning in social and economic terms has changed fundamentally throughout the centuries, and it will continue to change.

1337
Perhaps I may be allowed one final aside, which I rather inelegantly did not incorporate earlier in my remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, commented on recognising the value of the other major religions in their own right. It is a sensible idea. I hope that it will be drawn to the Government's attention in the foreseeable future. It certainly cannot hurt; and it may help.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, this has been a most informative debate. I have greatly enjoyed all the contributions. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on raising the issue and on his thoughtful, sensitive and detailed outline of society today with its many frightening statistics.
This debate is specifically about family life within marriage, and that is the subject on which I have concentrated my thoughts. I have greatly enjoyed listening to Members of different faiths who have given us their views. I congratulate noble Lords who have celebrated many years of married life and wish the noble Lord, Lord Addington, great happiness as he embarks on a new life. My noble friend Lord Griffiths said that this was not a time for private views. But it is very difficult not to have such views and speak to them. So I ask the indulgence of the House.
During any family crisis when our children were growing up, my husband would always say to me, "Never forget, children grow up in spite of their parents". I found those words comforting because, try as hard as we did, I am sure we made awful mistakes. But we all survived. Being a parent is a tremendous responsibility when there are two parents to share it, but if there is only one, that load must at times become almost intolerable.
I grew up in a one-parent family, as my father died when I was 10 years old. I have often pondered on the difficulties my mother must have faced as she tried to bring us up alone. In addition, we had to leave our home as a consequence of bomb damage, and of course there were all the other worries that families endured in wartime Britain. I am sure that my brother and I must have caused my mother great anxiety, and she had no one with whom to share it. In fact, I wonder how she coped at all. There were so many pressures on her. But throughout it all, she taught us to pull together as a family, whatever problems we faced. That stood me in very good stead.
I quote that experience because I just cannot understand why anyone should want to embark on raising children in a one-parent family situation. I most sincerely believe that children want to grow up in a home with two parents living together under one roof, sharing the care, with its ups and downs, of their offspring. Having a bedroom in each parent's home, and consequently going from place to place with his or her suitcase, is a very poor substitute and must add to the confusion in a child's mind after a family break-up.
Of course I am sure that everyone starts out on the wedding day with high ideals, and "until death us do part" is most sincerely meant. But it is extremely sad to see so many marriages fail at such an early stage. I do
1338
not wish to take a moral stance as I do not feel qualified to do so, but my experience as a magistrate often left me with real sadness as I saw so many lives destroyed.
There is statistical evidence to show that children from broken homes normally do worse than those from stable homes. So I believe that the Government have a duty to support marriage through fiscal and social measures. When I listen to those who advocate mothers of young children under school age being harried into taking full-time employment, I am concerned about the effect on those children when they are, for example, ill or at home for school holidays. Nurseries are fine for a few hours a week, but leaving children there from 8 a. m. until 6 p.m. day after day is a recipe for future disaster.
It is usually for financial reasons that mothers of young children go out to work full-time, so I want to repeat two suggestions which were made earlier. I urge the Government to take two positive measures: first, to restore the married couples' allowance to everyone and not just to pensioners. Secondly, I believe that the married woman who stays at home to look after her young child or children, or a handicapped relative, should be allowed to transfer her personal tax allowance to her husband.
Since coming into office, this Government appear sadly to have abandoned the traditional family, caring more for those who raise their children outside marriage or with a peripatetic live-in lover. Marriage is a very special institution and should be treated as such by government. I am obviously speaking for myself, but I most sincerely believe that if we continue on this course it will create great problems for future generations. I have met so many young mothers who, while working full-time—not part-time, which I support—have been consumed with guilt and at the same time have felt cheated out of the joys of being around with their children during those early years.
We have heard the experiences of families outside marriage and of course I understand the pressure people are under when they are unemployed, lack housing and are forced into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is the kind of life no one could wish to continue. What we have heard in many of the speeches today is that people need the commitment provided by marriage rather than by merely setting up home together.
We have heard that there ought to be preparation for marriage from an early stage. One hopes that that would come from within the home, but, sadly, if it is from within a broken home it may not always help. Perhaps schools can help, but as people prepare for marriage I hope that they will realise the enormity of what they are committing themselves to. Children develop best in a loving home with two parents. We should not forget that.
There have been various views about the father's role and I recognise the huge change since I had my sons. I married at the end of an era because, afterwards, except for voluntary work, I did not work again. But I understand that today's fathers, whose wives work part-time or full-time, have a much greater share in bringing up their children. That is much to be welcomed and also enjoyed.

1339
I am sure that some people will say, "It's all right for her, she's happily married". So I am. I was lucky; I believe I chose the right mother, the right family and of course the right husband. But I want more of our citizens to have the same happiness as I had and to believe that raising children is a worthwhile career in itself. I am convinced that if we all felt like that we would be a much happier and more successful society.
6.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, let me begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing this debate and for the quality of his contribution. Over the years, he has been a strong champion of the family and in particular of disadvantaged families and children. For that, but not only that, he is rightly held in high regard in your Lordships' House.
We are often reminded how attitudes to marriage and to the family have changed dramatically. The latest issue of the Government's Population Trends was published only last week. Our divorce rate, though now stable, is still the highest in Europe. We are warned that, if the present trends continue, married couples will become a minority of the adult population within the next 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, drew attention to that. This compares with 1981, when 65 per cent. of adults were married.
What should the Government do? I believe the role of the state is to encourage, not to compel; to provide practical help, not to moralise. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are certainly not neutral. They have made clear their support for the institution of marriage. I have done so myself on many occasions. I do so again. The consultation document, Supporting Families, emphasises the importance of marriage as a strong foundation for stable relationships and as the most reliable framework for raising children. The paper emphasises that marriage,
"also sets out rights and responsibilities for all concerned. It remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain. For all these reasons, it makes sense for the Government to do what it can to strengthen marriage".
Of course, as the consultation paper also says, supporting marriage does not mean trying to compel people to marry, or criticising or penalising those who choose not to do so. More couples cohabit before marriage and, increasingly, more of them have children without first marrying. Some couples, even with children, continue to cohabit without marrying at all. In a free society, we must respect these choices, not condemn them. We must ensure that the protection of the law is available to everyone in our society on the basis of need, not exclusively on the basis of marital status. Given that around a third of children are now born outside marriage, it would be unacceptable to discriminate against children because their parents are unmarried.
It is clearly just as important that cohabitants and former cohabitants should have protection from domestic violence as spouses and former spouses. Part
1340
IV of the Family Law Act provides that protection and early indications are that those suffering domestic violence in both married and unmarried relationships are making substantial use of the Act.
Support for the institution of marriage is one of the principles underlying the Family Law Act 1996. There has been a torrent of misguided criticism of the Act, aimed at my noble and learned predecessor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whose Act it was, and now aimed at this Government. These people claim to believe that the implementation of the Act will make divorce quicker and easier. It is the present fault-based divorce law that makes divorce quick and easy. My noble and learned predecessor's Act, when implemented, will make it slower and more difficult. Let me prove that.
Fault-based divorce today places a premium on fault allegations, encouraging the type of proceedings which are clearly harmful to children and lead to many years of hostility and bitterness following divorce. There is no encouragement or opportunity for couples to try to save their marriages. Divorce and remarriage often take place before arrangements for children and finance are finalised. This encourages an irresponsible attitude to marriage and family life. Good neutral information is not available to enable people to consider their options, to make informed decisions and to stop and think about what divorce will mean for them and their children. Surely, the interests of the children must come first.
Let me digress for a moment and then return to my theme. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the relationship of marriage gains major new responsibilities from the birth of children.
Perhaps I may respond to the points made on the Budget. With effect from April 2000 the married couple's allowance, worth £197 a year, will go, but it will be replaced by a new children's tax credit from April 2001 worth £416 a year. There will also be a 3 per cent. real increase in child benefit from April 2000 to £15 for the first child and £10 for subsequent children. This is in addition to the £2.95 increase for the eldest child announced in the last Budget which takes effect from this April.
I believe that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be applauded for putting families with children first. Children are 20 per cent. of the population, but 100 per cent. of our future and they should be put first. The married couple's allowance is a misnomer. The previous government rightly called it an anomaly and reduced it from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. It is not an allowance restricted to married couples; it is a tax credit paid at the same flat rate to married couples, single parents and unmarried parents living together. Why? Because it is an additional person's allowance available to anyone with children—that is, an additional person to support. Thus it is paid to single parents and cohabiting parents with children. Perhaps I may gently chide the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for what she said about the Government's tax proposals in this area. It was a travesty of the facts.

1341
I now return to our divorce practices today. They sanction quick and easy divorces which devalue marriage. Today, 75 per cent. of divorces are quickie divorces granted within a few months of the petition. Let me remind your Lordships of what happens in practice. The petition is sent through the post to the local county court and then a copy is sent by post to the other party who, in the vast majority of cases, will not defend the divorce, but will indicate consent. The district judge in the county court will list about two dozen cases for 10.30 in the morning. He will pronounce in a single sentence that a decree nisi is granted in all cases in front of him that morning. Six weeks after the decree nisi the decree will be made absolute and the marriage terminated. It is only at that stage that the interests of the child are addressed. In theory, the court must be satisfied that the arrangements for the children are satisfactory, or at least that they are the best that can be devised in the circumstances. In practice, the court's scrutiny of the arrangements is often cursory in the extreme. These are the facts of life about divorce in this country today.
My noble and learned predecessor's Family Law Act 1996 introduces a radically different approach to divorce. When Part II of the Act comes fully into force people contemplating divorce will be encouraged, during a compulsory period of reflection and consideration, to consider whether they can be helped by marriage counselling. Where there is no prospect of reconciliation, mediation services will be made available to help couples reach agreement for themselves about future arrangements for the children and property. This new procedure will get rid of the quickie divorce because of the compulsory period for reflection and consideration.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, will consider the points that I am about to make with an open mind. When the Act is implemented there will be a minimum waiting time prior to divorce of 13 months, which in certain circumstances may be extended to 19 months. That will give people the opportunity to stop and think and enable them to make informed decisions. This will help to identify saveable marriages and support them by the provision of state funding for marriage counselling. This will support children by informing parents of the importance of the welfare of the children and helping them to co-operate as parents after divorce. This will reduce conflict by providing mediation as a less confrontational way of resolving disputes.
For all these reasons the Government are committed to bringing their predecessors' Family Law Act 1996 into force. We are now approaching the end of an extensive period of piloting of the new arrangements. Later this year the Government will announce an implementation date.
The principle of support for the institution of marriage is given practical effect by Section 22 of the Family Law Act. This gives the Lord Chancellor power to make grants in connection with the provision of marriage support services, research into the causes of marital breakdown and into ways of preventing marital breakdown.
1342
Since my department took over this responsibility from the Home Office in 1995, we have spent between £3 million and £3.5 million per year on marriage support. This includes strategic funding for the major national agencies and some project funding for research and development. We have published a Directory of Marriage Support Services which has been distributed to public libraries and other outlets throughout the country.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that my own department has agreed to contribute £100, 000 to the Government's funding of the National Family and Parenting Institute to which he referred and in addition to the marriage support grants that we make. I believe that this institute consults widely and that that does extend to the agencies concerned with ethnic minorities.
Professor Jane Lewis of the University of Nottingham has just completed a research project funded by my department. Her report, "Individualism and Commitment in Marriage and Cohabitation" will shortly be published in the department's research series. We have already published two volumes of review papers by One plus One, the marriage and partnership research charity which is funded by my department on the causes of marital breakdown and the effectiveness of policies and services intended to reduce its incidence.
Towards the end of last year I invited Sir Graham Hart to carry out a review of marriage support and research funding to assist my department in developing a more strategic approach to the allocation of resources. Sir Graham, as a former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, is especially well qualified to provide advice on this subject. He came to see me last week. He is on course to complete his report and submit it by Easter. It would not be right for me to speculate about his detailed recommendations now. Obviously, I shall need some time to consider his report before I make it public, together with my response. This I hope to do during the summer.
But what I say now—and I am sure that it will be of interest to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate—is that Sir Graham has told me that he considers state funding of the national marriage support agencies to be a highly appropriate and worthwhile use of public funds. I wholeheartedly agree with him on that and I will be responding positively. I can tell your Lordships that next year's planned funding is £3 million and I will be reviewing the figures in the light of Sir Graham Hart's report. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln will recognise what I have just said as the positive statement that it is intended to be.
This has been a valuable debate. I have enjoyed the contributions of all your Lordships. The whole debate will serve to inform the development of policy by the Government.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I hope that this debate on the Order Paper has not applied any pressure on him to commit himself. I am enormously grateful to all noble

1343
Lords who have spoken this afternoon and I am humbled by both the number and quality of the contributions.
I was very happy to hear Christians, Jews and Moslems all singing from the same hymn book, as it were. All confirmed one another's views about marriage. I leave all of them and noble Lords with the thought that although most, if not all, of the major religions support marriage I suspect that as an institution it probably pre-dates all the religions that we know today.
I leave the House with one thought. Let us go forward in thinking about structures within and without marriage and, as a society, let us consider how we can better live together, and support one another and our children, both within and outside marriage. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Persistent Juvenile Offenders
6.21 p.m.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby rose to call attention to the problems of dealing with persistent juvenile offenders, in the light of the report by the Social Services Inspectorate on the Medway Secure Training Centre; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I imagine that some Members of this House believe that a disproportionate amount of time is spent in discussing prisons and prison policy. That may be so, but the whole area of crime and its effect on our society is, surely, one of the most pressing and fundamental problems with which we are faced today. Accordingly, I make no apology for treading this well-worn path once again, but I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that what I very much hope will be a constructive and helpful debate is pitched at the precise target of young repeat offenders and how we can best deal with them, not the subject of prisons and offenders in general.
It is perhaps timely to have this particular debate today not only because of the recent publication of the report about events at Medway but because the youth justice Bill has just ended its journey through this House. I confess to a small frisson of triumph akin to winning the lottery, and with approximately the same odds against, since it is not always possible (to put it mildly) to anticipate the parliamentary timetable with any degree of confidence. This time I appear to have picked the lucky number.
The peg on which this debate is hung is the recent publication of the report by the Social Services Inspectorate of its inspection of Medway Secure Training Centre which took place largely in September of last year. Noble Lords will recall that the concept of secure training centres (STCs as they shall be called henceforth) was promoted by the previous administration against a chorus of disapproval from many quarters. In today's changed circumstances one may say that some of it was embarrassing. The concept
1344
of locking up in one place the worst 12 to 14 year-olds, inevitably in some cases far from their homes and local communities, and subjecting them to a strict but fair regime, coupled with what can only be described as a crash course in citizenship, certainly appealed to the tabloid tendency and also offered popular and political appeal. Offenders committed to STCs must have been convicted for persistent offending of a serious nature, in the majority of cases burglary and theft and aggravated car theft. Sentences might be anything from six months to two years, although in reality over 12 months is rare. Half the sentence is spent in an STC with the second half in the community under supervision.
In answer to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Acton (I am pleased to see that he is to take part in the debate) who inquired whether previous experience in working with difficult and delinquent children would be a pre-condition for success in the tendering process, the then Home Office Minister referred to the advertisement that had been placed which required,
"potential bidders to give details of any work undertaken in the previous three years demonstrating capability in the provision of services for young people". —[Official Report, 29/2/96; WA 113.]
On this and other criteria Rebound, a subsidiary of Group 4, was appointed, although as reported by the press its subsequent surprise at the warmth of the reception that it received from some inmates might have given rise to reservations in official quarters about the precise depth of knowledge in this field that it had claimed to possess.
Be that as it may, Medway opened in April 1998. The sorry tale of the ensuing months is detailed in the report of the inspectors: two senior managers and 30 per cent. of operational members of staff left in the first months; the cost of damage repair following rioting stands at £150, 000; two inmates escaped; there was no detoxification programme in place; there were incidents of bullying and self-harm; a so-called restraint squad had to be brought in; and neck and wrist restraints were used on at least 135 occasions. That is an interesting development in view of best medical evidence that such methods should not be used in the case of youngsters and the fact that only 12 per cent. were there for offences of violence.
It is a catalogue of incompetence which, to its credit, the company has largely admitted. It must also be stated that there was fault on both sides and that some of the official specifications—for example, for doors and windows—were contrary to what Rebound believed was appropriate for the task. In short, it has become clear that there was insufficient grasp on both sides of the enormity of the task which faced any pioneering company in this minefield. If there is any comfort to be had it is that Onley, which is due to open in May, will not be given the go-ahead until the Government are satisfied that it will be run properly. That promise was made in another place by the Minister. In defence of the Government, there were contractual obligations that made the opening of Medway and Onley inescapable. That may well also be the case with Hassockfield, which is due to open in the autumn under other, and as yet untried, management. Accordingly, is the Minister

1345
satisfied that this company is competent to run an STC and that it, too, has taken on board the lessons of Medway?
I come to the last two, Sharpness and Ranby, for which the Government have applied for outline planning permission; in other words, they have accepted the concept of STCs and so the road to Ranby has become their road to Damascus. Therefore, the STCs are with us. Those who try to calculate how many additional places in secure local accommodation could be created were, at the very least, those last two projects to be cancelled, must go on dreaming; just as those who believe that to take the really bad eggs out of national colleges of crime and disperse them throughout the country in small units, although marginally a little more expensive on a per capita basis, nevertheless provides the best answer to the problem, will never have the chance to find out—at least in the foreseeable future.
Before finally leaving the subject of STCs, I must quote from the Government's response to last year's Home Office Comprehensive Spending Review:
"and in anticipation of the Detention and Training Order, to allow these centres (STCs) to accommodate juveniles of all ages".
What exactly do those ominous words mean? Do they include children perhaps as young as 10? If such is the intention will there be appropriate facilities for them within the STC? Who determines who goes to an STC? Is it the Secretary of State or his nominee; that is, the Youth Justice Board? Will the juvenile court have any jurisdiction in the matter or will it merely sentence juveniles to a period of custody, leaving where that is in the air?
If they do have this discretion, how will they know whether there is a place available were they minded to commit to an STC? The answer may be, "Well, it's only the trouble of a phonecall from the court after all. "But what happens if it is early evening in a court which is far away from any of the five STCs? Will the court have to ask for a bed for the night from the nearest available secure local accommodation? I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would answer some of these questions when he winds up the debate.
I believe it is fair to describe the final years of the last administration as being a period without a coherent national strategy to deal with persistent juvenile offending. Measures were seemingly brought in on an ad hoc basis, often in response to tabloid pressure or to reassure party activists. Much has changed since then and I, for one, congratulate this Government and the noble Lord the Minister, whose caring credentials I know to be as good as anyone's in this field, on finally coming to grips with this immense problem.
Having said that, we now appear to have gone from famine to feast. The late Baroness Faithfull, whose indomitable spirit surely hovers approvingly over this debate, would undoubtedly be pleased by our discussing these matters. However, at the risk of pouring a little cold water over the proceedings, I have to say that the rapid succession of Acts, reports, advices, responses and the like over the past two years is inclined to make the establishment of what is or is not the exact penalty,
1346
sentence and its administrative execution a little confusing, although some of the Minister's answers to this debate will no doubt clarify the situation.
Perhaps it is too much to hope that we could have the plethora of Acts introduced over the past few years finally consolidated into one all-embracing Act. These, however, are relatively minor considerations when set against the implementation of a country-wide strategy, which takes account of all the problems relating to juvenile crime, attempts to deal with them sensibly and, most important of all, seeks to include those members of our community most intimately connected with them— namely, the police, magistrates, teachers and the social services—in their solution.
While on the subject of a grand strategy, I refer to the general in day-to-day charge of the campaign. I must record how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Warner—I do not think he has made it yet—for coming all the way from an important engagement in Sheffield today to take part in this debate. As chairman of the Youth Justice Board, his contribution will be of very great value indeed, and I hope he arrives in time.
The board will play a central role in the constructive fight against juvenile crime nationally. The new detention and training order being implemented in April next year, together with the setting up of youth offending teams, are the foundations of the Government's strategy. A comprehensive survey of the juvenile secure estate will precede the assumption of the responsibility by the board for all secure accommodation for those under 18 years old. This will be complemented by the Prison Service's review of its juvenile estate. Thereafter the Youth Justice Board will act as the purchasing body for all forms of secure accommodation for juvenile offenders. I must here own up to the fact that though I can understand the theory and the economic and administrative rationale for this initiative, I am still puzzled as to how it will work in practice. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister, or the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will be able to help in this respect. Together with monitoring the relevance of sentences, the board will determine the constructive execution of those sentences. In other words, it will ensure that all the constituent players in the correct discharge of a sentence fulfill their responsibilities—a matter of particular importance in the second, non-custodial part of the sentence.
Let me take this thought a little further, if I may. The first STC, as we have heard, has now been in existence for nearly a year. If the directorate, despite all the problems identified by the inspection, has achieved some sort of success with the inmates—particularly, let us say, in education—and despite the report's observation that the quality of education provision was unsatisfactory, it will be vital that that success story is continued in the non-custodial part of the sentence. After all, it is no good making a breakthrough at Medway if the ensuing local programme is unimaginative and limited in its horizons. The need for the national monitoring of local individual programmes, presumably the responsibility of the Youth Justice Board, will thus be of immense importance. It is

1347
comforting to know that pilots are already in hand at Werrington and Huntercombe, and perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will tell us how long they are planned to last and exactly who will be involved in them.
I turn briefly to the question of accommodation. Whose is the responsibility for the maintenance of national standards in secure local accommodation where there is more than one provider? Is it the Prison Service or the social services departments of local councils? Also, as seems only reasonable and desirable, will the Youth Justice Board have the last word in the setting and evaluation of these standards, irrespective of who the providers are? For years I have gone on about the need to have specific national standards for secure local accommodation in view of the inevitable disparity between the perceptions of one council and another, to say nothing of the budgetary considerations affecting all of them. Consequently, I welcome wholeheartedly the promise, implicit in the Youth Justice Board's remit, of across-the-board inspections and standards.
I know that other noble Lords will have their own concerns which they will wish to air. Shortage of time has precluded my mentioning the place of girls in this new order and of the urgent need to remove them completely from senior prison service accommodation. I would also have wished to have talked more about the need for meaningful education programmes as a means of giving youngsters the chance of a new life.
What of the future? It has been suggested that a halfway-house solution, as between a totally secure and a non-secure unit might be worth consideration but, at the risk of being labelled a pessimist, I cannot enthuse over such a suggestion, certainly not at the present time. No, I would rather look to the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams together with the promotion of the fast track approach aimed at nipping trouble in the bud. If there is one ray of light in all this, it is that behavioural patterns in the young can change almost overnight and often for no discernible reason. I am sure that the parents among us can confirm this, and although I would not exactly build a mountain of hope on this observation, to some extent it has to be true of criminal behaviour as well.
This Government have embarked upon a major initiative to replace a system which was chaotic, irrational and unable to deliver a constructive answer to juvenile crime, let alone to stop its excesses, and to replace that system with a comprehensive range of proposals involving all relevant sections of the community. Some may work and some may not but I, for one, wish them well, for if they do not succeed the implications for our society and for future generations will be grave indeed. I beg to move for papers.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on introducing this most timely debate. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Warner, who has arrived with the bloom of Sheffield on his cheek.
1348
The inspectors' report on Medway above all invites caution for the future. I suggest that the inspectors return to Medway forthwith to see whether it is still "facing a crisis". They could assess how many of their 38 recommendations have been successfully implemented, and make further necessary recommendations. Remembering that Rebound is supposed to open Rainsbrook STC in May, the inspectors could report whether Rebound now seems competent to run an STC. If and when the inspectors approve launching Rainsbrook, I would advocate a precautionary inspection there within three months of opening.
The third site, Hassockfield, is due to open in September. Can the Minister say what experience its contractor, Premier Prisons, has had with difficult and delinquent children? Again I would suggest a precautionary inspection within three months, and then further regular inspections of all STCs.
I come to the last two proposed STCs at Sharpness and Ranby. After the experience with private contractors at Medway, I wonder whether caution does not suggest to the Government that secure training centres are not an appropriate field for the private sector and therefore that they should abandon plans for the final two privately run STCs.
I turn to last July's Home Office document on secure accommodation for juveniles. Dealing with medium-term objectives, it states that the Youth Justice Board,
"would then commission a particular number of places from the providers of such accommodation—central government, local authorities and the private sector".
I emphasise "and the private sector".
In its preliminary advice to the Home Secretary of 17th December the board goes further. At paragraph 100 it states:
"Over time there should be a different balance within the juvenile estate between prison and non-prison service providers. The aim should be to encourage a wide range of providers such as not-for-profit organisations and private providers to become more involved in the juvenile secure sector".
The paper gives no explanation for that recommendation. Given Rebound's record, I am puzzled by that advice. Why does the board advocate private providers? Surely caution says stick to, improve, and expand the Prison Service juvenile estate and the local authorities' secure units.
As an example of private enterprise, the board states at paragraph 75:
"In addition Prime Life plc, venture capitalists, have said they intend to build 5 secure units of 48 beds. The first is planned to be in place by early 2000".
What is that company's experience with difficult and delinquent juveniles? And where is it building its first secure unit?
Having voiced my special concern about the private sector, perhaps I may stress in general how much I welcome the Government's attempt to bring coherence to the key area of secure accommodation for young offenders. Perhaps I may stress how grateful I am to the Minister for the announcement on 8th March in an Answer to a Written Question concerning girls in prison

1349
under the age of 17. He made a promise, and he has indeed done it. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will take up the matter. However, I wish to repeat how grateful we are to him for making that promise.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Viscount for bringing this subject before us today. It is timely that we should have this discussion. I welcome also the questions that he put to the Minister. I shall not take up any of my six minutes in repeating them. In the latter part of his speech, the noble Viscount referred to the survey about the problems and needs of future developments for treating young offenders. In my six minutes I feel it necessary to concentrate on the rather narrow field of the problems raised by the special training centres.
I was one of those—was it three years ago?—who met the suggestion with considerable scepticism and, to be honest, severe criticism. It was not a party political matter. I was among noble Lords from all parts of the House. I believe that this first report confirms that our fears were well justified. I do not wish to spend time saying "I told you so", but we must consider carefully the principles on which the decision was based.
I do not wish to criticise the policy of secure training orders. I said at the time, and I repeat now, that in principle the sentence is a good one. Unlike some, I accept that, while we should do everything possible to avoid custodial policies, in particular for the young, there is a small but nevertheless significant number of young children for whom, sadly, custody is necessary. What I objected to then in prospect, and object to even more strongly now in the light of experience, is custody in institutionalised groups in training centres holding 30 or 40 people. That always was a dangerous policy. I believe that our fears about it being a fatal policy have been confirmed.
In addition, many of those young children are taken miles away from not only their own homes—some of their homes are bad—but also from schools and institutions in the home area which might have some influence on them. I believe that that is a wholly wrong policy. Our experience from these first centres proves it.
I very much hope, although it seems a forlorn hope, that the Government will now pause and consider before opening any further centres as at present planned. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Acton, I am not interested in whether those centres are in the public or private sector. They are wrong in principle and should not be developed. It is a waste of good money—money which could be spent more effectively on treatment for the avoidance of crime.
I accept the need for custody. However, when custody is necessary it must be in very small numbers indeed on a local basis. Therefore at the heart of the problem is the urgent need to spend money and undertake administrative organisation—there are difficulties about that—to build a larger supply of good, small, local custodial facilities.
Another part of the sentence which I like is that half of it is to be spent in supervision in the community. If the custodial part is in small numbers locally and the supervision in the community is also in the same locality, then we might get somewhere. But to continue along the
1350
present approach, no matter who owns or builds the centres or however much we approve them, is wrong in principle and should not be pursued—inconvenient and difficult though it may be to start in another direction.
It is a huge subject and one could continue for long time, but I must not do so. I conclude with this germane point. It refers to the general approach to crime in this country. Most of us involved in politics get fed up with the tabloid approach whereby one is either soft on crime or tough on crime. That is absolute nonsense. What matters is to be effective in tackling crime. Effectiveness must be brought into the front line. I repeat: I think that the sentence is a good one. However, it will only become effective if the custodial part is undertaken locally, in very small numbers, followed by good local supervision. If we pursue those lines, we shall get somewhere.
We foresaw the practical difficulties and, alas, our fears have proved correct. I hope that we can now turn away from the concept. If those sentences are to be effective, we have first to catch people. While nine out of 10 know that they will not be caught, any other deterrents are nonsense. We must be effective in catching them, effective in punishing them and effective in reforming them. The special training centre is the wrong approach in principle. It must be stopped, even if it is expensive to do so.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, to many of us who have been involved in one way or another with young offenders, the setting up of the Medway Secure Training Centre was an initiative which was doomed to failure. That was because it was a strategy which all evidence and past experience have shown could not have a successful outcome in terms of reducing reoffending rates or of impinging on the causes of persistent offending behaviour.
What we are discussing today is children whose behaviour is anti-social, extremely challenging, disruptive, often violent and difficult in the extreme; but children nonetheless. They are children whose lives are almost always completely chaotic, with "disproportionate experiences of loss", as one report puts it—a phrase I find quite heartbreaking—as well as the predictable poor relationships with parents or step-parents, or no parent at all, exclusion from school, heavy involvement with drug and alcohol abuse, as well as exposure to sexual and other abuse. It is this knowledge which must inform decision and strategies on how to deal appropriately with them.
We are also discussing a very small group of children whose behaviour makes a disproportionate impact on the people and areas where they live but whose activities have as a result caused lurid headlines and a demonology created around them.
The facts about Medway have been well catalogued: excessive use of force, which only served to justify the children's own aggressive and destructive behaviour; unsatisfactory education provision; inadequate numbers of inadequately qualified staff; a lack of effective, experienced managers; programmes which were

1351
designed to tackle offending behaviour which had "simply failed"; some locked up without exercise or fresh air for 24 hours a day. This experience is likely to make the children even more criminal in their attitudes. It is an horrific catalogue of failure for a regime which would not have been tolerated in an adult prison, yet here we are talking about children.
Before Medway was built, we knew that community-based options had the greatest chance of success in terms of reoffending rates, as well as being significantly cheaper: it costs £2, 400 per week to keep a child in Medway, whereas in a community-based project I know in Scotland called Freagarroch, it costs £330 per week. We knew that local authority secure units are smaller, more professionally run and have better outcomes. We knew that strategies involving families, local agencies and programmes well focused on offending behaviour were the only ones that had some hope of effecting change—something which is especially true for children. The Lisnevin Training Centre in Northern Ireland, which takes 10 to 17 year-olds, a rough equivalent to Medway, was found to have reconviction rates as high as 100 per cent. in the secure unit, whereas in Freagarroch the reoffending rate is less than 40 per cent., and yet four more STCs are planned to open.
Furthermore, there are important statutory duties that we must not forget regarding the welfare of the child and a duty to ensure that penalties are proportionate both to the seriousness of the offending and the age and circumstances of the offender. The serious anomaly is that while local authority units must comply with the Children Act, STCs or YOIs in the prison service do not.
I have had the privilege of serving as a panel member on a children's panel in Edinburgh for eight years. This system ensures that children remain the responsibility of the local authority at least until they are 16, and if they are already on a supervision order, that responsibility can be extended to 18. In this way children are for the most part prevented from finding their way into a penal establishment, although occasionally 15 year-olds have been held in YOIs for very short periods. Never has a 12 to 14 year-old been held in Medway-type custody.
The provision of local authority run secure accommodation, however, has always been an important resource, the problem being inadequate numbers of places, which currently in Scotland are about 90 in five establishments. Attached to them are some close support units which offer an extremely effective half-way house, as alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby.
The overriding objective is to address the child's need, to involve the family and all relevant agencies as a matter of course and to do everything possible to keep a child out of the courts. I have used secure provision on several occasions when it has been manifestly needed and a child has indeed needed security. I have been greatly impressed by what has been achieved for the child and society in this way and have witnessed very successful outcomes, sometimes in a short space of time. Those children are very persistent offenders. I am without doubt that a Medway regime would have been
1352
wholly inappropriate in each and every case with which I have had to deal. Why the children's panel system was not adopted in England continues to baffle me.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord, Tenby, I hope to dream that the Government, will reconsider their approaches to the problems presented by this small group of very difficult children and avoid unnecessarily compounding the misery and unhappiness they both experience and inflict on others.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Tenby for bringing to your Lordships this problem of all problems—the persistent juvenile offender. The Medway Secure Training Centre makes one ask whether it is wise to open more secure training centres until Medway is improved and able to do its job with satisfactory results or whether damaged and difficult youngsters are going to be made worse in unsatisfactory conditions.
How many persistent juvenile offenders who commit numerous offences are we speaking about? The increasing numbers of children between the ages of 12 and 14 and even younger who are persistent offenders should be a considerable concern to the whole country.
This debate, following the previous debate on marriage, is pertinent. Children who offend characteristically have disrupted and chaotic lifestyles, disproportionate experiences of loss, truancy or exclusion from school, heavy alcohol and drug use and poor relationships with parents or step-parents. Many may have been battered and abused.
The social services inspectorate found a catalogue of problems when undertaking its report, which includes excessive use of force applied towards children, unsatisfactory education provision, inadequate numbers of staff, inexperienced and incompetent staff who have not been adequately trained, and a lack of effective and experienced managers. Programmes designed to tackle offending behaviour had simply failed. Some children had virtually no access to fresh air and exercise, leaving them in an enclosed environment for 24 hours a day. It concluded that:
"The combination of the excessive use of force and ineffective treatment seemed to strengthen the criminogenic behaviours and outlook of the trainees".
Will the Minister comment on the Bridges Project in Sheffield set up in 1995 as a community alternative to a secure training order? It has shown success in reducing the offending of 60 per cent. of the children in its care. The project was established by a partnership of the police, social services and probation in Yorkshire. It was a direct response to the proposals to create the secure training order and takes children who would otherwise be subject to such an order. It costs just £10, 000 per year per child as opposed to the secure training centre annual cost of more than £110, 000.
The project provides a highly structured and individualised programme as part of a supervision order lasting for between two and three years. A child attends the programme five times per week and the staff work

1353
to establish a structure for the child's life as well as tackling the offending behaviour. That enables the children to understand the impact of what they have done to the victim. That would often include reparative work involving the victim, where appropriate. Education is accessed and project staff support the child; for instance, by taking him to school, helping with homework, and so on. Where possible, parents are involved but, as so often is the problem, there is conflict with their children. Project staff try to help families resolve such conflict. Volunteers are used to help with leisure activities.
The effectiveness of the programme is due to the fact that it supports the child and family over an extended period of time, unlike custody which simply removes the child only to dump him or her back into the same problems on release.
Unfortunately, the programme is due to close because of lack of funding. Local authorities are reluctant to pay for an expensive community sanction. If a child goes to a secure training centre, the Home Office pays the bill. So there is no incentive for the local authority to keep the project open, despite its encouraging results. For the children who do not have a loving, united family, surely we need a variety of projects to see which would have the better results.
I have always been made aware that violence breeds violence. We must do all we can to avoid a more violent society. We need to catch these youngsters before they get deeper and deeper into crime. I hope the Government will look very positively into the training of teachers and all staff involved so that they are equipped to deal with this problem, as so many of the parents are not suitable role models. I thank the Minister for releasing the 15 and 16 year-old children from adult prisons. As prison Minister, he has done exceedingly well.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, having spent most of my working life as a police officer dealing with young offenders, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for initiating this important debate. The problems caused by juvenile crime need to continue to be addressed. It is the duty of the state to defend citizens, whether from attack outside or, indeed, from attack by criminals inside.
Juvenile crime is the seedbed of criminality for the future. Anything that can be done to stem it at a young age is to be welcomed and is in everybody's interests. It has been estimated to cost something in the region of £3 billion per year and causes tremendous problems.
I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mention victims for the first time. It is the police officers, at the sharp end, who deal with victims and their wrath. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, mentioned "the tabloid tendency". That, of course, generally reflects the views of the average chap in the pub, the one who bends the policeman's ear and demands action on various issues, not least the one we are discussing.
1354
I am from the north-east of England. Northumbria police had a particular problem in that area; I do not know why. Perhaps juvenile criminals in the north-east are of a peculiar type. I know not; but we had a series of offenders who were given nicknames by the tabloid press: "Blip Boy", "Rat Boy" and "Boomerang Boy". For some reason, they all seemed to be from my neck of the woods.
Northumbria Police conducted a survey of 35 juveniles under the age of 17 who had committed 1, 300 crimes and had been arrested 639 times. That was extremely frustrating for the police officers at the sharp end and, of course, even more frustrating for the victims.
Parental responsibility is very important. We know that the background and domestic life of many juvenile offenders make it virtually impossible for them to have a normal existence, as we would understand it, as part of growing up. I recall visiting the homes of juveniles as a police officer. I was able to tell, simply by the home environment and the response from the parents, whether the youngster would be coming to the police station again in future.
I began my police service in a small town of which noble Lords have probably heard called Jarrow. Even now, I read the newspapers in the north and recognise the names of offenders—relatively young people—as being from the same criminal families I dealt with as a young detective two generations ago.
In many circumstances it is extremely important to remove youngsters from that sort of environment. It is easy to say that detention centres and training centres are universities of crime. However, the very environment in which such youngsters are brought up, including some housing estates, are equally universities of crime. There is a balance to be struck. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, commented, we are talking of a small but nonetheless important minority of youngsters and quite often the ones who will, unfortunately, graduate to far more serious crime in later years.
The Crime and Disorder Act is important and brings the right approach. For far too long police would caution youngsters time after time. They would go before the courts time after time. The perception would arise, not least among the youngsters, that nothing would happen to them. Those youngsters were not stupid. Word got round. We would see them on television galavanting around in balaclava helmets, challenging authority simply because they knew that nothing could be done; no one could touch them. There was no secure accommodation. We had a phrase for that in the north-east: "Revolving door justice". The police would arrest them and they would be released into the community almost immediately to continue reoffending. That gives rise to the view quite often taken that it is not the punishment that deters but being caught. That is not true. It clearly is both. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, rightly said, we have to catch them first. However, if word gets out that once they are caught nothing will happen in consequence, they will take that as a licence to continue to pillage and reoffend. That is the last thing that any of us in this House would want.

1355
I conclude by saying that I believe the way forward is by training and education, whether local, national, private or public. I am no expert, but one thing I do know: for this small nucleus of offenders that has to be in secure accommodation.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, yesterday at the Third Reading of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, we debated a novel disposal for young offenders and one which, in the general view of the House, deserves to succeed; that is, the power of a magistrates' court to refer young first offenders to a youth offender panel.
Today we are debating what was another novelty in its day but one that has clearly failed. The secure training order, although enacted as long ago as 1994, was not brought into force until April 1998. Its failure was widely forecast. When the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was in Committee in the House of Lords, Baroness Faithfull, whose name has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, moved to delete completely the clause containing the secure training order. In a memorable speech, she stated:
"History, experience, and research have proven that incarceration in residential secure units, far from the parents, the home, and the community, fails in its objectives". —[Official Report, 25/4/94; col. 459.]
I thought perhaps I should refresh my memory today. I recalled being present at that debate. Indeed, I spoke and voted for Lady Faithfull's amendment. I believe that some other noble Lords, including the mover of this debate, did the same, but none was more emphatic in his denunciation of the proposal for the secure training order than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. I simply mention that lest there is any risk of deviation from the line taken previously when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replies to this debate.
The report of the inspectors on the Medway Secure Training Centre makes sorry reading. There is no need to repeat again what has been said already in this debate about the acute problems caused by the behaviour of some of the most difficult and disruptive inmates; nor about the excessive force used by inexperienced and inadequately trained staff in restraining them.
In the interests of time, I shall confine myself to making only one other point. I refer to an issue that has come up often in our debates on penal matters. I refer to the differentiation, or to the alternatives, of concentration and dispersal. It is sometimes argued that the most disruptive and the most dangerous inmates, and those in custody who are the most likely to attempt to escape, should be concentrated together in conditions of maximum security, with a harsh regime. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, will remember Lord Mountbatten's report after a spate of escapes in the 1960s. He recommended a single fortress into which all of the most difficult and high risk inmates could be put. Although it sounds attractive in a way, the practical experience and evidence (and not just in this country) do not support
1356
such a proposal, whether the inmates are adults or juveniles. All the evidence is in favour of dispersal. Whether the perspective is from the standpoint of internal control and external security, or of training and the prospects for rehabilitation, the policy of dispersing problem prisoners has proved the more effective.
The secure training orders will have had a mercifully short life. They came into effect only last year and they will be superseded by the new detention and training orders in a few months' time. Perhaps I may put a question to the Minister. Once the secure training orders are replaced by the detention and training orders, why will there be a need for any further secure training centres? The custodial element of such an order covers only a short period. When no further secure training orders are passed, why should there be a need for four or five centres, each holding 40 people? It would be helpful to those of us taking part in this debate to have an answer to that question, of which I give due notice so that the noble Lord will be able to obtain a reply in good time for the end of the debate.
7.13 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this debate. He is aware of the line I intend to take, and has been good enough to encourage me even though he has heard me take it on a number of occasions in recent years. I wish to draw attention to the growing body of evidence linking the diet of persistent offenders with their criminal behaviour. In so doing I am bound to cover a bit of old ground.
One of the problems in this whole area, I believe, lies in an unspoken assumption. It is that psychosocial behaviour, such as we have seen at Medway, will have had psychosocial causes. There is no reason why this should be the case, but the reality is that this has been an area for social services, for the police and the courts, for psychiatry, and for education. None of these admirable and hard-pressed professions has training in nutritional approaches to health, whether mental or physical, nor do they read the relevant literature. Even doctors have largely lost sight of nutrition in this age of high-tech medicine. So that while the evidence continues to mount, people have been slow to see and accept it. Besides, there is always an element of territorial resistance to an innovation which might threaten existing practice.
There is no difficulty with the notion that alcohol can affect behaviour; similarly drugs, both medical and recreational. What has become clear in the past 20 years is that so too can many other things that we take by mouth. I have spoken before of the boy who lived just down the road from me in Oxford who was driven literally berserk by contact with wheat, milk or sugar: he beat up his mother, started fires, stole and smashed up cars. Similarly, there was the young man in Cumbria with a bizarre history of offending: after the 14th time of taking heavy goods vehicles without consent—always between the hours of 10.30 in the evening and three in the morning—and driving them all over the country, the courts uncovered his no less bizarre pattern of eating. This involved no food before tea-time, no vegetables

1357
ever, and about 100 teaspoons of sugar a day. This was enough to scramble his brain pretty thoroughly; but as soon as he was given a probation order contingent on a change of diet he became a different person and did not reoffend. I am told that the cost to society of a lifetime's delinquency is about £ 1 million; this man's treatment cost £ 4 a week.
I also wonder whether my noble friend's observation that behaviour can change overnight, as he put it, for no discernible reason, may possibly find its answer in that kind of direction.
Those examples are from the extreme end of the scale. Of more help to policy-makers are the published studies, mostly from America, showing, for example, a 45 per cent. reduction in antisocial behaviour among prisoners given an additive-free whole-food diet, and a 44 per cent. decrease in offending in Los Angeles which led to a city-wide ban on highly processed foods in juvenile institutions. The Home Office has been involved in a study, not yet published, at Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution whose results, based on giving simple nutritional supplements to a group of persistent offenders, seem to confirm the hypothesis in striking fashion.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister may refer to this when he winds up. We have corresponded on this topic in the past, particularly over what the evidence appears to show. It is a complex matter involving allergies, toxic influences, and lack of nutrients needed for proper brain function, but by now there is enough that is relevant to the problems my noble friend is addressing in his Motion today to offer possibilities for further studies along the lines of those already published.
I should like briefly to refer to the problem of childhood hyperactivity. At a conference two years ago of the Allergy Research Foundation, we heard that two-thirds of the major criminals in Britain and the USA appear to meet the criteria for hyperactivity in childhood. A prison governor once said to a friend of mine:
"Practically all my prisoners are hyperactive".
I am convinced by what I have heard and read, first, that this is a condition that responds well to dietary intervention—leading practitioners reckon that about three-quarters of children benefit—and, secondly, that many of today's hyperactive children become tomorrow's criminals. And yet apart from a landmark dietary study published in the Lancet in 1985, there is little professional work being done on this front, while the use of the drug Ritalin with its unknown long-term side effects rises alarmingly, and psychosocial treatments make limited headway.
The only body consistently active in restoring children of the Medway age-range and younger to normality by nutritional means is the Hyperactive Children's Support Group, which has had a track record of success culminating in the recent confirmation of its theory about the deficit of essential fatty acids in the brain. The Home Office could do a lot worse than give positive backing to an effective group which has operated for years on a shoestring and is now in danger of having to close.
1358
The report on the Medway Secure Training Centre speaks of drawing lessons from research, but, alas, not this research. The nearest it gets is in reference to meeting dietary requests which have nothing here to do with nutritional quality, and the need to help with detoxification; but the notion of weaning off a junk diet is not considered. Perhaps the training centre itself has a junk diet: I do not know! The POST Technical Report 92, Treating Problem Behaviour in Children, does only marginally better.
I believe we have here a possible solution to some of the problems of juvenile offending which is reasonably simple, low-technology, and almost absurdly cost-effective compared with the alternatives. This is not of course "the" answer to crime. But for quite a lot of offenders, and especially young offenders, it appears to be part of the story, and I very much hope the Home Office will put its weight behind further trials and will give some support to those struggling charities such as Natural Justice and the Hyperactive Children's Support Group which are doing such sterling work in the face of considerable discouragement.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount for creating this opportunity for us to debate issues concerned with juvenile secure facilities. I am grateful, too, for him letting me know in advance what he was going to say in case our great and glorious privatised railways did not get me back from Sheffield in time. I am not sure whether what I ate on the train would necessarily have met the stringent requirements of the noble Earl in his final remarks.
Although there are some important lessons to be learnt from the experience of Medway Secure Training Centre, I want to address my remarks to some of the wider problems concerning those young offenders who the courts have decided need to be locked up. I should like to inform the House of a little of the thinking on this issue by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, which I chair.
I accept that things went wrong in Medway. I suspect that Group 4 under-estimated the difficulty of the young people it would be dealing with. It probably decided too many things before the centre's manager was appointed. There were certainly centre design and staffing problems. But we have to remember that this was the first such centre in the country and it was receiving very difficult young people from all over the country. Though there was excessive use of restraint, the usage was properly documented and there were Home Office monitors on site.
I do not believe the evidence suggests that secure training centres cannot work well, particularly if, as is intended, their age range is increased from 12 to 16 and there is a better distribution of the facilities so that the young people placed in them are closer to their home areas. It is a delusion to believe that there are not some 12, 13 and 14 year-olds who need to be trained so one can work with them on the deep-seated problems which contribute to their offending.

1359
The trouble with concentrating too much on Medway is that it is only a small part of the juvenile secure estate. At any one time, there are nearly 3, 000 young people under 18 locked up in secure facilities. Around 2, 500 of them are 15 to 17 year-olds in prison establishments. That is almost double the number held in prison in 1993. The big increase in that number, I am glad to say, occurred before this Government's term of office. Fewer than 100 of those young people are female, so we are talking about a problem largely relating to young men. Approaching 300 young people are in local authority secure accommodation and only around 60 or so in Medway and the Department of Health's Youth Treatment Centre at Glenthorne. It is the young people in all those facilities about whom we should be concerned, not just those in Medway.
There is little point in mincing one's words about the present arrangements; they are a mess. Those are not just my views; they are the views of the Youth Justice Task Force, the Home Office Comprehensive Spending Review and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. The position was put well in Sir David Ramsbotham's thematic report, where he said,
"It is the plight of children that alarms us most, not least because of the conditions in which they are held in prison service accommodation … More damage is done to immature adolescents than to any other type of prisoner by current conditions. The vast majority of young people in custody need individual attention given to the problems, which produced their criminal behaviour. If all they get is akin to being stored in a warehouse, then the chances of their re-offending, creating yet more victims, is very great".
Those remarks have nothing to do with Medway.
The juvenile secure facilities have been bedevilled by four key problems areas. First, the absence of a clear aim for those working with young offenders; secondly, the lack of clarity and purpose about the sentencing framework for those in custody; thirdly, the poor linkage between custody and community supervision of young offenders and, fourthly, the huge disparity in funding and performance of the different facilities. I am glad to say that those issues are now being tackled.
First, with the principal aim for all those working with young offenders, including those in juvenile secure facilities, we now have the prospect as laid down in the Crime and Disorder Act that people working with those youngsters will have a clear focus for their work. Secondly, for convicted young offenders there will be a clearer sentencing framework. People have already drawn attention to the improvements that will be provided by having the new detention and training order. I am glad that the Home Secretary accepted the recommendations from the Youth Justice Board that the DTO should come into operation in April 2000 when the local structure of youth offending teams is brought into effect nationally. That should ensure a fairly short life for the secure training order.
Thirdly, the DTO and youth offending teams provide the opportunity radically to improve the linkage between secure facilities and community supervision. There will be scope to shift the balance in the DTO between community and custody. Half the sentence will normally
1360
be spent in community facilities and half in custodial facilities, but there will be an opportunity for people who co-operate and make progress in their custodial setting to move to community supervision faster.
Fourthly, an issue which will not go away is the disparity of funding and performance in different institutions. The Government asked the board to provide advice on regimes, placement arrangements and how the board might take on the role of commission and purchaser for all juvenile secure facilities. That provides us with an opportunity to make real changes in this area. That is why the board will be moving quickly to provide advice on national standards, which we hope will change the culture of many juvenile secure facilities.
Before closing, I want briefly to respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Acton as to why, in our advice to the Home Secretary, we drew attention to a venture capitalist organisation. We were not trying to say whether it was a good or a bad thing; we were drawing attention to the fact that other people were interested in providing these facilities. It is important to approach this issue on a non-doctrinal basis. We are interested in having competent providers, whether they come from the public, private or not-for-profit sector. We need people who can meet the national standards and provide regimes in their facilities that will change behaviour.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this debate and look forward to changes coming about in these facilities which will change the behaviour of young offenders.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this compellingly interesting subject. I am glad to welcome much of what the present Government are doing in addressing the juvenile crime problem, which is different from what was done under the last administration. I am tempted to speak about that, but as long as secure training centres are seen as a part of the solution to the problem, it is necessary to look closely at the report and at how it follows on from what so many of us predicted three years ago. I was one of those who spoke and voted against my own party on every possible occasion on this issue, and I remain convinced that this is not the solution to our problem.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said in a moving speech, we are talking about children, the oldest of whom (and there are only three) are only 15; 37 are 14 years old and the youngest, 12. But they are highly disruptive children and anyone who has taught such children will realise that the effect of concentrating them in one place is the same as the effect of concentrating nuclear active elements in one reactor; they reinforce each other and a dangerous situation arises. It can be controlled by expert and experienced staff, but we read at paragraph 6.1,
"A major theme running through this report is about what we judge to be the inadequacy in numbers and competencies of the staff group".
The result of that can rapidly be seen in the way in which, within six months, those children had almost entirely wrecked the expensive new accommodation and

1361
equipment. The bedrooms and living areas of this establishment, particularly in four units, had been subject to major vandalism which left unacceptable physical conditions in the units. We saw destroyed beds, cupboard doors off their hinges, security cameras torn from their seatings, windows smashed and graffiti. There was a programme of work underway to refurbish.
At this point we must pause to realise that we are not talking about an experiment in a laboratory, but about people doing jobs. I am very anxious that what is said during this debate should not have a completely demoralising and debilitating effect on the staff still working in the establishment. There are people there who are doing a good job. Indeed, some of the teachers have been warmly complimented, as has the chaplain. No doubt that also applies to others in their respective lines. I would not want them to think that they were being thrown out, as it were, because they are in crisis. However, crisis is what they are in.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to what I regard as the "killer" paragraph in the document. I have to find it because there is a word there which she found very difficult to pronounce and it is one that I shall find impossible to pronounce unless I actually see it in written form. The paragraph says:
"We concluded that the combination of the excessive use of force and ineffective treatment seemed to strengthen the criminogenic behaviour and outlook".
That means that they were being reinforced as criminals. This huge amount of money is spent on setting up a building which they destroy and then they emerge from it more committed to crime than they were when they went in. That cannot be a rational or a compassionate answer to the situation. It seems to me to be the result of the logic of the whole system and not simply the breakdown of an organisation quite unprepared to cope with it. If you concentrate malefactors of this ingenuity youth and energy in one place, you will make it impossible to reform them, which is what this is for. Therefore, however much it costs, these places should not merely not be added to; they should be closed.
Having said that, I have said what lies closest to my heart. However, I add to it a plea that the Government again remember how much more effective it is to reach children before they get to this stage and divert them from offending. The more we study, the earlier that moment of intervention appears to be. You can go down to two years old and predict a criminal if he or she is denied certain essential nurturing. This is a big problem.
I have one minute left to speak. I welcome the Government's effort to get all the aspects of the control of juvenile criminal offending together across the departments, across the disciplines and across the local and other authorities concerned. However, I beg of them to think of these children with compassion and put such resources in as early in their careers as they can. Not only will they salvage many lives and turn them into happy and constructive experiences which can support others, but they will also save vast amounts of government money—that means taxpayers' money.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for initiating this debate. I should declare an interest in that I was the former chief inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate. For that reason, I will not draw in detail on this inspectorate report but rather I should like to make a few brief comments about persistent juvenile offenders. As is well known to your Lordships—and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie— criminal statistics show that a small number of young people are responsible for a very high proportion of offences. Even when not committing criminal acts, some young people can be menacing in their behaviour to the general discomfort of the public.
It is therefore important that we all take seriously offending and unacceptable behaviour by young people. I am sure that the Minister will agree that everything should be done to speed up the process between apprehension and investigation and the process of prosecution. Time delays in these processes can be taken as a signal of lack of concern or that society is willing to tolerate or excuse anti-social behaviour. That is not so.
It is a coincidence that the earlier debate today concentrated on,
"the economic and social role"
of the family. During that debate reference was made to the need for young people to experience the security and well-being which flows from being part of a loving and stable family unit. Sadly, many young people do not enjoy those advantages. Many of them have been let down by the adults in their lives and they experience considerable disruption and uncertainty. They have poor role models and poor experiences during their early years. In such circumstances it is perhaps understandable that many of these young people become suspicious and angry and very challenging in their behaviour, especially to those people in authority. They lose self-confidence and often fall behind in their education, which simply compounds their lack of self-esteem.
To understand some of these matters is not however to seek to excuse unacceptable behaviour. Rather, it is to provide us with pointers about how to approach the remedial task. There is no denying that, as we have already heard, some of these young people can be very destructive of property, of other people (even those who are there to try to help them) and of themselves. Some are very aggressive and some are dependent upon alcohol and drugs.
It is the case that many young people in secure accommodation experience for the first time in their lives a structure in daily living. Therefore, this framework can provide a focus for a range of purposeful activity aimed at helping the young person to become better equipped to live successfully in society.
The deprivation of liberty is the punishment. It is not sufficient simply to contain young people as, sooner or later, they will return to live in the community. It is for this reason that security and safety need to be matched by a programme of activity which is both active and remedial and which challenges in a constructive way

1363
inappropriate attitudes and unacceptable behaviour. Helping young people to manage their anger and frustration and to overcome their poor self-image requires great skill, courage and determination. I agree with the previous speaker that the staff who work in these centres deserve our support.
Does the Minister agree that in the best secure units there is an individual assessment of each young person and an individual care plan devised which has achievable goals set for each young person where achievement is celebrated and deteriorative behaviour confronted in a positive manner? The programme of activity in these centres is designed to help each young person to face the reality of his circumstances and to face up to his behaviour in ways which help him develop his potential. This is important because for many of them the facade of aggressive bullying behaviour camouflages what in many instances is the fearful child within, unable to cope with the demands of living successfully in the community. Helping these young people develop better ways of coping—and greater self-esteem—can be among the greatest benefits of time spent in a secure unit. That is as much in the interests of the young person as it is in the interests of society.
Some young people do need to be in secure accommodation, but I hope that the Minister will agree that the time spent in these units should be put to good effect. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to continue to support inspections by the Social Services Inspectorate and other inspectorates in order that we can learn from the experience that we are gaining in helping these young people, and most of all ensure that money spent in these units produces a good result for society in general and a good result for young people in particular.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on having introduced today's debate. I believe that the analytical and challenging way in which he made his speech this evening puts a case which has to be taken very seriously by us all, not least the Government. As always in these debates, I have to declare an interest in that I am national president of the YMCA and we work with young offenders. I should also like to associate myself very strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. I believe that we have a Minister who listens and acts. Therefore, I hope that anything I say in the few moments available to me will encourage him to continue to listen and act in the way that he is so commendably already doing.
My noble friend Lord Warner was quite right to emphasise to us all that there will always be some young people for whom secure accommodation is essential in order that work can be done in depth on the problems which surround them, and often on the psychological problems of which they are victims. However, I am sure my noble friend would agree with me that we have to be satisfied that the emphasis is on that work and not on the custodial dimension. I am sure he would also
1364
agree with me that there is a public education job to be done as regards the meaning of the word "secure". I believe that sometimes that word is interpreted by people in a way that I do not think most of us who are participating in this debate would understand.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me for being blunt about why I wanted to speak in this debate this evening. There are some of us who still see a yawning gap in what drives penal policy between what seems to be responding to a public, popular, press-fed demand for tough action, and what really produces results. So often the two are in contradiction. We in the YMCA certainly find this. We find that repeatedly the youngsters with whom we are dealing come from the most appalling social backgrounds, have overwhelming social and personal difficulties with which to contend and, as has been said tonight, live in the most unfavourable environment. What is necessary therefore is to provide these youngsters with an opportunity to start to build their own characters; to start to discover themselves and to be able to move towards positive citizenship. From the experience of our work we suggest that this is best done in a total context rather than in a limited context of custody, because one has to work with the community from which these youngsters come.
People may say that is all very idealistic stuff coming from the YMCA working with a small programme among young offenders. However, I was struck by the excellent briefing that I received from that highly respected organisation, the Howard League for Penal Reform. That briefing appears to coincide almost exactly with what we are discovering ourselves. The Howard League points out that,
"The most authoritative research available, commissioned by the Home Office Research Planning Unit, found that children arrested 3 times or more in one year represent less than 10 per cent. of the population of young offenders. This suggests that the persistent offender as portrayed in the media exists only rarely and that the planned 200 places in new secure training centres are unwarranted".
I should be glad if the Minister will deal with that point when he replies to the debate.
My noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, with all his unrivalled experience, talked of "Spider Boy", "Rat Boy" and "Blip Boy". I hope he would agree with me that the trouble with this kind of language— which, again, is fanned by the press—is that it stigmatises young people and leads the public demand for incarceration and tough action that I have described, rather than a demand for appropriate action. It denies the logic of looking at the situation in a social context.
I was also struck by the following point in the Howard League briefing; namely, that the evidence of the effectiveness of community-based programmes is pretty convincing. The briefing states,
"Studies of the Intermediate Treatment Initiative run between 1983 and 1989 showed that two-year re-conviction rates were significantly better at 45 per cent. and 55 per cent. compared with those of between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. where the young people had been sentenced to custody".
That is hard evidence. Again, I should be glad if the Minister would address that evidence when he replies to the debate.

1365
The other point on which I think we need some reassurance from the Minister is the issue of cost. Why are the Government committed in their future programme to these new centres which are so formidably expensive when the practical evidence shows that for a fraction of the cost much more constructive work can be done in more locally based accommodation with the right people working with young people? It seems to me that all this illustrates a contradiction. I hope that my noble friend will not regard me as incorrigibly unreconstructed. However, I believe that in public policy there is a balance to be struck between public service and the private sector. I would be the last to suggest that the private sector has no contribution to make here. However, how far can profit driven—that must be what the private sector is about, for if I am a shareholder I want to be sure that my company is producing good results in terms of profitability—private sector provision in this most sensitive area of social policy, of rehabilitation and not just punishment and custody, have an appropriate role to play? What real, hard-headed analysis is being done in depth within his department on the relative merits of public service provision and private sector provision in this work?
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I have worked with young people from housing estates in Camden, Southwark, Greenwich, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster. I have worked in an intermediate treatment centre, an educational establishment for under 17 year-olds who have been expelled from normal schools.
Why do some young people and children offend repeatedly? Repeated, extremely anti-social behaviour is symptomatic of an underlying illness, malaise or problem. The young person is trying to send a message. That message may be that he or she has been ignored, his existence has not been acknowledged by his carers or his parents. He may be sending a message that he needs to be listened to, to be looked at, and he needs to be made to feel that he matters. He may be sending a message that he has been maltreated and that he needs to make others realise what it tastes like to be physically or sexually abused. Or, there may have been an expectation among the young person's teachers, school mates or parents that the young person will always do badly, and that nothing he can do is good. Or, again, the young person may not have experienced any rules in his life. He may have experienced parents or carers who say one thing but do another. He may have been told one day that he is making too much noise, that he is talking too much, and then asked the next day why he is so sullen and silent.
The beliefs of such young people may not be rooted in reality. Things may not be as bad as they believe, but they start to believe that they will always be bad and that they will always be ignored. These beliefs need to be challenged or they will blight a young person's life. He will be like a person who perceives sunshine only as revealing that the streets are dirty. These young people cannot articulate these messages to themselves or to
1366
others and consequently they mime out their messages in crime. The people who work with these young people need to be tuned in to hearing these messages so that they can respond appropriately and can reassure the young people that there is both good and bad in them, and that if they ask for attention in an appropriate way they will receive it. They need ears to hear and they need to be able to develop close relationships to build up trust and to enable the young people to experience good treatment. In my experience if young people experience good treatment, they respond to affection and kindness and will take on board rules and instructions and will behave better.
Challenging, interesting and varied activities are important. They are a good way to build self-confidence. Learning to read, to write and to count are good for the self-worth of young people. Of course it is good for their job prospects later.
Finally, let us consider what these young people need. They need care. The lack of care has been mentioned. That leads to immaturity in these young people. They are hard on the outside but soft on the inside. They may perform acts that many adult criminals would blanch at, but for 14 year-olds they are very childish. Although there are many alarming aspects to the report, I am particularly worried that the majority of staff have not had previous experience of working with young people. I am concerned about the use of disproportionate force to control the young people; that the bullying of these young people is not prevented; and that so many of them come from the north-east and have to come down south and are separated from their families and their home areas, to which they have eventually to return. I know that many experts believe that that is quite wrong.
As far as concerns looking after young people, small is beautiful. A family-sized group would be ideal; certainly not a group the size of a prison. In small groups young people can learn to trust and to experience understanding from those who work with them. Can the Minister say whether an attempt is being mads; to set up smaller groups within the secure training centres, something perhaps slightly akin to the house system in public schools?
I hope that the Government will watch over this model of a secure training centre to ascertain whether these are more than teething problems. It would be a good idea for SOVA, an organisation of volunteers who work with young people and young offenders, to continue to work with these young people in the community when they return to it. I hope that consideration will be given to that.
7.52 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will forgive me when I say I have an almost morbid interest in his development. I told him on an earlier occasion that I admired his father so much; the only socialist at Eton, a school of a thousand boys. The noble Earl knows that already. But what has that led him to? It has led him to idealism. So let us call him Mr. Idealism.

1367
Having visited the Medway training centre, I wish to speak in a slightly more practical way. I have been there; I wonder how many other Peers have been there. It was very interesting, although I did not spend a long time there. I was very lucky. I was entertained by a most gifted man who knew the whole scene of youth training, youth work, youth welfare and youth crime; he knew as much as anyone could possibly know. He looked after me, he took me round and I met other people. So I have had first-hand contact with the place we are talking about and I can only say that I was very much impressed by him.
I am not going to bother to question whether these people are the perfect people to run the centre. Perfect people to run such centres do not exist. If I may say so, perfect people to run the House of Lords do not exist either. Putting aside the idea of perfection, the centre is run by good, idealistic people; 100 of them for 30 patients or inmates, whatever one wants to call them. That is an extraordinary ratio, but people tell me that in youth centres it is not abnormal. It would be a very strange ratio in a school. I went to Eton where there were 1, 000 boys—there will be more than that now— but, at the same ratio, there would be 3, 000 masters. It is unbelievable. The whole idea of 100 people looking after 30 boys makes one think.
I am not going to bother about questions of qualifications; there are good people running the centre. But is it worth while; is there any point at all in this place? I am told that similar places will be set up. It is not a question of whether these people are doing a good job, but whether there is any point in it at all. That is the issue. I will of course leave that subject because it will not be settled tonight.
I hope that people will not say that the setting up of the centre was obviously right because the previous government decided on it. The Government are not usually slavish in their adherence to such matters, but a commitment had been made. They were under contract to set the centre up and they did so—and they are left with the situation of 100 good people looking after 30 not-so-good young people.
The man in charge, who introduced me, was exceptionally well gifted. He was from Group 4. The director was not there, but I am told he is beyond criticism. But I am not bothering with individuals, I am talking about the whole set up. The question is: what is its point? I know that the Minister, who is a former chairman of the Bar Council, will produce an answer, but it will not be an answer to satisfy me. Of course I will pay attention to him, but what is the point of this place and similar places?
While I was there, a young man—the only one I met—was selected to talk to me. He was just 15; he had been there for three months; he would be leaving three weeks later. Someone told me that he had committed 100 burglaries—somebody told me that I had wrongly thought that he had committed 140—but even 100 burglaries make him a congenital young criminal. He was sent there for three months and three weeks— and no doubt he is being well looked after—but when
1368
he leaves he will go back to Nottingham. The place we are talking about is in Kent and this fellow came from Nottingham. When he goes back to Nottingham, the people in Kent will not be able to do anything for him apart from some sort of nominal contact. The idea of taking someone from Nottingham and sending him to Kent for three months—at enormous expense—and then sending him back is ludicrous. My frank opinion is that the whole idea should be abandoned. In theory, it should be abandoned, but I fear we shall have to put up with it. But for heaven's sake make sure that something is done about these young people when they leave this centre so remote from their homes.

Business
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if noble Lords will forgive me, I wish to make a Business Statement. Later this evening, my noble friend Lord Gilbert will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Kosovo. The exact timing depends on proceedings in another place. If further details become available in time, they will be shown on the annunciators.

Persistent Juvenile Offenders
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for introducing the debate. Its timing is interesting, as it follows the debate on marriage. Undoubtedly, as many noble Lords have said, the breakdown of marriage and the family is often a root cause of youth offending.
First, I wish to make one or two comments on the report. I attempted to find out from the Home Office whether there is any update on the extent to which the criticisms in the report have been met. I was told that there was no information at all on progress. Perhaps the Home Office was concealing the information from me in order to give all the ammunition to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he replies. I certainly failed to find out anything about action that has been taken as a result of the report. I hope the noble Lord will tell the House what progress has been made. I shall not set out the criticisms as they have already been referred to.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the use of volunteers. I wonder whether volunteers are coming into Medway to build relationships with the young people there. I appreciate that they are there for a maximum of one year, but it is important for them to be able to build a relationship with an outsider, particularly as many are a long way from home.
Secondly, I wish to touch on the question of education. Clearly it needs improving at the STC. But what interests me more is the problem of the lack of education that so many young offenders have experienced. I wonder whether in the STC sufficient attention is paid to the learning aptitudes of the young

1369
offenders. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell the House whether an assessment is carried out to check whether each young offender is an abstract conceptualiser; a concrete experiencer; an active experimenter; or a reflective observer, or whatever combination of learning aptitudes they may have. That will clearly affect the education programme in the STC for different individuals there.
Paragraph 9.3 of the report refers to the fact that many of the offenders have been out of school for considerable periods of time. Perhaps I may quote John Harding, Chief Probation Officer for Inner London. He said:
"We know that two thirds of school aged offenders sentenced in youth courts had either been excluded from school or had significant truancy records. Attention needs to be focused at the onset of behaviour disorder in schools by the youth offending teams so that an action plan is drawn up by the team, the school and the parents that ensures the pupil is still in receipt of full time education and the family supported through the crisis".
I have a daughter who works as a primary school teacher in the field of special needs. She deals particularly with violent children younger than the age of those in the STC. That is the age when it is crucial for such children to be helped. If they are not helped in school when they are below the age of 12, they will run into the youth offending climate.
But schools do not have the money to pay for special needs teachers to deal with violent children in particular. I am delighted that the Government are planning to reduce the amount of exclusion from schools. Please will they provide more financial help for special needs teaching? It will save them money in the long term. Money needs to be spent in that area in order to stop offending before it starts, as my noble friend Lord Elton vividly portrayed.
My third point relates to mentors for these young people. They so often need role models. We have talked about visitors, volunteers coming into STCs. But I want also to raise the question of mentors on a wider basis, before young people offend and also during the period of community service. Many of these young people lack fathers, a point that was mentioned particularly in the previous debate. They do not have the role models, whether they are boys or girls, that fathers provide when they are living in the home. There is an excellent scheme under which local people are used as volunteers to offer time to single parents with hyperactive children. There are also mentors from business who work with welfare-to-work trainees. I read of a magistrate offering her home. Are the Government planning to encourage the further use of mentors and foster homes in the future?
8.5 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, extend my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for introducing this debate. It was also a great pleasure to listen to the very positive contribution of the former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley.
This debate is not only about the Medway Secure Training Centre. As many noble Lords have demonstrated, it is about much more than that. It is about how we treat persistent young offenders who commit a disproportionate number of crimes and often wreck the lives of many law-abiding citizens.
1370
We often delude ourselves that by locking up such youngsters we shall solve the problems caused by youth crime. That may create a temporary respite. But unless we have clear objectives about the purpose of secure training centres, we might as well admit defeat now.
We also delude ourselves that prison works. That was central to the thinking of the previous government. I am surprised that it still finds favour with the present Government.
We have begun only recently to address more fully the reason why so many youngsters offend and why some persist in re-offending again and again. Many of them have never had the right to a decent childhood. They are the products of chaotic and disturbed family lives. Many are still to be found among the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, those who come from homes where people have never worked, those who under-achieve in schools and those excluded from schools, and victims of violence and physical and sexual abuse.
Against that background we welcome the many initiatives of the present Government in which they are attempting to address the problems. Only yesterday the passage of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill was completed in this House. The Bill has at its heart for the first time provisions to address offending behaviour.
The crime reduction strategy announced last week by the Home Secretary deals with major reform of the youth justice system. Targets are now being set to give local people the means to monitor the effectiveness of the police and local authorities in reducing crime and disorder in their area. There is also the new anti-social behaviour order under the Crime and Disorder Act which will commence on 1st April 1999. No one, irrespective of their political affiliations, can fail to appreciate the positive measures introduced by the Government. They have the general support of all parties in this House.
We now have time to rethink some of the false assumptions that we made in 1994. We must accept that we have been wrong in looking to instant solutions in eradicating offending behaviour. We have only to look at our history of borstals, approved schools and detention centres. It is no exaggeration to say that within a short period of their release a large number of youngsters offend again; 60 to 70 per cent. of youngsters fall within that category.
When the legislation creating secure training centres was going through this House in 1994, the House carried an amendment with all-party support which could have given the courts an alternative power to sentence 12 to 14 year-old offenders to be held in local authority secure units instead. This amendment had official Labour Party support as well as the support of the Liberal Democrats and many Conservative and Cross-Bench Peers. It was reversed by the then government when the legislation returned to the other place Line after line of the recent report by the social services inspectorate on the Medway Secure Training Centre justifies and reinforces the view that the House took in 1994.

1371
First, the report found, as has been cited by many noble Lords, that there was an,
"absence of an experienced, highly skilled staff group".
It may be that this was the first possible experiment to be carried out, but why were inexperienced people appointed? The report spoke of the extreme difficulty of trying profoundly to alter the outlook of some of the most challenging young people in the country with a largely unqualified and inexperienced staff. Yet it was always obvious that putting the care of difficult young offenders in the hands of private companies which had no experience of childcare provision was an indefensible way to deal with disturbed and vulnerable children. Such young people would be far better off dealt with in secure units run by local authority social service departments and staffed by trained care workers.
Secondly, the report found that the quality of education at the Medway centre was unsatisfactory. It said:
"Half the lessons observed were less than satisfactory, with unfocused discussion, lack of suitable resources, and a poor learning environment. Teachers lack specialist knowledge and skills in the subject".
There can be no doubt that these young people would have received a better standard of education in local authority secure units. Even before the 1994 legislation was passed, Home Office research comparing local authority secure units with Prison Service young offender institutions had shown that the former provided more and better quality education, gave more help and advice with young people's problems and equipped young people with more qualifications, training and work experience.
Thirdly, the report on the Medway centre found that:
"Other major matters such as diversion from offending programmes, an element of the establishment's work which is fundamental to its success, have simply failed".
One of the reasons for this failure was the trainees' reaction to the use of violence, which has been spelt out again and again by a number of noble Lords.
Stripped of the jargon, it is quite simply that the experience at Medway had made these young people even more criminal in their attitudes and even more likely to re-offend than when they first arrived. In contrast, the Home Office research study referred to earlier found that local authority secure units had a significantly lower re-offending rate than Prison Service young offender institutions for serious young offenders. Local authority units would be more likely to succeed with 12 to 14 year-olds than a 40-place mini-prison like the Medway centre.
Up to a point it is understandable (although wholly wrong) that inexperienced and inadequately trained staff should react with excessive force to the difficult and disturbed behaviour of these children. The inspection team encountered,
"numerous instances when good order had broken down".
The report is full of references to,
"the very disturbed behaviour, abusive language and challenges which the trainees present".
1372
One result was that,
"The level of damage to living units, the education block and the dining room was such that safety features were compromised".
It was a vicious circle, with the inspectors observing that:
"The breakdown in the care system is leading to reinforcement of cycles of deprivation".
It has been pointed out, and I reiterate, that what we found in the Medway centre report is that the youngsters found that the inside world very much replicated the outside world from which they came. All this underlines the folly of the whole idea of placing as many as 40 disturbed and difficult children in one institution. Local authority secure units hold many individual children who are as difficult as the Medway's trainees, but these units are not plagued by the problems which have arisen from placing so many repeat offenders in one centre.
Secure training centres are too big and run by the wrong organisations. They are also in the wrong place. Even when all five planned centres are built, many young people will still be held a long way from their homes. This makes it difficult to maintain close links, through regular visits, with families and social workers from their home areas—links which are vital for the young persons' eventual resettlement when they leave the secure institution.
The secure training centre policy is a blight on the Government's otherwise largely admirable youth crime policy. The positive and constructive elements of this policy include the establishment of inter-agency youth offending teams in every area; a requirement placed on local authorities to produce youth justice plans and provide a range of diversion and supervision programmes for young offenders; increased financial support for the development of bail support schemes; supervision programmes and preventive work; and new sentences such as reparation and action plan orders which could help to steer many young people away from re-offending.
I have no hesitation in strongly supporting the vast majority of the Government's plans to tackle youth crime. However, the decision to press ahead with the previous Government's plans for secure training centres was a serious mistake. It is not too late to halt the plans to build more secure training centres. If the resources which would otherwise be spent on these centres were used instead to provide more local authority secure places and intensive community supervision programmes, this would do much more to reduce juvenile crime.
Is it not time that we discontinued plans for other secure training centres? There are better ways of spending £120, 000 per child per year and this debate has highlighted that. No one disputes that a small number of people commit a disproportionate amount of crime. The point at issue is that secure training centres have done little to address their behaviour. It is time we looked at other alternatives.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for initiating this debate. His experience in juvenile magistrate work is second to none.
As noble Lords know, the secure training centres were instituted under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and they represented a laudable and imaginative initiative by the last Government to steer a balanced course between the frankly penal short sharp shock regimes and the wholly community-based ones. If one reads the specification in the appendix to the report, one sees that the accommodation, education, vocational, health and recreational standards are high. I will come to that in a moment.
I feel that several noble Lords have not done justice to these centres, for two reasons. The first is that they are designed to be part of a package: the custodial punishment basically in the first half of the sentence, and the rehabilitation under close supervision in the community in the second. We have very little experience of the second half of that and I shall welcome any news that the Minister can give us on it. I also hope he can say whether the proportions of the custodial and rehabilitation aspects can be varied. Presumably in serious cases, the second half could be eliminated altogether.
The defects of the Group 4/Rebound experience have been chronicled by several noble Lords. I find it easier, even with the privilege of this House, to refer to them, simply because they have been largely acknowledged by the contractors. It is clear that there was a total underestimation, on their own admission, of the problems posed by the trainees. They underestimated the difficulties of obtaining staff and training them in matters like staff communication, reporting, simple procedures like fire drill and dealing with violent trainees, leading inevitably to bullying. They should have known about that. We know that two managers departed, which left the management structure largely in tatters. The staff were badly fazed by two escapes, which made them possibly over-concerned with security. There were obvious mistakes on the Government's side in that the specifications were not nearly robust enough and that led to the most terrible vandalism. There should have been provision for more imaginative security which would have avoided some trainees being virtually denied fresh air.
Perhaps I may return to the trainees themselves. They come from the most difficult section of juvenile society. The report gives statistics showing that the average number of previous convictions is seven; the average time spent out of mainstream education is four years; and 25 per cent. arrive with criminal charges outstanding and with histories of great violence. I wonder whether local authority secure accommodation, referred to by many noble Lords and with particular knowledge by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is suitable for this class of young offender.
1374
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, that surely there must be no alternative to taking these children out of society even for a short time.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. This is a fundamental question. What is the point of taking a young offender from Nottingham and giving him a few months in Kent?
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for that intervention. The regime is designed to provide a combination of custody and imaginative treatment.
As your Lordships know, the trouble had been there from the beginning and reached its climax in June when there was, in effect, a riot. I congratulate the Government on taking prompt steps to set up an inquiry team composed of highly qualified individuals from Ofsted, H. M. Inspectorate of Prisons and the social services. The inquiry took place in September and October and reported in January. The recommendations are clear, fair and constructive. Many of your Lordships will have received briefing from Rebound indicating that it is taking steps to address the criticisms.
We are dealing here with very small numbers. It is an experiment which deserves to be given further time. It should be treated as a pilot scheme. I very much hope that the Government will continue Group 4's contract. The intentions which Group 4 and Rebound have shown are very worthy and should be given rein. It gives them the opportunity to put right many of the matters subject to criticism. We welcome other initiatives in connection with youth offenders and in particular the creation of the youth offender panels under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill which has just completed its passage through your Lordships' House. It has the support of these Benches. It is not an easy problem, but I believe that the Government have taken the right course in identifying the problems through the SSI inquiry and addressing the criticisms and recommendations. They have our support in that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
8.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Tenby for giving us this opportunity and all other noble Lords for the contributions that have been made. I believe that the tone of our discussion has been similar to that of a seminar. I did not detect any hectoring or point-scoring of any sort. It is sometimes difficult to disagree with what is said by almost every speaker. Of course there are differences of emphasis. I do not believe that our fundamental views and aims differ from whatever part of the House the contribution has been made.
I have been given by generous business managers 20 minutes in which to reply to this debate. In that time I cannot even answer all the questions that have been legitimately put to me. In the usual way, I shall respond in writing to those points that I cannot deal with orally this evening. I shall put copies of my replies in the

1375
Library. I hope it does not sound too pompous, but I have the duty of dealing with the questions which have focused particularly on Medway. The public has a right to know what is happening, which will mean that the wider questions, which are relevant, of great interest and fascination, cannot be dealt with entirely without ignoring Medway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, is quite right. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by young people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We have to deal with offending children with early intervention. I do not believe that the noble Lord is exaggerating when he says that the indicators of likely criminal behaviour can be detected in the very young. It is a deeply depressing point to recite, but it is true. I am making no party political point because it is unworthy and it never works—which is an unworthy comment of itself.
We have now begun to adopt a rather different approach to crime. I caution your Lordships against placing undue focus on the secure training centre or the new detention and training order. We are deliberately, consciously thinking this out as part only of the changing spectrum that we intend to introduce. Although it is a public duty for your Lordships to look at what happened at Medway and to discuss what went wrong there, one needs to bear in mind that that is only part of the picture.
It is our aim to have swifter and earlier intervention; to achieve the swifter administration of justice; more effective early intervention in the community; to look to restorative justice, to reparation for victims and to the reinforcement of personal and parental responsibility. I believe that we discussed all those themes in some depth and length when debating the Bill which passed through your Lordships' House on Third Reading yesterday.
I entirely agree with what noble Lords have said, but it is a melancholy fact that some young offenders are among the most difficult children to deal with, if not the most difficult. There will have to be a custodial option available for some children. The aim ought to be, not simply cosmetically recited, to limit that number to the absolute minimum.
It was genuinely helpful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I shall not go over the material with which he dealt. This evening he has been able to describe exactly the developing thinking of the Youth Justice Board which he chairs. If we have secure places, we have to provide security and a constructive and ordered regime. I have always believed, and continue to maintain, that these young children require as an absolute necessity a sense of order and, if one can introduce it, some degree of calm in lives which have been violent. I do not mean necessarily physically violent. What the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said is perfectly right in many ways.
I did not take my noble friend Lord Judd to be chiding me but, as always, I took what he said in the constructive way in which it was offered. In the Home Office we are concentrating more and more on—it is a
1376
jargon phrase, but a useful one—evidence-based practice. In other words, rant and shibboleth have no part in the formation or development of policy. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was quite right in saying that the secure training centres were set up by the previous government to provide custodial facilities for persistent young offenders between the ages of 12 and 14. The contract was signed in March 1997 and the centre was opened in April 1998. More than 150 secure training orders have been made so far. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, rightly pointed out, by April 2000 the secure training order will have been consigned to history. We shall then have a more flexible sentence, a detention and training order designed for offenders between the ages of 12 and 18 years.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, it is very important to underline that the placement of those who are committed to secure training orders will include the opportunity to go to local authority secure accommodation. The reason that we are continuing with these secure training centres—I refer to the particular question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham— is that local authority secure accommodation and secure training centres will be part of the new juvenile estate to deal with the relatively small number of young children who are sentenced to these new orders. The critical factor is that the new juvenile estate is to be overseen by the Youth Justice Board. That is extremely important.
For some young children who offend local authority secure accommodation will be more appropriate than secure training centres. The opposite is also true. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, what was the point of sentencing a child from Nottingham to go to Kent? In some circumstances there may well be a point. Not every child is best served by remaining in the immediate locality of its home, bad influences and the location of the commission of the crime.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, since the noble Lord has referred to me perhaps I may intervene. I asked what was the point of sending a child there for three months or three weeks? He will not have his whole life corrected by that, will he?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe I ever suggested that he would have the whole of his life corrected by that. I deal with the particular point that, as long as it is done with care and discretion—I have in mind the words "compassion and thought" used by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—in some circumstances it may well be in the best interests of a young child not to be kept in secure custody in the immediate locality of its family. That may be unpalatable to the noble Earl but it is a fact. In the case of the young man to whom the noble Earl referred, he is going back to his home area and his supervising probation officer is from that area. The duty of the supervising officer is to manage his return back to the home area. I do not believe it is possible simply to ask blunt questions of the kind posed by the noble Earl or expect the whole matter to be resolved with what are perhaps sometimes over-simplistic questions.

1377
I return to Medway. Difficult offenders have been there. It is true that the SSI report discloses a lamentable catalogue of failure. The company that runs Medway does not dispute that. Plainly, it is a reproach to everyone who has had any responsibility for it. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that no one can suggest that any punches have been pulled. I believe that a good piece of work was done there. But it is now for me to bring your Lordships up to date. Serious shortcomings occurred. The recommendations provide the opportunity for a constructive framework. Improvements in management, the implementation of good practice in care and control and the raising of standards of education and training were required. I do not believe that it necessarily depends on whether the mismanagement was in the public or private sector. The point is that the centre was mismanaged. A comprehensive action plan has been drawn up and agreed between the contractor and the Home Office.
I return deliberately to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, because I regard it of critical importance. This is something about which the public are entitled to know. First, the SSI is closely monitoring progress against an agreed timetable; secondly, the director is required to provide monthly information on performance; thirdly, the SSI is to undertake a further inspection shortly to evaluate progress. It is to evaluate the effectiveness of the action already taken. That further report will go directly to the Home Secretary. I believe that that reflects some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Acton, right at the beginning; in other words, continuous monitoring and reporting of those who have responsibility in this matter is required. I return to one of my hobby horses: unless there are in place the structural mechanisms for monitoring and reporting, systems cannot be trusted. The report also revealed that there was insufficient staff.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, when the report goes to the Secretary of State, it will be published?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, curiously enough, that was a question that I put to officials this morning because it was a matter of interest to me. No final decision has been taken upon it. The report is to be an unannounced one. Although I announce it today, I do not announce the date of it. For my part, I believe in publication as opposed to secrecy because that is one of the disciplines that improves performance. As much as can usefully be put into the public domain will be; if not, I am certainly always available to deal with the discussion and disclosure of reports with any of your Lordships on a private and confidential basis. Sometimes, but not usually, confidentiality is justified. I am happy to adopt that approach.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is there to be a strict policy on bullying? Bullying is fiendish and sometimes it is the younger element who bully most.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree that that is a particular feature. I return to the words of the
1378
noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Quite often those who bully other children are deeply damaged and fragile and— I hope that this is not jargon—their way of expressing that wounding of themselves is to bully others. I entirely endorse that. That is a very important feature of the report and the action plan.
I do not believe that it is helpful for me to recite the criticisms. It is quite apparent from the debate that your Lordships have studied the report, which makes for gloomy reading. Certainly, there was a wholly unacceptable over-emphasis on physical restraint and what was in reality—there is no point in mincing words—the use of violence against young children many of whom regard it as a natural form of expression. There is a lot still to be done. Offending behaviour programmes are to be installed. The centre got out of control. I hope that when the new SSI report comes out it will show continuing improvement. All I can say is that there were significant failures that cannot be excused. We have a moral obligation to put matters right and I hope that we shall discharge that duty.
I turn to some of the questions posed during the debate. I am conscious that I have only a few moments left. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked about supervision in the community following the custodial part of sentences. Plainly, experience is limited. Social services departments now prove willing to play an active part in drawing up training plans which extend beyond the date of release from the STC. As to that I am in agreement with the noble Viscount. There are some difficulties in providing mainstream education for the reasons that so many noble Lords have touched upon: we are dealing with serial truancy or exclusion from school for other reasons.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, referred to outside visitors to Medway and mentoring generally. We support the activities of voluntary mentors. Recently I had a most interesting meeting with SOVA to which another of your Lordships made reference. The chaplain at Medway has been active in encouraging outside visitors to that establishment. He makes arrangements, if young people desire it, with contacts in the outside world. Representatives of the Voice of the Child in Care meet those at the centre regularly to help them with any particular concerns or difficulties. Volunteer mentors are extremely important. We want to develop this idea on a co-operative basis with those who are willing to give their life in service in that way.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about breaking down the larger units. I think it is unreal to talk about mini prisons. We are talking about 40. However, he asked an important question about smaller units. At Medway young people do live in smaller units of five. They have their educational and other aclivities in small groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, focused my mind on what actually works and how one demonstrates it. We are now monitoring closely a number of persistent juvenile offenders. We are reviewing further demand for places from this group. Plainly the cost of secure accommodation is very high: I take his point. The cost of secure accommodation at Medway is actually a little

1379
less than local authority secure accommodation— perhaps about £400 less: not the £2, 900 but perhaps the £2, 500 that has been spoken about. I think it is too early to comment on reconviction rates because I do not have the material. That research is continuing. I agree with what the noble Lord implied, that we have been a little late in the day—that is to say, I think the Home Office generally has been late—in beginning that research.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked particularly about nutritional supplements, which he correctly differentiated from diet, as one normally speaks about it. I know of research which has been carried out on the effects of nutritional supplements on the behaviour of young people in detention. He rightly points out that one of the organisations carrying out that work is the charity Natural Justice. That was carried out at Aylesbury Young Offender Institution and it demonstrated some positive effects on the behaviour of the young offenders who took the supplements. In order to see whether that effect can be replicated, I have recently agreed that Natural Justice can approach a number of other prison establishments where young people are housed to repeat the research on a wider scale. I know that the noble Earl has raised this subject over a period of time and I think my answer today has been more positive than what he might perhaps have regarded as the rather lukewarm approach that I have been able to give him in the past— so I hope I have at least one satisfied customer this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned a number of valuable points and, in particular, the Bridges Project. Of course we support alternatives to custody for a large number of reasons. They can be more effective, undoubtedly so in terms of cost, and very often they are helpful in a way that custody cannot be for individuals. However, I am afraid that we come back to my earlier melancholy proposition, that for some young offenders custody in a secure environment is necessary.
We want the new orders to be much more positive, partly training assistants in secure conditions; but we also want the ability to work towards restoring the individual back to the community so that restorative justice has a dual context and a dual aspect. That is really what the new structure is intended to give. I cannot dispute the proposition put by many of your Lordships that this is an extremely expensive remedy. We have obviously—your Lordships have spoken of it—a duty to the public purse to make sure that we get value for money. If these schemes do not give value for money, we obviously have a constant duty, even on that basis, to review them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, asked who determines who would go to a secure training centre. In the first instance the sentence is given by the court. Under the detention and training order, the new order, the precise details of the placement will be dependent on the arrangements which will derive from the proposed commissioning and purchasing role which the Youth Justice Board has, as described by my noble friend Lord Warner. The noble Viscount also asked about Huntercombe and Werrington. We have in fact given both institutions a total of £1 million extra in this
1380
financial year. That is specifically directed, I hope to your Lordships' approval, to the improvement of regimes for those who are held in custody.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about persistent young offenders, and the figure I have for 1997 is that according to our definition there were 8, 400 persistent young offenders in that year, who between them would have been responsible for about 43, 000 criminal offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr, was the most brusque in saying that these sentences would never work. This is a very new initiative. It has not actually been going even for a year yet. I think we can learn from what has gone wrong at Medway. There were significant mistakes: if we have an opportunity to develop and learn from those mistakes it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has been too gloomy in his prognostications.
A technical point was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, about the consolidation of a large number of statutes. There is a continuing consolidation exercise being carried out by the Law Commission and we hope that will result in a powers of criminal courts Bill. I imagine that all those who have to deal with these matters will welcome that consolidation. I am glad to be able to give the noble Viscount a positive answer there.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, asked about the contractor at Hassockfield. I am able to reassure him that the contractor has already appointed key staff who have considerable experience of dealing with difficult, challenging young people.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, also asked about national standards. I can assure him that this will be part of the remit of the Youth Justice Board under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I do not think I need to say anything further because what I have had to say about 15 or 16 year-old girls not being kept in prison service accommodation has been welcomed. I knew when I said it last year that my neck was firmly on the block. I did it deliberately, being then young and innocent—and sometimes it is worth it, not being young and innocent but actually promising something.
I am conscious of the fact that I have trespassed on your Lordships' patience and I know that I have not answered some of the questions that have been raised. I should just really like to return to my earlier gratitude for the way in which we have dealt with these things. It is impossible to do justice to the topic, the themes and the contributions in this very brief reply of 23 minutes. What does hearten us all who work together—and I say this to all your Lordships in this field—is that, whatever contribution we have to make, I believe that the tide has changed. I believe that we have an opportunity for a new beginning and I do believe that we must constantly scrutinise ourselves with objective standards and objective tests, so that we can discharge what all your Lordships have rightly described, impliedly or explicitly, as a moral duty to deeply fragile young children who, although they are criminals, are, as the noble Baroness said, essentially children.
8.49 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to express my warm thanks to all those who have taken part in this debate. When I started, I said that I hoped the debate would be constructive and helpful, and the fact that the noble Lord the Minister described it as similar to a seminar gave me immense pleasure. I hope that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, have been heartened by the support they have received for what they are doing from all quarters of the House.
Perhaps I may make two very small points. First, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, that in no way am I against the use of custody. As a magistrate of many years' standing, I can assure him that that suggestion is right out! Secondly, I would say that this debate has not been about the individual staff at Medway, whose personal commitment in very difficult circumstances, then and now, has not been questioned. I am conscious that I have asked the noble Lord the Minister very many questions—a whole bucketful in fact—to add to his angst. I may say that this is a running joke between us—but I certainly do not propose to add to it at this late hour of the evening. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gulf War Illnesses
8.50 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making in their investigations into the undiagnosed illnesses of service men and women who served in the Gulf War.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, of all the duties it falls to parliamentarians to discharge, none is of more compelling priority than our bounden duty to act justly to men and women who were prepared to lay down their lives for this country and the dependants of those who did so.
We are met in this debate to discharge that duty to many hundreds of men and women who served in the Gulf War over eight years ago. They were then fit and well. Today they have debilitating illnesses—some very severely disabling—and look to us for support. Hundreds more have already died from illnesses that were never diagnosed and went to their graves with a deep sense of injustice.
On 2nd February, 1998 my noble friend the Minister of State reported that by then there had been 400 deaths among Gulf War veterans. I hope he will be able to update that figure in replying to this debate and to say whether and to what extent it included any unverified deaths. I shall be grateful also to know, first, how many of the deaths were suicides, and, secondly, how many of the suicides were those of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. It will be helpful, too, if this evening, or by letter, my noble friend can identify the causes of all deaths of veterans of the conflict and say whether the rate for suicides among Gulf War veterans is higher than the norm for ex-service personnel.
This further information would clearly be of value to Professor Simon Wessely's continuing study of Gulf War illnesses. As my noble friend will know, some of the media coverage of Professor Wessely's interim findings and of the report of the MoD's Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) on its first 1, 000 patients caused distress to veterans trying to cope with their illnesses and deep concern to the Inter-Parliamentary Gulf War Group whose members include parliamentarians of all parties and of none. Like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I am a founder member of the group. Its members also include Michael Mates MP and Paul Tyler, MP; representatives of the ex-service charities; Major Ian Hill and Flight Lieutenant John Nicol from the veterans' associations; and both senior doctors and nurses.
Negative media coverage both of Professor Wessely's interim findings and the MAP's report has masked their significance: namely, that while veterans of the Gulf War have complaints similar to those of other conflicts, they are affected significantly more often by disorders of unknown cause. The reporting of both studies was mainly to the effect that they discounted the existence of a "Gulf War syndrome".
Understandably, many Gulf veterans felt that headlines about this obscured the extent and complexity of their undiagnosed illnesses. They were also dismayed by the decline in public interest that followed the media coverage of the two studies, and particularly that of Professor Wessely's interim findings, despite his having gone on record as saying that they require "explanation and action not complacency".
This has given renewed urgency to the ex-service community's call for a public inquiry into all aspects of the handling of Gulf War illnesses. A motion calling on the Prime Minister to commission a public inquiry was unanimously approved by last year's annual conference of the Royal British Legion and Brigadier Ian Townsend, the Secretary-General, asked the Prime Minister to give it urgent effect in a letter dated 11th June 1998. The request was passed by the Prime Minister to the Minister for the Armed Forces to investigate but as yet the only response has been an acknowledgement. Naturally I hope very much that my noble friend can respond this evening to a request that was urgent when it was made over nine months ago and, for those afflicted and bereaved by the Gulf conflict, has become ever more urgent since then.
Doug Henderson, Minister for the Armed Forces, for whom I have high regard, published a report last Friday on the use in the Gulf conflict of depleted uranium (DU). In an accompanying statement, he said:
"The paper sets out in detail the risks associated with it and the circumstances in which exposure could be harmful. As the paper makes clear, in the context of the Gulf War, these risks were small. I am not aware of any UK Gulf veteran who is suffering from a depleted uranium-related illness. "
But many Gulf veterans are unconvinced. They point out that, in sharp contrast to the paper's finding that risks were small, the US Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses now accepts that thousands of troops could have been exposed to the effects of this

1383
radioactive and toxic material. And the MoD's paper itself notes that the US authorities are inviting personnel in certain categories of exposure to enrol in a specialised DU medical evaluation programme. What the MoD's paper does not attempt is any estimate of the combined and interactive effects of exposure to DU and of all the innoculations and injections that were administered to those who served in the Gulf.
In Britain veterans with undiagnosed illnesses have been paying for themselves to be tested for harmful exposure to DU and a report I have seen from Professor Hari Sharma, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Chemistry at Canada's University of Waterloo in Ontario, shows that 30 British Gulf War veterans have tested positive to depleted uranium oxide. I am passing the information sent to me about this to my noble friend and I know he will want to respond to me about it at the earliest possible date.
A further reaction from Gulf War veterans to the MoD paper's finding that the risks of harmful exposure to DU were small has been to recall the reply of the then Minister for the Armed Forces to a parliamentary question put to him in another place in 1996 about a possible link between the undiagnosed illnesses of some Gulf War veterans and the destruction by US troops in March 1991 of ammunition bunkers at Khamisiyah in Southern Iraq. UNSCOM inspectors later identified the site as an Iraqi chemical weapon storage plant and found there ammunition containing chemical agents. The Minister's reply to the question—which I myself tabled—was that only one British serviceman was deployed in the area of fall-out plume when the bunkers at Khamisiyah were destroyed and that his health was unimpaired.
That reply, which later had to be drastically revised upwards, continues to damage the credibility of official statements about the risks our service men and women faced in the Gulf. In truth, there is still uncertainty about the numbers of British service personnel who could have been contaminated by fall-out at Khamisiyah and I shall be grateful to my noble friend for any more precise details he can give us tonight. The paper on depleted uranium that was published last Friday is the outcome of one of two official studies. The other relates to the implementation of the anti-biological warfare vaccines, and any information my noble friend can provide on the progress of that study will be helpful. I know he will at least want to indicate tonight when he expects it to be published.
Meanwhile I wish to mention a helpful note given to me this afternoon by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He wanted very much to be here this evening but unfortunately a commitment made before the date of this debate was decided makes this impossible. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asks me to say that what he cannot understand is:
"… why tests were not done as soon as possible after the conflict into the effect of the cocktail of innoculations and injections given to our service men and women who went to the Gulf, all administered at the same time, on the human immune system. Or why if tests were done the results have never been published".
1384
I know how highly my noble friend respects the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and that he will take careful note of his comment to me. In this regard my noble friend will be aware of the belief of Professor Malcolm Hooper and others that the greater degree of sickness suffered by Gulf War veterans compared with other veterans is related to the vaccinations that they were given.
Other issues of continuing concern among Gulf War veterans include the seeming lack of official interest here in the very serious effects of the Gulf conflict on the health of the civilian population in Kuwait, not least the effects of setting the oil fields on fire. It is estimated that the 600 burning oil wells released into the atmosphere 50, 000 tons of sulphur-dioxide, 100, 000 tons of soot and 85, 000 tons of carbon-dioxide every 24 hours. Air samples detected the presence of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons together with benzine, cadmium copper, molybdenum, nickel, lead, vanadium and zinc in "above average" concentrations.
Philip Congdon, then a squadron leader in the RAF, who led the training team sponsored by the British Government that went to Saudi Arabia soon after the invasion of Kuwait to train expatriate, Saudi Arabian military and civil defence personnel in chemical and biological warfare defence writes:
"Everybody who was present in the Gulf will remember the smoke cloud generated after the oil fields were set on fire. The result was not a fog but rather the pollutants, held by ugly thick smoke, rose into the atmosphere producing a dirty sable black dome that extended from horizon to horizon over Kuwait and often drifted well into Saudi Arabia. Within this dome a mist of oil particles would occasionally precipitate. We now know that the atmosphere was saturated with pollutants of the most profoundly life-destroying type".
It was an atmosphere described by Philip Congdon as "passive smoking of the most deadly type" and it was shared with the Kuwaitis by British personnel. Anyone who thinks exposure to pollution on that scale was but a passing inconvenience for those affected ought to speak to public health officials in Kuwait.
After visiting Kuwait seven months ago and talking at length with Ministers, including the Minister of Health, I was left in no doubt that much could be gained from increasing our knowledge of the effects of the Gulf conflict on public health in Kuwait. I hope this, too, is something my noble friend may wish to comment on when he comes to reply.
I turn now to the processing of war pensions and complaints made to me and others of preventable hardship to Gulf veterans. One case referred to me, about which I tabled a Parliamentary Question on 23rd February, is that of Richard Pruszynski's claim for a war pension in relation to his service with 32 Field Hospital, Wadi Al Batin, during the Gulf conflict. His unit was confirmed to be under the gas cloud from the destruction of the ammunition bunkers at Khamisiya and his health was seriously affected by conditions for which eight other veterans who served with him, including Dr. Colin Purcell-Lee, had already been pensioned.
Richard Pruszynski's case was raised not only by me, but previously by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal British Legion and the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association. I am glad to say that it was resolved by the granting of a pension on 1 st March.
Another case—one raised with me and the Royal British Legion—is that of Christine Lloyd whose original war pension application was made in November 1994. She is now awaiting the outcome of an entitlement appeal and has been informed that, as a female ex-officer, her appeal must be heard by another female ex-officer and that this will further delay the already lengthy appeal process. Meanwhile I am told that supporting evidence from Group Captain Coker, the former Head of MAP, has been "totally ignored" by War Pensions Agency medical advisers. I shall be grateful if Christine's case can now be urgently further reviewed and similarly if my noble friend can also arrange for the cases of Richard Turnbull and Desmond Dodd, two other Gulf veterans whose difficulties have been raised with me by the Royal British Legion, details of which I am sending him to be looked into again.
I know that my noble friend shares my view and that of noble Lords in all parts of this House and those afflicted by the Gulf War must be spared the hurtful indignities that accompany long delay in dealing with rightful claims. There was no delay in their response to the call of duty eight years ago. Nor must there be any preventable delay now in meeting in full our debt of honour to them. That is the best way of showing our regard and admiration for those who served us with such distinction and gallantry in the Gulf.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before the next noble Lord speaks, I remind noble Lords that in this debate, speeches are limited to 12 minutes.
9.2 p.m.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for raising this very important subject in your Lordships' House.
The initiative by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, Dr. John Reid, Gulf War Veterans Illnesses: A New Beginning, the commissioning of new research and the more open approach to the disclosure of information were all widely welcomed by veterans and the Royal British Legion alike. Yet progress has been painfully slow and a year a half later, there is still no sign of relief for those suffering from illnesses that were attributed to their Gulf War service.
The legion continues to provide the leadership for the inter-parliamentary group, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has already mentioned. It also continues to advise those suffering from possible Gulf War-related conditions to ensure that they receive treatment and, where appropriate, a war pension and/or compensation.
As has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the only tangible progress to date has been the publication of the King's College report by Professors Anthony David and Simon Wessely, and two weeks later, the Ministry of Defence's medical assessment programme report on their first 1, 000 patients.
1386
There are two major issues which I would now like to address. The first relates to Dr. Patricia Doyles's study into the effects of the wartime conditions in Kuwait, on the reproductive systems for male and female veterans. Dr. Doyle is attempting to contact all of those who were deployed, but is experiencing various difficulties. First, for serving personnel, there are problems identifying the present location of individuals, thereby slowing down the initial inquiry aspect of the study. Secondly, for those who have left the service, problems are being encountered relating to the constraints of the Data Protection Act which is, again, delaying work. Will the Minister inform the House what action is being taken to overcome these difficulties?
With regard to war pensions, delays are occurring in either awarding or uprating pensions for some veterans who are very seriously ill and distressed. The Legion is also particularly concerned, that some are finding it difficult to present their cases. Would the Minister inform the House what procedures are in hand to hasten these actions?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I would now like to cite an example. Hilary Jones is a 49 year-old retired major, with regular service in the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, from 1972 to 1988, and reserve service from January to March 1991. The latter period resulted in active service during the Gulf War.
Following her discharge from service in March 1991, she experienced immediate health problems, which deteriorated rapidly and forced her to leave full-time employment in late 1994. Symptomatic Gulf War illnesses included memory loss, confusion, bone pain, persistent infections, excessive tiredness and lethargy, insomnia, bladder problems, severe depression and immuno breakdown, possibly contributing to the onset of breast cancer in 1997.
She presently receives a 40 per cent. war disability pension with a war pensions mobility supplement. A deterioration claim is in the process of being actioned and the war pensions mobility supplement is due for renewal. Because of her symptomatic health problems, Hilary Jones displays severe limitations with mobility and depends heavily upon a vehicle to remain independent and fulfil most of the basic day-to-day functions, such as shopping and doctors' appointments. Her existing vehicle is 10 years old and has been without an MOT since last year as she cannot afford the test and any repairs required. She has, therefore, become almost housebound.
Because the war pensioners' mobility supplement is generally awarded for a period of two years, it is difficult to fund the purchase of a new vehicle through Motability, especially as the contract requires regular reviews after each two-year cycle.
The award of the mobility supplement for life would allow Hilary Jones, and other war pensioners with a similar predicament, to purchase a new vehicle through Motability and guarantee their continued independence. There exists an anomaly with the corresponding disability benefit; the disability living allowance, at the higher mobility rate, which is usually awarded for three years, up to a life award. This allows greater flexibility

1387
when purchasing suitable vehicles through Motability or other vehicle finance. Would the Minister please comment on this anomaly?
I should add a caution. I understand that the Government are planning to implement the removal of life awards for disability benefits. However, in practice a life award does not really exist as all benefits are subject to periodic review. Any extension of the existing restriction of the term of the war pensioners' mobility would be a positive step in providing war pensioners with greater flexibility of choice when meeting their mobility needs.
Finally, Territorial Army and regular reserve personnel, who volunteered for Gulf War service, were told by the Ministry of Defence that should they become a casualty, they or their spouse would receive the same benefits as a member of the regular forces, under the provisions of the attributable benefits for reservists scheme. This advice was factually incorrect and, due to an anomaly in the regulations, those who became ill and injured on embodied service would not qualify.
Can the Minister inform the House how many reviews have taken place and how many subsequent awards of a pension, under this scheme, have been made?
Gulf War veterans have been waiting for years to have their cases reviewed. The Legion acknowledges the need for research, but time is of the essence, if these veterans are to be still there, to benefit from the results.

Kosovo
9.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is in the process of being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Earlier this evening four British aircraft, together with missiles from the submarine HMS "Splendid", attacked targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as part of a co-ordinated NATO airstrike. Two other aircraft flew supporting missions.
"Honourable Members may have heard the Prime Minister's remarks from Berlin earlier this evening. He said,
'I want to pay tribute, at the outset, to our forces. We owe a huge debt to them for their courage, and their professionalism. Tonight, there are families in Britain who will be feeling a real sense of anxiety. They can feel too a real sense of pride at the contribution their loved ones make to peace and stability in Europe'.
The House will wish to join me in echoing these sentiments.
"Attacks were mounted by seven United States Air Force B52 bombers from Fairford in Gloucestershire. The strike in which they participated was a very significant one, involving both air-launched and sea-launched cruise missiles and manned aircraft
1388
from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Spain. A number of other allied air forces flew supporting missions.
"The targets being attacked in this first phase were mainly elements of the Yugoslavian air defence system but also included a number of Serbian military facilities related to the repression in Kosovo.
"The NATO military action, which has the full support of all 19 member states, is intended to support the political aims of the international community. It is justified as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. It is, and will continue to be, directed towards disrupting the violent attacks being committed by the Yugoslav army and Serbian special police force and weakening their ability to continue their repressive strategy.
"Two United Nations Security Council resolutions, 1199 and 1203, underpin our actions. Both demanded that Serbs cease all actions against the civilian population and withdraw the security units used for civilian repression. Milosevic has been in breach of every single part of these resolutions.
"As the Prime Minister said yesterday, a quarter of a million Kosovars, more than 10 per cent. of the population, are now homeless as a result of repression by Serb forces; 65, 000 people have been forced from their homes in the last month, and no fewer than 25, 000 in these days since peace talks broke down. Families are being uprooted and driven from their homes. There are disturbing reports of the destruction of whole villages. Over the past few days we have all seen harrowing and unforgettable images on the television and in newspapers. The scenes are more reminiscent of the Middle Ages than of Europe on the eve of the 21st century. I would remind the House that the decision to initiate air strikes was taken last night only after it became clear that the final diplomatic effort in Belgrade had not met with success and that all efforts to achieve a negotiated, political solution to the Kosovo crisis had failed.
"Over the past year the international community, with Britain at the forefront, has made intensive efforts to seek a peaceful resolution. Milosevic has either rejected these approaches or entered into undertakings on which he has subsequently reneged; notably, his blatant failure to observe the limits on army and special police numbers in Kosovo. Military force is now the only option.
"NATO's position is clear, and was set out in its statement of 30th January. We seek to bring an end to the violence in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe and support the completion of negotiations on an interim political settlement.
"Three demands were made at the time, all of which Mr. Milosevic has so far rejected. He has not ended his use of excessive and disproportionate force in Kosovo. He has broken the undertaking he gave last October to reduce Serb forces in Kosovo to pre-February 1998 levels; and he has so far refused to accept the interim political settlement which was negotiated at the peace talks in France earlier this year.
"Tonight, NATO—19 nations of which 13 flew their aircraft tonight—has backed its words with action. It has hit hard and it will continue to hit hard until its military objectives are achieved.
"What happens next is up to Mr. Milosevic. It remains open to him to show at any time that he is ready to meet the demands of the international community. The demands are reasonable: they are an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia and an international military force to underpin the settlement. We hope that the Yugoslavian people will understand that this is the only practical basis of moving forward without further bloodshed.
"I take this opportunity tonight to address a warning to those in the Yugoslav army and other forces who may be in receipt of orders to repress the Albanians in Kosovo. Do not assume that you can carry out such activity with impunity. You have a personal responsibility not to exceed the bounds of international law. You run the risk of being prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague if you do so.
"I also address the Kosovar Albanians. You have had the courage to commit yourselves to the path of peace. It is imperative that you remain committed to that approach and refrain from provocative actions in the days to come.
"Neither NATO nor the United Kingdom is waging war against the people of Yugoslavia. We will make every effort to avoid civilian casualties. Our objective is to reduce the human suffering and violence against the civilian population of Kosovo. We seek to bring to an end the human tragedy now unfolding.
"We know the risks of action, and we salute the bravery of our servicemen and women who are undertaking these operations on our behalf. To the families of the brave men and women of our Armed Forces involved in this action—and, indeed to the British people as a whole—I would say this. We should remind ourselves that history has proved time and time again that standing up to aggression is the only way to stop brutal leaders like President Milosevic.
"As the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday, if Kosovo was left to the mercy of Serbian repression, there is not merely a risk but the probability of re-igniting unrest in Albania, of a destabilised Macedonia, of almost certain knock-on effects in Bosnia, and of further tension between Greece and Turkey. Strategic interests for the whole of Europe are at stake. We, as fellow Europeans, cannot contemplate, on our own doorstep, a disintegration into chaos and disorder.
"This is a grave moment. Those who have doubted NATO's resolve have been shown to be wrong. We are prepared to see this through.
"We do not expect that air attacks will lead to an instant end to the brutality in Kosovo—Yugoslavia has a substantial military machine and is under the control of a ruthless man. But our attacks will make
1390
it clear to President Milosevic and his security forces that if they continue to use excessive force in Kosovo they will pay a very high price indeed. "
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in another place.
This is an extremely gloomy moment. I feel, as I am sure many other Members of this House feel, that we could well be in the situation of 28th June 1914 when the Austrian Crown Prince was murdered in Sarajevo. There is no doubt that the Balkans have been the centre of so much of the trouble that we have faced in Europe over the past 100 years. Let us hope sincerely that the next six weeks will be less sad, less desperate than were the six weeks over the month of July 1914.
As I understand it, we are to have a debate tomorrow on the situation. I have no doubt that by then it will be a little clearer than it is tonight. Your Lordships will be most grateful to have been told all that the noble Lord has been able to tell us, repeating from his right honourable friend. But hour by hour the situation will develop and we shall know more tomorrow. His right honourable friend the Prime Minister quite rightly congratulated the British and other NATO forces on their action, their bravery and their devotion to service in the Balkans. From these Benches we totally support everything that he said.
However, we must express our concern that the Prime Minister seems to be relying on air warfare only. I do not believe that I am overstating it when I say that there seems to be a slightly gung-ho atmosphere in what the Deputy Prime Minister said. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure the House that all the British aircraft, which were Harriers operating out of Gioia del Colle in Italy, returned safely. I understand that that is not true for the American aircraft. I am not certain of that; that information is being given to me as I speak. But I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a bit more about that.
The Serbians have an airforce. Our forces on the ground in Macedonia are beyond the range of our cover from Italy and they must be in severe danger of attack from Serbian forces. I hope that the NATO forces involved in this campaign will not underestimate the strength and determination of the Serbian armies. This is not an Iraq. This is a strong, determined and fighting people. If we are to face up to them, it must be done with the utmost resolution. Inevitably, we will find that it cannot be done by air power alone; that we shall have to use forces on the ground.
It is difficult to know what the Government could have done. But I hope that all those concerned will realise that within Serbia there is a great deal of support for President Milosevic and that we are facing grave difficulties. Let us pray for a quick determination and that the Serbians cannot face up to the united, moral forces of the rest of the world. Let us hope that they and

1391
the Kosovars can come into a position in which they can at least see peace and—it is to be hoped—a settled life on their own.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches entirely agree with the action that the Government have taken. We believe that NATO had no option other than to use military force against the Serbians in view of the fact that Milosevic was continuing and even intensifying the acts of oppression against the people of Kosovo, causing massive loss of life and huge displacement of civilians from their homes. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, the number already amounts to a quarter of a million. People have been bombed and shelled out of their houses. They are living on the hillsides with nothing but a few pots and pans, hardly anything to eat and nothing to cover them in this very cold weather.
We entirely agree that the latter was a flagrant violation of Security Council Resolutions 1199 and 1203 and that action had to be taken to enforce the will of the Security Council, even though we recognise that tomorrow may be an awkward day for us in the council with the objections that are bound to be raised by the Russians, and possibly the Chinese, to the action that we have taken.
We are told that the objective is to reduce the Serbian capacity to kill civilians and to destroy their property but that we are also hoping to get Milosevic to adhere to the promises which he made last October. Can the Minister say what will happen tomorrow morning if we find that Serbian tanks and artillery are still bombarding the villages of Kosovo and, indeed, if the same thing happens the day after? If the bombardment continues for several days and after thousands of tonnes of explosives have been dropped on military targets we find that Serbian capacity has only been degraded by, say, 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. and their political will has not been broken, what do we do then? Is it not essential to have plans ready to deal with a situation in which there is no prospect of getting Milosevic to sign the Rambouillet Agreement? Would it not be right to say publicly that, if there is no deal, we shall work towards the establishment of an international protectorate over the territory of Kosovo and the forfeiture of Yugoslav territory?
The warning that was given to the Yugoslav forces that if they continue military action against civilians in Kosovo they risk prosecution before the international criminal tribunal on the former Yugoslavia is obviously perfectly correct in international law. However, is it not also correct to say that Milosevic himself risks prosecution? Did not Louise Arbour say at one point in an interview that no one was exempt from the proceedings of the international tribunal, including a head of state? Could that message be given clearly to Mr. Milosevic along with the message that has been given to the armed forces of Yugoslavia?
Finally, we on these Benches wholeheartedly endorse the tribute which was paid by the Deputy Prime Minister to our Armed Forces. We join in the congratulations
1392
expressed to them on their heroic action and their professionalism in this hazardous operation. We wish them every success in the essential task of destroying the Serbian forces and deterring those who remain from the vicious oppression of the people of Kosovo.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am very much obliged to both the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the tributes that they have also paid to the courage and skill of our men and women in uniform who are engaged in these activities in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that he thought the Prime Minister was relying on air warfare only. I want to make it absolutely clear that the military decisions that are being taken are not exclusively the property of Her Majesty's Government; indeed, they are NATO decisions. Therefore, on reflection, the noble Lord may realise that it is not just a single decision by the British Prime Minister in this respect. I regret that he thinks there is a gung ho atmosphere. I am sure that if he were at the Ministry of Defence, as I was today, he would appreciate that there is far from being a gung ho atmosphere. There is a mood of apprehension, of seriousness, of determination and of resignation that we are forced to do what we are doing. There is anxiety with respect to our air crews.
I regret to say that I am unable to confirm whether all the British aircraft have yet returned safely. If I was speaking an hour or so later I might have that information, but as of this moment I do not have it. I checked the situation just before I entered your Lordships' Chamber. Your Lordships should not infer from that that anything has gone wrong; it is simply that I do not have the information at my disposal one way or the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked whether the forces in Macedonia were in danger of attack from the Serbian air force. Most of the Serbian air force does not have the most modern equipment and the amount of flying it does is extremely limited. I was told that it averaged about 25 hours a year. That will hardly keep the pilots in a condition to perform serious military operations. I assure the noble Lord that should NATO forces be attacked by the Serbian air force while in Macedonia, the response will be immediate and ferocious. I quite agree with him that we are not dealing with another Iraq when we are engaged in conflict with the forces of Serbia. However, I point out to him that it is a conscript army that Mr. Milosevic has at his disposal and it remains to be seen how its morale will or will not hold up under the kind of bombardment it may anticipate in the next few days. I say it may anticipate that but I believe that probably one of the reasons we have reached this situation is that Mr. Milosevic is quite unaware of the depth of air power that he faces and the vigour with which his military personnel and assets will be attacked.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for recognising that NATO had absolutely no option in these circumstances. It is not only a question of the huge

1393
loss of life. Everyone in your Lordships' House will have seen the most distressing pictures of refugees seeing their homes burning when they have committed no crime whatever except that they lived where that was inconvenient to Mr. Milosevic. I remind your Lordships that he is responsible for nearly all the trouble that has occurred in that unhappy country in the past few years. In addition to the figures I mentioned a few moments ago, we now find ourselves with about 1 million refugees from Yugoslavia in the EU. The blame for most of that, but not all of it, can be laid, in my view, at the door of Mr. Milosevic.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me what would happen in the Security Council tomorrow. We had better wait to see what happens. There will, of course, be intense diplomatic discussions with our Russian friends. We hope to persuade them and the other Permanent Members of the Security Council who are not involved in these operations of the inevitability of what we had to do in order to prevent a greater human catastrophe.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me what will happen if Serbian tanks are still bombarding on the second day and the third day. The answer is that they will continue to receive the kind of treatment that we have just started to mete out to them. As the Prime Minister made clear, we are absolutely resolute that we shall continue until the job is done. Our military objectives are perfectly clear. They are twofold. The first one is to frustrate the present operations of the Yugoslav army and special police forces and, secondly, to curb the ability of Mr. Milosevic in the future to carry out that kind of operation. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly remarked, it is perfectly true that President Milosevic, like every member of his armed forces, is liable in the fullness of time to face charges at the international tribunal.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I believe that the House would very much welcome it if, before the end of the debate in which we are involved, he had any further information with regard to the return of British and NATO aircraft, he could pass a message to his noble friend so that he could give that information to the House.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to accede to the noble Lord's request.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating what must be a difficult Statement. Yesterday I had the opportunity when we had a Statement on Kosovo to express both my unhappiness at our being forced to resort to the military option but also my understanding and support for the Government in the action that they have taken. Since then, 24 hours later, two events have occurred and it is on them that I wish to ask my noble friend questions. One favourable event is, of course, that we have got the 19 NATO countries to agree to the policy that is being pursued. I would like to think that that is also the resolve of all the members of the European Union meeting in Berlin at the present time.
1394
Secondly, and negatively, I had thought when we heard the Statement yesterday that Primakov was en route for Washington, if he had not already arrived. Not only did he not arrive, as we know, but he was recalled. Since then we have had President Yeltsin's very urgent public plea on Russian television. I ask and urge my noble friend not to abandon the efforts, which I am sure he thinks are well worth while, of trying to explain this action to the Russians and engage them in and associate them with it. Historically they are the protectors of Serbia and they have a very strong connection there and much influence. It would be tragic if we did not explore every possible way of getting at least Russian acceptance, if not approval, of what we have done.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend, particularly for his earlier remarks of support. As far as concerns the members of the EU who are not members of NATO, all I can say is that I have not heard of any dissenting voices from Berlin. Frankly, knowing the countries which fall into that category, I would be very surprised indeed were we to hear any such remarks. I certainly associate myself with my noble friend's views on the need for us to continue to try to engage the Russians in this matter.
The tragedy is that the Serbs are a very great people. What is unfortunate is that they are under the sway of such a brutal individual. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Second World War know perfectly well how bravely the Serbs fought on our side during that conflict. We fully understand the emotional commitment that the Russian people have to the Serbian people. These are very difficult times for the Russian leadership and the Russian people. I assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are fully seized of the importance of that and of his remarks.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that when British troops go into combat they deserve and should expect the support of both Houses of Parliament. However, I wonder whether the Minister can give me any instance in recent years in which bombardment, however heavy, has led to the subjugation of a proud people. We have just finished discussing the pride of the Serbian people. If the noble Lord agrees with me that there is all kinds of evidence to suggest that very often bombing has the opposite effect, would he therefore agree also that it is quite likely now that we will be forced to follow bombardment with an invasion, at least of Kosovo? If that is so, does he further agree that, assuming its success, such an invasion would have to prepare for an almost permanent presence of troops occupying Kosovo, just as we have experienced in Cyprus and I suspect we shall continue to experience in Bosnia? Does the noble Lord think that we have enough troops to envisage that commitment, particularly if we are to see an unfortunate increase in tension in Northern Ireland?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his remarks about the valour of our forces engaged in these operations. He asked whether I could give an example of when—and I noted his words with

1395
care—bombardment had ever led to the subjugation of a foe. Subjugation is not what this operation is about. I wish to make that absolutely clear. I repeat, this operation is about frustrating what the Serbian army and special police forces are currently engaged in and curbing President Milosevic's capacity for continuing that kind of operation in the future. It is in no way about the subjugation of the Serbian people.
The noble Viscount is right: bombing often has an opposite effect from that which was intended. I believe, however, that he may have in mind the bombing of towns and cities and of civilian populations. We are choosing only military targets. The increase in the accuracy of our precision weapons, and I speak for the alliance as a whole, has been remarkable, even since the Gulf War of 1991.
We have no intention of invading Kosovo. We have no intention of fighting our way in there. Had that been our intention we should have needed many more forces on the ground. I refer not only to the United Kingdom but to the alliance as a whole. The noble Viscount is quite right. That is no part of our policy.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, wish to associate myself with those who have congratulated the Government on their resolve, and I congratulate them on the statesmanlike and measured language in which they have expressed that resolve. It is difficult to think of a period in recent history when our government, together with others, have striven more consistently and hard to try to find a peaceful solution to a dreadful problem. I, like others, recognise that there was now no alternative.
It seems to me that we have to be positive in our reaction and say that it is not just that there was no other option, but that we have now demonstrated that NATO is serious about the principles and values on which that alliance is based and is not going to let those principles and values become eroded and lost in the morass of endless wordgames.
I am sure we all agree that tonight our thoughts and prayers are with all those who are responsible for the action, all those who are engaged in the action, and all those inevitable victims, on whatever side, who are victims as a result of the intransigence and ruthlessness of Milosevic.
I wish to ask my noble friend two questions. First, does he agree that all recent experience demonstrates that wherever military action is taken there must be absolute clarity about the political objectives within which that military action is being pursued? Can we be assured, therefore, that the Government, together with their allies, will take every opportunity to spell out how they see the way forward in terms of the developing situation towards what I presume and hope is still the objective; namely, a peaceful and sustainable solution, not only for Serbia but also for Kosovo?
My second question is this. We are one of five Permanent Members of the Security Council. We therefore have a special responsibility for the credibility and integrity of the United Nations in its responsibilities for collective security. My noble friend assured us that
1396
we are at pains to explain that the action flows from the resolutions already endorsed by the Security Council. Can my noble friend assure us that we will continue to emphasise the legitimacy of the action within the context of the United Nations Security Council and not from some other source? The danger is that if we do not do that, some other member of the United Nations at some future date will take a subjective interpretation of what is necessary and what is not necessary on humanitarian grounds and take action of which we might not approve.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments, particularly his endorsement of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have tried hard over many months to find a peaceful solution to this terrible situation.
I am glad also of his recognition that the actions we take today and may have to continue to take for some time yet demonstrate the seriousness with which NATO takes its principles. As he rightly said, our thoughts are with the victims and also with our pilots and other air crew and the men in Her Majesty's submarine. It is lonely being in the cockpit of a military jet aircraft in the dark, with missiles and other anti-aircraft ordnance coming at them. These young men must be frightened and brave at the same time and we owe them a great deal.
My noble friend said that Her Majesty's Government had to be absolutely clear about their objectives. I totally agree. I hope that I have spoken with as much clarity as I can. Our military objectives—and I repeat them so that there is no possibility of a misunderstanding—are to obstruct and disrupt the activities that the Serbian military forces and special police forces are currently engaged in in Kosovo and to curb President Milosevic's capability of continuing to prosecute such a campaign of atrocities in the future.
My noble friend asked about legitimacy. We are perfectly confident that we have a good legal basis for our action. I quoted the relevant Security Council resolutions. This is the view not only of Her Majesty's Government but one that is shared by all the other 18 members of NATO. The justification rests upon the accepted principle that force may be used in extreme circumstances to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. I am afraid that we have already seen a humanitarian catastrophe and wish to ensure that it does not continue.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I wish to make a rather broader point. I discussed it with the Minister's noble friend, the Leader of the House, after the Statement yesterday and perhaps it might have been better made yesterday than today.
The point I wish to make is about the phase of the Balkan problem which started in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I feel that we should not forget the psychological warfare aspect of the conflict. I think we would all agree, looking back to the Bosnian conflict, that Radovan Karadzic is a pretty evil person. We should not forget his training as a psychiatrist which he put to good effect in inciting and inflaming the Serbs in Bosnia. He took over the baton of leading the misnamed

1397
Serbian Democratic Party from another psychiatrist, Raskovic, who had written a book which was instrumental in inflaming the passions of the Serb people there. The point I wish to make is that there is evidence—certainly allegations—that at one time Mr. Milosevic was a patient of Radovan Karadic.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have a difficulty. I am trying to be reasonable. The noble Lord must make a brief point or question in order to enable other Lords to speak.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I believe that I am being more brief than some other noble Lords who have spoken. The point I am making—
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a speech. He is not asking a question of the Minister.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am making a point in a far shorter time than other noble Lords made their points. My point is that in President Milosevic we may be dealing with someone who has had his Serbian nationalism artificially inflamed. I am simply asking Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind this aspect of the conflict and the fact that if our troops encounter Serbian militia or troops they may find that the Serbian forces have had their ferocity enhanced, as in Bosnia, by being given mind-altering drugs. There is a lot of evidence for that. I ask the Government to bear that in mind.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Lord that it is not only Slobadan Milosevic who has incited Serb nationalism. He clearly bears by far the greatest proportion of blame. I shall let the matter rest at that.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I understand that the independent media has been closed down in Belgrade. What will NATO be able to do to impact on public opinion in order to ensure that it receives accurate information?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very good point. These days, it is virtually impossible in Europe to prevent people getting accurate information. They can listen to the BBC, ITN or CNN. They can listen to radio from outside their borders. Mr. Milosevic has engaged on an impossible task if he believes that he can prevent his citizens from finding out what is going on and why.

Gulf War Illnesses
9.52 p.m.
Debate on Unstarred Question resumed.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for enabling us to debate the undiagnosed illnesses of servicemen and
1398
women who served in the Gulf War. I should like to start by focusing on the word "undiagnosed". I hope that I can provide a little help or illumination on that score.
If one accepts that these servicemen and women are indeed suffering from illnesses, we have to ask why they are undiagnosed. There are two possible reasons which occur to me for this situation. The first concerns the state of medical understanding. It is possible that the agents which have caused the illnesses may be individually, or in combination, unfamiliar though not unknown to medical science, as poisons or contaminants.
The second possibility is that there are political reasons why these illnesses have not been officially diagnosed. I admit to a degree of scepticism when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as Minister for Defence, found himself having to carry out a classic partial retreat to a new defensive, if not indefensible, position, although I do understand the difficulties both in terms of revealing sensitive military information and laying the MoD open to large claims for damages.
However, I felt that the previous government plumbed the depths of cynicism when they appointed a committee to investigate this matter whose numbers comprised, I believe, two vets and one psychiatrist.
I return for a moment to my first point about the state of medical knowledge. Several times in previous debates I have pushed the Department of Health, the arbiter in such matters, to be more open to holistic and complementary approaches to health. In this case, it is very important to explore all the possibilities to research to extend the frontiers of knowledge to help the servicemen and women who are suffering from what is currently called the Gulf War Syndrome.
We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her assiduous and persistent pursuit of the truth. This pursuit, born of personal suffering, has resulted in our understanding of the links between the illnesses of servicemen and women and those of agricultural workers affected by organophosphates. Incidentally, it has also highlighted the very probably link between organophosphates and BSE. We should all be very grateful to her.
In line with my long-standing interest in complementary health, I should like to speak about one initiative that has already greatly assisted two American Gulf War veterans and holds out the promise of great benefit to others on both sides of the Atlantic who may care to avail themselves of it. Over the past three to four years, nutritionists have been using a procedure that comprises food supplements, exercise and long periods in a sauna at lower temperatures than are used for recreational purposes greatly to reduce the body load of a wide range of chemicals, including some forms of radioactivity. I am aware of this because the two people involved in the initiative are friends of mine. David and Sheila Gaiman, who so far have taken about three years' sabbatical leave from their company G & G Food Products, have formed a non-profit-making organisation called Human Detoxification Services International. They have established detoxification centres in several Russian and CIS cities and a great deal of work has been

1399
done in Khazakstan. Noble Lords will be aware that the pollution and contamination problems in those countries are enormous.
The success of this programme over a number of years has fully validated the procedure. I have spoken to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about this matter and she has passed on a very generous offer by Human Detoxification Services International to supply a group of British Gulf War veterans with the food supplements needed for a three to four-week programme and also to train doctors to supervise it. The noble Countess tells me that, unfortunately, so many veterans suffer from ischaemic heart disease they are fearful that the programme may be too much for them. This serves only to underscore the tragedy that has befallen those who have faithfully served their country and its people and have paid a price that no one anticipated.
I cannot accept that this is the end of the matter. The offer of help remains open. The quality of life of the American Gulf War veterans has improved immeasurably. I hope that some British servicemen and women suffering from Gulf War syndrome will feel able to take advantage of this offer. I add that I have no interest to declare in respect of HDSI, except that I support and encourage its desire to help in this distressing situation.
9.57 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for asking this Question. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for his kind words. I have prepared a speech but, having listened to the Statement this evening, it is now sitting on the Bench. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, words that echoed those used in 1990 about the bravery and courage of our troops, the pride in which we should hold them and our gratitude to them.
Tonight we are speaking about the very same troops to whom we have exhibited very little, if any, gratitude. They came back from the Gulf ostensibly uninjured. Within months they began to report symptoms. They were told that they were wimps. I have heard noble Lords in this House say that they fought in the desert between 1939 and 1945 and suffered far worse than those in the Gulf but came back with no injuries. I believe it is now accepted that these men are not wimps but have genuine illnesses and that, in spite of denials by governments on both sides of the Atlantic, any of the pollutants, vaccines or other medications to which the Gulf veterans were exposed could have caused illnesses.
I had a paper only yesterday about the effects of oil well fires. We are told that the American Government did some tests to prove that the effects of the oil well fires would have been negligible on the Gulf soldiers. Those tests were conducted in the summer when the desert winds were blowing and the oil plumes were much higher in the atmosphere. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has spoken about soldiers reporting about day being turned into night and oil raining on them. This report—and I hope that the Minister might be interested
1400
in it—indicates that in fact Kuwaiti oil is particularly toxic and that there is a specific emphysema associated with it.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, quoted the name of Richard Turnbull in relation to war pensions. Richard Turnbull has a specific sort of emphysema, but nobody has bothered to find out what has caused it. I remember when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, announced that a Medical Research Council panel had been set up to look into Gulf War illnesses and I asked him about causal research. He said to me that the MRC had said there was no need for causal research. How can we treat an illness if we do not know the cause of it? Here I will go back to my speech, because it contains one or two quotations that I should like to give. This is in relation initially to the report on the first 1, 000 Gulf War veterans from the medical assessment programme.
James I. Moss of the University of Florida writes:
"In spite of the author's implications"—
this is Group Captain Coker et al—
"and the suggestions by the BMJ, I saw nothing in this article that addressed possible 'cause(s)' of the illnesses. How can one represent to the readers that no causes are identifiable when no evidence of the search is presented?"
Per Dalen, a retired psychiatrist, writes on the same subject:
"Among their 'key messages', Coker et al included the following: 'From the clinical standpoint the variety and multiplicity of symptoms makes it unlikely that any single cause will be found to underlie Gulf war illness'".
Dr. Dalen goes on to give several examples to show that this conclusion is unwarranted. He cites the 70 listed side-effects of the drug indomethacin and goes on to say:
"Each of these is of course 'diagnosable' in a broad sense, but the correct, causal diagnosis cannot be arrived at unless the physician knows about the exposure to indomethacin".
I have quoted these two responses because I am only too well aware from my personal experience of exposure to organophosphates that the wrong treatment can at best be ineffective and, at worst, give rise to an exacerbation of the symptoms. The right treatment can prevent suicidal thoughts. The wrong treatment can cause suicide. We are seeing at the moment two suicides a month among the Gulf veterans. Two of the Gulf veterans are responsible for running the Gulf veterans branch of the British Legion, of which I am patron. They often spend two or three nights a week talking Gulf veterans out of suicide.
This is not the responsibility of already sick Gulf veterans. The Ministry of Defence or the National Health Service should be providing the counselling for these Gulf veterans, who feel that they must commit suicide. I had a talk with one of the two veterans the other afternoon. He had talked a young man who was standing on a stool with a rope round his neck out of hanging himself. An hour later he found that the young man had taken 100 Brufen tablets. From Newcastle he had to get through to the ambulance service in Kent. They had to patch him through. There were only paramedics in the ambulance and the man could not be admitted to a psychiatric hospital without a doctor's

1401
permission. Another patch was put through to the Gulf veteran who then had to persuade his colleague to go to hospital.
Think of the stress that that caused to an already sick Gulf veteran. Is this the way we should behave to these men in whom we have so much pride, who were willing to give their lives for our country in 1990 and 1991? No, it is not, my Lords. We should be looking at the real causes of their illness. We should be doing our utmost to find out what treatments work for them. I know from OP poisoning that there is a treatment. Hundreds of farmers around the country cannot afford the treatment I found. I would not be standing before your Lordships today if I had not received that treatment.
We have just heard that there are treatments for certain aspects of Gulf War illnesses. We should be offering those to our Gulf veterans. We should stop giving them the run around for war pensions, which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, described. I receive messages about it every day. We should make sure that any insurance policies that the MoD has persuaded them to buy cover them in the case of sickness. Men and women are losing their homes because their mortgage payments cannot be kept up.
It is a disgraceful way to behave. We have done it with veterans from the Crimean War, the 1914–18 war, the 1939–45 war, the Korean War; and now with the Gulf veterans. I hope to God that we do not do so with the veterans of what I fear will be another war.
I most sincerely implore the Minister to ensure that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister obtains a response to the request for a public inquiry into the way in which British Gulf veterans have been treated; and that that public inquiry will be run on the same basis as the BSE inquiry. To leave a request of 11th June 1998 without reply is nothing less than a disgrace. What happened to the Prime Minister's code, of which he is so proud, of a response within two weeks?
I conclude on that note. These men deserve our care and concern and we should do everything possible to ensure that they have it.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are all much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for introducing the debate, and for all the work he has done in the past in support of the Gulf War veterans.
There is no easy answer to the Question he asks: what progress are the Government making in their investigations? The short answer perhaps is that the Government are not making much progress, but that it is not through lack of trying. It is an immensely complicated subject fraught with epistemological problems, and those who expect an answer to such questions as the causes of Gulf War illnesses are bound to be disappointed.
I think that the Government have to be given credit for taking the issue seriously. In July 1997, they announced a three-pronged policy which has been followed since then: that veterans should have contact; that there is medical advice from the medical assessment programme that appropriate research should be carried
1402
out into veterans' illnesses and factors which might have a bearing on those; and that the MoD will make available to the public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to the issue.
On that subject, I wish to refer to the Ministry of Defence's website which gives veterans and others some, but not all, of the information they need to find out the nature and extent of illness affecting war veterans and what is being done about it.
There are very few links on that site with other relevant material and, as far as I can see, no links to any US sites at all. Therefore, that the user will be unaware, for example, of the work being done at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at Atlanta University; or of the strong interest by the US Congress in this subject; or of inquiries undertaken by Congress representative Christopher Shays, as Chairman of the National Security and Veterans Committee of Congress, who I understand is to be in Britain next week visiting the Ministry of Defence and Porton Down. Will the Minister look at that and, in any event, will he ask the web master to include a link to the US Department of Defense Gulf War page which has an immense amount of very useful material?
Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the two studies which have been published recently— first, the MAP programme. The 1, 000 veterans who took part in that study were self-selected and therefore, as the authors make clear, they may not be representative of sick veterans as a whole. The MAP programme was not designed for research purposes and cannot be used for precise conclusions about the additional ill-health suffered by Gulf War veterans as a whole, compared with service personnel in other theatres, or those who remain in UK postings. It shows that Gulf War veterans have suffered from an enormous variety of illnesses, some of which are disabling, but, as the BMS expressed the matter in the editorial discussing the findings, they do not seem to constitute a unique illness.
The second important study which has been published relates to a random sample of Gulf War veterans and investigates whether there is a relationship between ill-health and service in the Gulf by comparing the experience of 4, 300 veterans of the Gulf conflict with an equivalent number who served in Bosnia and a third group who served during the Gulf War but were not actually deployed in the Gulf itself.
The conclusion of that survey was that service in the Gulf War produced health problems in addition to those found among personnel who had been deployed in other unfamiliar hostile environments. The study found also— and this is of great importance—that there was an association between multiple vaccinations and the poorer health which was specific to the Gulf cohort. Vaccinations between biological warfare were unique to the Gulf cohort and the servicemen who were vaccinated against the biological warfare agents were more likely to report long-term symptoms.
Here I come to the speech of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who said that we should carry out more research on the causation of Gulf War illnesses. There is only one study of which I know which is being

1403
undertaken into the effects of multiple vaccinations. That is an MoD-funded study looking at the effects of the combination of vaccines and nerve agent pre-treatment set and NAPS tablets which were given to service personnel during the Gulf conflict. That study is being conducted at Porton Down.
On the other hand, in the US a great deal of work has been undertaken concerning the exposure to combinations of drugs used in the Gulf War. One example is the work done by Mohamed Abou-Donia and Robert Haley of Texas Southwestern Medical School looking at the combined effect of three chemicals on chickens: DEET and Permethrin, which were used to protect soldiers against diseases, and pyridostigmine bromide, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor used against nerve gas.
That research found an explanation of why the three compounds together may have caused harm to the patient, while any one of them alone was harmless. An Israeli study by Friedman et al also found that that agent, pyridostigmine bromide, which normally does not cross the blood-brain barrier, can be made to do so in animals under the influence of stress, and it may have been responsible for the greater than three-fold increase in the frequency of central nervous symptoms among Gulf War veterans.
Should we be doing more of that kind of work or can we simply rely on what is being done in the US? The Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War veterans' illnesses concluded that research should be pursued in areas of uncertainty, such as the long-term effects of low level exposure to chemical warfare agents and the synergistic effects of exposure to pyridostigmine bromide and other risk factors.
We should ensure that we are plugged into that research. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister on the mechanisms for co-ordinating British and US work to ensure that we complement each other. Did anybody from the UK attend the Research Planning Conference, "The Health Impact of Chemical Exposures During the Gulf War" held in Atlanta, Georgia, from 28th February to 2nd March sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)? Has the Minister looked at the background document on Gulf War-related research produced for that conference? If not, I strongly commend it to his attention and suggest that a link to that document be added, among other US links, to the Ministry of Defence web page on Gulf War illness.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the demand made by the Royal British Legion for an independent inquiry into Gulf War illness. One difficulty with that approach would be that further research now under way, both here and in the US, is likely to extend our knowledge of the subject for several
1404
years to come. I am not entirely sure that a public inquiry is the best mechanism for dealing with a situation where the evidence is constantly unfolding—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is not an inquiry into Gulf War illness but an inquiry into the handling of the Gulf War illness problem.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I take the point that there are differences between the handling of the illnesses and the illnesses themselves. I was going on to agree with the noble Countess that there are some matters which need to be looked at, such as the difficulty of accessing service medical records and the requirements of the Data Protection Act which she mentioned. However, those are not so much questions of policy as of procedure. Can the Minister reaffirm that in accordance with the Government's policy of being completely open and honest with Gulf War veterans, they will make their medical and other records available to them? Coming from such a source, the proposal of the Royal British Legion needs to be discussed.
I echo the question put by the noble Countess as to why Ministers have not invited the Royal British Legion to a meeting with this item as the only item on the agenda before they reach a decision, which was promised soon in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones last October. The secretary of the Royal British Legion wrote to the Minister of State on 28th February reminding him that this matter had been outstanding since its annual conference in May 1998, as the noble Countess pointed out, and his letter to the Prime Minister shortly after that. I agree with her that this is not good enough and that they should have received some kind of reply by now. Preferably, they should have been invited to such a meeting so that they could have discussed their concerns and gone over them with Ministers.
Finally, it has been established, as we have heard, that Gulf War veterans suffer from an excess of ill-health over what would have been normally expected from service in a conflict zone, whether Bosnia, the Falkland Islands, Northern Ireland or any other theatre of operations where our Armed Forces have been engaged in recent years. Yet, the Government are still saying, in effect, that none of this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Only if the victims can prove a causal relationship between the package of medications they were ordered to take and the ill health they subsequently endured would compensation be considered over and above the no-fault system of payment already made under the war pensions scheme and the Armed Forces pension scheme.
Is it not time to accept the findings of epidemiological studies, as in cases of industrial harm from substances such as alpha naphylamine, asbestos, or mono ethyl chloride? Do the Government accept that for hundreds of ex-servicemen who consider that they are entitled to some recompense for the illnesses they suffer, the additional stress of dealing with legal matters could make them worse, and that because they are receiving legal aid, the taxpayer is already bearing some

1405
expenditure? I believe that most people would prefer to see money going into the pockets of the Gulf War veterans than into the pockets of lawyers. Will the Government enter into discussions with the veterans' representatives with a view to designing a scheme of compensation based on the observed deterioration in the quality of life of Gulf War veterans?
10.19 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I mean absolutely no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, when I say that for reasons that we fully understand I am sorry that he is to reply to this debate. However, for the past 22 months the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, has been involved closely with Gulf War illness matters and— I say this again with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle—he would probably have had a more intimate knowledge of some of the problems. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that we shall get some answers.
This is an old song which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, are singing, but it is a very sad song—and the trouble is that nobody really knows the words. I pay tribute to both the noble Lord and the noble Countess for all their work. This evening the noble Countess gave us the most hair-raising tales of the troubles of at least a number of Gulf veterans.
However, I do not really accept it to be true that either this Government, or the last, ignored the problem. There were never any easy answers and it would be easier if we knew the questions. I find myself startled in that I agree with almost everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I am concerned, however, that what we are being told is not always consistent. I went to Washington with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, nearly three years ago. There was no doubt that a great deal of work was being done there and that there was close liaison between the Department of Defense and the Office of Veterans Affairs in Washington, and the Ministry of Defence here. Nevertheless, in reply to a Question in another place on Monday, Mr. Doug Henderson twice said:
"We want to enter into discussions with the US Government to determine how best we can combine our research resources". — [Official Report, Commons, 22/3/99; col. 6.]
On the face of it, this looks as though we were only now thinking how to discuss the problem with the Americans. Luckily, I do not believe that, as I know that a great deal of work has been done by both nations, separately and together.
Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, last June by saying that there is a full and continuing exchange between our two governments. That exchange is fortunate, since the number of members of the British Armed Forces in the Gulf is so small as to render it difficult to provide a meaningful sample of every one of the number of symptoms from which only the veterans may show themselves to be suffering. Almost the only thing that can be said and established is that there is no such thing as one Gulf syndrome.
1406
Even so, the number of Britons suffering from one problem or another is sufficiently large to be extremely worrying not only for those who are suffering the problems now, but for those who might have to deal with similar problems if we have another desert war.
It is interesting to note that the work of Professor Simon Wessely shows that the pattern of illnesses in this country is broadly similar to those in the United States. All the more reason why the two sets of research teams should work closely together.
Even for this country, the figures are frightening. As I understand it, there have been 2, 762 applications for pensions and 1, 448 have been awarded. Compensation has been applied for by 1, 769 and, if my figures are right, there have been 381 deaths. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said 400, but that seems much the same. Quite rightly, the question is: why? why? why?
One of the reasons why liaison with the United States is so vital is that the Americans have been able to carry out a controlled experiment with a similar number of servicemen who did not serve in the Gulf. What is the norm for those illnesses in a body of young men (and a few women)? It seems too that in America the reserve forces in the Gulf suffered worse than the regulars; the back areas were worse than the sharp end—
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It was my noble friend Lord Gilbert who gave the House the figure of 400 deaths. That was speaking last year. My suspicion is that there were a number of unverified deaths in his figure, but I have asked tonight—and I await the reply from my noble friend who will wind up the debate— for an updating of that ligure and for other important information to the ex-service community.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for that intervention. My figure of 381 comes from his and my non-noble friend, Colonel English of the British Legion.
As I said, the American reserve forces in the Gulf seem to have suffered worse than the regulars; the back areas were worse than the sharp end. And in France nobody suffered at all. The French did not have MAPPS tablets and were almost all members of the Foreign Legion. It may be, therefore, that they were more familiar with desert conditions. Is that significant? None of those factors concern the epidemiological studies and I am sure that it is with those that we should be most concerned today. I am glad that Professor Harry Lee has been appointed to head the Gulf War Medical Assessment Programme as last summer it was found difficult to find a successor to Colonel Bhatt and the situation was very worrying. I have heard good reports of the work that Professor Lee is doing.
Concern has been expressed on many sides that there has been no public inquiry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am not certain that would benefit anyone except possibly the lawyers, and would merely divert the workers in this field from their important research for the sole purpose of presenting a public face. It would only be necessary if Gulf disease was in danger of being

1407
ignored, and that is certainly not the case. I do not believe it ever was, though it is undoubtedly true that the scale of the problem was not realised for some time.
Any public inquiry would take an inordinate amount of time. Not unnaturally almost every sufferer would wish his individual case to be considered in detail. In common, I am sure, with many other noble Lords, I received this week an 1-page document on one case. The man whom it concerns has now sadly died and I express my deepest sympathy to his relatives and to the relatives of all others who have suffered. But if there is to be an inquiry into all of them it would not be possible to get any other work done.
The writer of the letter to which I refer is himself a Gulf veteran and is complaining that he has been unable to get possession of his blood samples which were taken at the time of the conflict. He has been told that they are being held at Porton Down, but the suggestion was that they might no longer be valid. In a Written Answer last summer, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, confirmed that blood samples were generally available and that they were being held at Porton Down. Can the Minister confirm that they are being used in epidemiological studies? If so, will the results be published; and will they be published on an individual basis?
Much has been made of the use of depleted uranium. I asked questions about its use last summer and was entirely convinced by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that there was no fallout of DU dust except in a very restricted sense, as there would be if you hit a tank with any other piece of hard metal. The noble Lord wrote to me in terms that I considered served me right for asking the question—they were incomprehensible. I beg leave to suggest that the reply did not come from his personal knowledge of the subject, but the arguments made were very convincing.
However, I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will confirm that there has not been any reassessment of the dangers of depleted uranium and that none of the research conducted so far has shown it to be responsible for any of the Gulf illnesses. I suspect it is the word "uranium" which generated folklore on the subject. I should like to think that a categorical answer from the noble Lord would erase the subject completely from consideration. But I fear it will not.
Oil pollution is another subject which is, I hope, being examined. This is something which will have affected the Kuwaitis themselves even more than the servicemen in the Gulf, and the views of the Kuwaiti Health Minister, who is himself a doctor, are very much of interest. At the time I was told by the first lieutenant of a frigate in the Gulf that they were having to clear their filters many times more than normal, but I was told also that the nature of the oil pollution did not too seriously affect the lungs. I doubt that that now reflects current thinking. The "plumes" to which many people referred must present a serious health hazard.
During the course of this debate noble Lords have asked a number of questions. The noble Countess has had her nose to this particular grindstone for many years and has worked desperately hard and effectively in this
1408
respect. Indeed, that has been demonstrated by the number of Questions that she has tabled. Can the Minister now give the House a situation report of how we stand at present? I hope that we will be satisfied with what he has to tell the House. I also hope that we will have another debate before the hereditary Peers bid farewell to the rest of your Lordships so that the Minister can keep the House informed and demonstrate how much progress is being made in the interim period.

Kosovo
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, before I reply to the debate tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, perhaps I may deal with a question that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked my noble friend Lord Gilbert in relation to the planes. I can tell the House that all our planes have returned safely, but we cannot confirm that a plane from another allied air force has not returned.

Gulf War Illnesses
Debate on Unstarred Question resumed.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, I must first apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Gilbert, who has been undertaking very important work as regards the grave Statement which he repeated to the House tonight. I should begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on ensuring that once again your Lordships' House has an opportunity to consider the complex issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses at length.
It is true that from time to time we deal with particular aspects of this subject during Question Time. However, it is also valuable that we have been able this evening to have the opportunity to take a broader and deeper view of the matter.
My noble friend Lord Morris asked me about the number of deaths among Gulf veterans. Late last year my noble friend Lord Gilbert explained to the House that the Ministry of Defence was aware of approximately 400 deaths among Gulf veterans since the 1st April 1991. As a result of work undertaken by the MoD, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was able to announce in another place that, as of 5th March, 381 of the 53, 462 members of the UK Armed Forces who were deployed on operation "Granby" or to a state in the Gulf region at some time between 1st September 1990 and 30th June 1991 were recorded by the MoD as having died since 1st April 1991. However, information received by the MoD in respect of a further 17 Gulf veterans who have been reported as having died is currently in the process of being validated. I hope that those figures satisfy the House.
I must also point out that, separately, the MoD is funding a specific mortality study as part of the wider work that is being undertaken. So we are trying to get the figures as specific as we possibly can. I regret that,

1409
as yet, we have no verified data on the causes of death. I know that that includes suicides, to which reference has been made tonight.
No one present in the Chamber tonight could have heard the speech of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, without being very moved not only by the way that she addressed the subject but also by the way that she has undertaken the campaign on behalf of the Gulf veterans right from the beginning. The noble Countess again posed some questions tonight. Those I do not answer, as is the case with other questions, I shall deal with by way of letters.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked two questions that I can answer tonight. However, I shall write to him in regard to the rest. He asked about the MoD putting hot links from its Gulf site to other relevant web sites. My understanding is that the MoD's Gulf veteran illnesses web page already has hot links to other relevant sites. That includes the parliamentary site and the US Department of Defense Gulf link site. I assure the noble Lord that the MoD will be pleased to consider the suggestions he has made tonight.
The noble Lord also asked whether anyone from the UK attended the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention conference in Atlanta. A number of officials from the Ministry of Defence with responsibility for Gulf veterans' illnesses participated in the conference and we are now considering the various papers arising from it. As has been said tonight, there has been collaboration, and rightly so, with the research that is being carried out in America.
The Government want to understand why some veterans of the Gulf conflict are now ill, and there have been some important developments in this regard in recent months. The publication in January of results from the King's College study has for the first time compared a population of UK Gulf veterans with a comparable group of their contemporaries in the Armed Forces who did not serve in the Gulf conflict. From that we have been offered two important hypotheses: first, that our Gulf veterans are reporting up to three times more ill health than the control groups; secondly, that this is not a manifestation of one single illness. Taken together these hypotheses represent an important step forward.
Gulf veterans may with some satisfaction point to the fact that the first finding confirms their longstanding belief that there is something different about their state of health. The second finding is equally important, if less reassuring to the veterans, because it suggests that there is unlikely to be a simple answer to the question: why are some Gulf veterans now ill? In fact many commentators, including some of those who have been most critical of successive governments on this issue, have long suspected this was the case.
Let me make it quite clear that the fact that the scientific evidence does not support—the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, mentioned this—a unique Gulf War syndrome does not diminish our determination to deal with these illnesses properly. The Government were pleased that, as a result of the hard work of individuals associated with the MoD's medical assessment
1410
programme, it is now possible to see for the first time a diagnostic profile of the clinical findings from the first 1, 000 patients to attend that programme. These results, which were published in the British Medical Journal, provide a profile of the ill health being suffered by some Gulf veterans, and I believe these data will be useful to those working with Gulf veterans and responsible for their healthcare.
We have brought in outside experts, the King's Fund, to conduct a management audit of the medical assessment programme with a view to establishing what we should do to ensure that it meets with best practice. We expect to be able to publish the report of that audit quite shortly. A clinical audit will follow, as will arrangements for a rolling programme of audit in the future.
The MoD has appointed two new doctors at the medical assessment programme within the past six months and we are now looking forward to a period of stability there because we are acutely aware of past criticism. It is also perhaps appropriate to mention here that much of the work we have heard about this evening has been carried out by public servants with a daily commitment to the Gulf veterans and their welfare.
As more research results emerge during the course of the year, the Government will be considering with the Medical Research Council how best to take forward our research programme in the light of these findings. I understand that the Manchester University team under Professor Nicola Cherry, which is carrying out one of the two MoD funded epidemiological studies into the health of Gulf veterans, currently expects to submit the first results from the study for publication at about the middle of the year. We believe that the other study, being undertaken by a team from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine under Dr. Pat Doyle, is the largest survey of military health ever carried out in the UK. United Kingdom Gulf veterans—more than 53, 000 people—and an equally sized control group are being invited to participate by returning a questionnaire.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Morris, the MoD has made considerable efforts over the past 18 months to assist the various research teams to contact the UK Gulf veterans and control groups who are essential for the success of these studies. We share the concerns that have been expressed about the current response rates and we will be looking again at the obstacles to contacting veterans, including the workings of the Data Protection Act. As in other areas, we are open to suggestions for, or offers of assistance in, improving these response rates.
So far we have spent approximately £2 million on research into Gulf veterans' illnesses and we expect that completing our research programme would cost a total of £5.9 million. Nevertheless, we continue to receive proposals for new research from time to time and the Government have made it clear that we will find funds for any additional work that the Medical Research Council recommends to us as being necessary.
The MoD has also set out a programme of reviews into historical aspects of the Gulf conflict that are of particular interest to veterans. A paper describing the

1411
implementation of the anti-biological warfare agent immunisation programme in 1990–91, based on the field work of a fact-finding team last year, is in an advanced stage of preparation. We aim to release this paper as soon as possible.
We are committed to providing comprehensive information from the MoD's records and from interviews with those who took part in the Gulf conflict, written up in a way which is readily understandable. This can take time. It may be appreciated that the more successful the MoD is in finding relevant information, the longer it takes to complete each project.
One of the topics of current interest which has been mentioned in the debate is depleted uranium. The MoD published last week a paper setting out in detail the scientific advice it has received on this subject. The paper is entitled Testing for the Presence of Depleted Uranium in UK Veterans of the Gulf Conflict: The Current Position, and copies were placed in the Library of the House last week.
One important issue is to ensure that Gulf veterans receive the financial benefits to which they are entitled. We know what a source of concern that remains. I understand that the War Pensions Agency is making considerable efforts, following meetings with Gulf veterans' representatives, to improve the service that it provides to the veterans. However, I will ensure that the points that have been made on this issue are conveyed to my colleagues.
1412
The MoD has been undertaking a review of the Attributable Benefits for Reservists Scheme. The review is taking a long time because there are many different categories of reservists. Nevertheless, my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has undertaken to complete the review as soon as possible.
The outstanding request for a public inquiry was raised again during this debate. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is giving careful consideration to the issues involved and I will draw his attention to the points made about the time that this matter is taking. I understand that my honourable friend expects to reply to the Royal British Legion very shortly.
The Government are committed to listening and learning on this subject. I have taken close account of the points raised during this debate. I will respond in writing on those points that I have not been able to address in my reply.
I believe that we are making real progress. Again I thank all who have participated in this interesting debate. I apologise for the length of my response. I felt that it was important to deal with as many points as I possibly could from the Dispatch Box.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
Commons amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.